The British colonial policy in Uganda was to maximize outcomes for the British people and her industries at minimum cost. Besides strategic interests related to the source of the Nile and Egypt, Britain colonized Uganda to obtain raw materials for her expanding industries, food for her growing population, a market for her surplus manufactured products and a home for her excess population.
After several years of agricultural experimentation with white farmers and informed debate between Entebbe and London colonial officials it was decided that Uganda should be left in the hands of Uganda peasants and loyal chiefs – traditional or appointed – supervised by a few British officials at the central, provincial, district and local levels to ensure that law and order was maintained, taxes were collected and public projects such as roads were constructed.
The cost of governing Uganda would be met from local resources to reduce pressure on the British treasury. Using Buganda as an example of indirect rule model, Chretien (2006) observed that “The kingdom of Buganda was a notable example of the colonial combination of economic calculation, missionary activity, and political strategizing. In this process, the African actors played as decisive a role as the European imperialists”.
At country level Baganda agents were appointed in colonial and missionary administrations. At district and county levels traditional chiefs were screened for their loyalty and those who did not qualify were removed. For example, in Ankole Prince Igumira of Bahinda dynasty was removed and even exiled in Kenya to give room to Nuwa Mbaguta a Muhororo of Batusi origin who was collaborative with the British to run the kingdom as Enganzi (prime minister) on behalf of the colonial masters.
In Bunyoro Omukama (king) Kitagwenda was replaced by Duhaga a former aide to a Protestant mission who agreed to accept Miti’s (a Muganda) permanent supervision of Bunyoro (Chretien 2006). Chiefs were also screened at the county level. In Rujumbura for instance, Makobore a Muhororo of Batutsi ethnic group who had worked with Arab slave hunters to defeat the local clans in Rujumbura and parts of Kinkizi (now Kanungu district) was selected over other chiefs to be the British representative in Rujumbura. Where traditional chiefs did not exist they were appointed.
Chiefs were provided with Baganda advisers who by and large turned out to be unpopular. Paul Ngorogoza(1998) recorded the problems Baganda faced in Kigezi district that contributed to their unpopularity and early departure from the district.
In Bunyoro kingdom a movement called Nyangire Abaganda (I refuse the Baganda) was established to protest against Baganda foreigners. Baganda were accused of monopolizing power, engaging in funny business as in Kigezi and above all displaying unacceptable level of arrogance. The ringleaders were arrested and some chiefs were dismissed. Although relations improved when Tito Winyi became Omukama, distrust persisted between the people of Bunyoro and Baganda chiefs in the area (Chrechien 2006).
As independence approached the British settled on Obote, a Protestant over Kiwanuka a Catholic, as prime minister. As B. J. Mugaju observed “The bemoaned independence settlement itself was not based on democratic considerations. Rather, it was designed to perpetuate the power and interest of the British-nurtured protestant oligarchy in post-colonial Uganda” (W. O. Oyugi et al. 1988).
At the economic level, Britain ensured that her interests of obtaining raw materials and keeping a market for her surplus manufactured products were maintained by calling upon the World Bank to see that colonial arrangements were not disturbed. The World Bank has since then insisted that Uganda’s comparative advantage is in the production and export of raw materials in exchange for manufactured products much of it from the UK.
When Obote began to swerve from a capitalist to a socialist economic model, he was quickly removed from power and replaced by Idi Amin, a pliable ‘gentle’ giant with Britain’s Bob Astles as one of his closest advisers.
Obote returned to power in 1980 because he still had a large following thanks to his successful economic and social policies that improved the standard of living of Ugandans (World Bank 1993). The British and other western powers recognized that fact but were not happy because they still regarded Obote as a socialist (V.Gupta 1983).
From then on Britain and a few others began looking for a replacement that they could trust and keep in power as long as British interests were protected. They settled on Yoweri Museveni (P. Phillips 2006) a Muhoro of Batusi origin who since becoming president has worked closely with British advisers in particular Linda Chalker and Paul Collier as well as the World Bank and IMF.
The Ministry of Finance and Central Bank have been filled with British loyal Ugandans who are advised by British experts. Sebastian Mallaby records that “Within his office, Tumusiime always had a team of young British economists working for him, even though Ugandan colleagues chided him; ‘how can you open up the ministry [of Finance, Planning and Economic Development] to these foreigners’?”
Early this year (2010) a former British minister in Gordon Brown’s cabinet praised Museveni and his government for a job well done and stressed that Britain was the largest investor in Uganda. Unfortunately, British investments have not created sufficient jobs to ease unemployment pressure as foreign direct investment was originally intended
As you can see Uganda has remained and actually diversified into a producer and exporter of raw materials notwithstanding the President’s industrial revolution rhetoric. You can also see why President Museveni is not interested in the development plan because development planning increases the role of the state in the economy which in the eyes of capitalists is an introduction of socialism. Museveni’s continued support for structural adjustment which is a capitalist model is captured in his foreword to the Development Plan where he stressed inter alia, export orientation which will remain essentially of agricultural commodities. Because of Uganda’s very low level of industrialization, it is not possible for Uganda to produce manufactured products in five years and compete in domestic and international markets.
To conclude, the British indirect rule system has not gone away. If anything it has been strengthened using loyal British local supporters in political and administrative sectors. Ugandans that have protected British interests are in turn being protected by the British governments and British advisers World Bank and the IMF at the political and administrative levels namely the NRM and the Ministry of Finance and Central Bank.
In spite of the introduction of the Development Plan which requires different institutional and staffing arrangements especially at the Ministry of Finance and Central Bank, Uganda is unlikely to see changes because the staff there is very loyal to the British. For the same reasons, we are not likely to see changes at the general and presidential elections in 2011 either.
By way of emphasis indirect rule in Uganda has been about political and economic manipulations using loyal Ugandans in political and strategic administrative sectors to keep British interests in Uganda intact. On balance, indirect rule has served British interest better than those of Ugandans.