THE LAST WORD: By Andrew M. Mwenda
How 50 years have not changed the nature of the confrontation between the central government, traditional authorities
Exactly 50 years since Prime Minister Milton Obote attacked the palace of Sir Edward Mutesa, the King of Buganda, President Yoweri Museveni has attacked the palace of the king of Rwenzururu, Wesley Mumbere. In typical political style, opposition leader Kizza Besigye tweeted his horror at both the attack on the palace and the people killed. I am sure Besigye and many of his supporters think if they were in power they would have handled the situation differently.
In many ways, this is a good thing for Uganda because even if our politicians learn nothing from such experience, it will remain as a major source of debate on the contradictions that tend to characterise the exercise of power. For many years, Museveni denounced Obote for attacking Lubiri, Mutesa’s palace, and Baganda agreed with him. Museveni simplified a complex problem by reducing it to the “madness and maliciousness” of Obote.
On May 21, 1966 the Buganda Lukiiko (parliament) passed a motion seceding from Uganda and ordering the government of Uganda to vacate Buganda soil. Obote did not react. Earlier Mutesa as president of Uganda had ordered a large quantity of weapons through a company called Gailey and Roberts. Mengo has also summoned Baganda ex-service men to Lubiri promising to arm them for the defense of the kingdom. All this information reached the police. Again the Obote administration did not take action.
In the following days, however, gangs attacked and overran police stations across six counties in Buganda. This escalation of violence, coupled with the aforementioned order for arms and ammunitions, provocations and intelligence led to an emergency cabinet meeting. The cabinet instructed Obote to take tough action to resolve the problem – to use the cabinet’s own words, to “go the whole hog”.
Obote called in Inspector General of the Police, Erinayo Oryema, and asked him to send a police unit to Lubiri to verify the allegations of arms. When they went there, they were fired at and several were killed. Obote called in deputy army commander, Col. Idi Amin, and asked him to send a unit of the Uganda Army to back up the police. They were shot at and could not get into the palace because apparently Mengo had effective machine gun power.
The fighting went on all day until Amin decided to reinforce his unit and bombed the palace to force his way in. Thus marked the Battle of Mengo, which sent the Kabaka to exile thus making Obote the most hated man in Buganda. I have read the events of February to May 1966 from the accounts of Mutesa, Obote and many other players of the time and I got to the conclusion that Mengo left the prime minister with no option but to attack the palace.
Thus, as Museveni consistently condemned Obote and even argued that the prime minister should have played music for the Kabaka to get out of the palace, I was the lone voice, then a young journalist at Monitor, who always argued that history has been unfair to Obote on this account. No leader of Uganda would have acted otherwise except force a confrontation with Mengo. Indeed, Obote exhibited a high degree of tolerance and patience with Mengo. Museveni would not have taken such arrogance from Mengo.
Mwenda’s article is dishonest. In comparing the events of the Obusinga to the 1966 crisis, Mwenda is trying to justify the actions of both, President Obote and President Museveni as “necessary measure.” He’s thus giving us the “hardware” and technically leaving out the “software.” When scrutinising his conclusion, “The strategic aim of the state of Uganda is
(and will always be) to subordinate the will of any sub-national group to the will of the state of Uganda.” it is very clear that Andrew hasn’t yet woken up to the realities of democracy. I feel that the first casualty in the Rwenzururu saga as was in the 1966 crisis was constitutionalism. There is a whole big difference between having a “Constitution” and having “constitutionalism.” Mwenda’s article addresses neither of the two. The state of Uganda should rule (or govern) the people through the constitution. Article (1) of the Constitution states: All power belongs to the people- Sovereignty of the people. It goes on to state that, “the people shall express their will and consent on how and by whom they shall be governed through free and fair elections.” Article (2) provides the rider to article (1), that the Constitution is the highest law in the land and must be obeyed by all people and authorities. Under Article 37, (Right to culture and similar rights), A person has a right to belong to, enjoy, practise, profess, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language, tradition, creed or religion in community with others. Under article (126), judicial power shall be exercised by the courts as established under the Constitution in the name of the people and in agreement with the law. Article 46 states, an act of Parliament passed
during a state of emergency, which authorises the taking of reasonably justifiable measures that affect individual rights and freedoms shall not be taken to violate the rights and freedoms under the constitution. And Article (27) states that: no person shall be subjected to unlawful search of the body, home or other property or to unlawful entry of his or her premises. I have stated the above Laws as references to my chorological account as regards to the events that happened on the fateful day of 26th November, 2016 at the palace of the Mumbere. The Mumbere is the cultural leader of the Bakonzo who inhabit the Rwenzururu region. So, the Mumbere and the Bakonzo are being protected under Article (37). In the recent past there has been skirmishes between the royal guards of the Obusinga and government security agencies that have sometimes resulted into loss of lives on either side. However, that the situation has called in for the direct participation between President Museveni and the Omusinga Mumbere. That sometime in April this very year, the President and Mumbere had a one on one- where the President called for the “disbanding” of the royal guards but the King was “reluctant.” That the ugly scenes of the 26th November
were a culmination of this stalemate- where security personnel armed to the teeth descended onto the office of the Kingdom Prime minister and forced themselves through the roof and at a “pin-point” range shot and killed eight people. That on this fateful day and although in the past the President was in direct contact with the King, he this time decided to hand the message to a “third party” (a one Brig. Peter Elweru)- never mind the decorum of a brigadier general talking “peace” with the King. The message was an “ultimatum” indicating the king to surrender his royal guards within 2hours. The message arrived at 11:00 a.m by 1:01 p.m the palace was indiscriminately being bombed. The direct attack of both the office of the Prime minister and the king’s palace are a direct violation of Article 27
which stops the unlawful search of body, home or property. No security organ has yet displayed a search warrant to the evaded premises. No security organ or government personnel has yet pronounced that there were legal proceedings that preceded the manhandling and killings. By indiscriminately bombing the palace the government security agencies took it upon themselves that everyone residing in the palace was a “royal guard.” But the English description of a palace is that it is the residence of the king. It is very possible that in this “avoidable” raid, innocent lives of women and children were lost
since some bodies were burnt beyond recognition. There is every indication that
government had the time and power to first, “evacuate” the king and then cause a door to door search within the kingdom without too much wastage to human life. Under the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (Article 209) they are required to: keep and defend the borders of Uganda, cooperate with the civilian authority in case of emergencies and natural disasters, promote peace and understanding between civilians and the defence forces, and engage in
productive activities for the development of Uganda. There is no law which can justify the murderous acts of our forces meted out on fellow Ugandans without following the due process of the law. Mwenda should be current to a democratisation aspect that democracy’s openness often unleashes regional nationalistic pressures that were once held in check by more oppressive regimes. The 50 years gap between 1966 and 2016 could indicate a
change in time and form but the Rwenzururu events clearly indicate that Uganda remains the same society as it were in 1966 at least, in substance.
Unless the state realigns its strategic aim form “subordination” of sub-national groups to its will, to equitable development of all sub-national groups, then i can promise you that we have not seen the last of citizens from different walks of life attempting to assert their will.
Kingdoms in Uganda were not bequeathed but rather forged through expansionist wars and assertive assimilation. 54 years of a botched experiment is about 10% of their official existence. It cannot therefore be a warning that the loss of 100 lives will mark a departure from the existential need for all sub-national groups to determine their destiny and feel part of Uganda. Uganda was not a conclusion of mutual desire for assimilation but rather a colonial project whose 54 year experiment has at no time proved equitable to all sub-national groups confined within its geographical colonial borders. Its continued survival will thus not rest in a convoluted strategic aim bent on subjugation but rather a conscious will to build a Uganda that all sub-national groups can be proud of.
The solutions are quite numerous, including the current *Republic* arrangement, but they will all derive legitimacy not from demand for acquiescence from the subjugated, but rather from goodwill to provide governance and equitable development to all. Short of that, we must remember that Buganda Kingdom supported a revolutionary war at the cost of over 500,000 souls to have its Kingdom reinstated. If that radical measure – 15 years later, 1966 to 1981 – proved successful in central Uganda wherein the state supposedly was in control of the rest of the country and thus had the problematic region surrounded, how much more Rwenzururu that shares a border with an ungovernable Eastern DRC; moreover at the height of post-regime clamour and national agitation? Who in the clarity of their mind thinks the people of Rwenzururu have been subdued?
Obote effectively ruled for 4 years because in 1971 he was toppled and his second attempt in 1980 saw the launch of a war backed by the very Kingdom he thought vanquished. A Kingdom is thus not a King but the heritage of a people; long defined before these colonial projects. Museveni needed not abandon his aspirations because Kabaka Mutesa II was living with the Gods. There was a Prince and there were subjects that could be rallied. Lets be clear. We all have been born into Uganda and love it, but Uganda should not be the vampirical state that exists to suck the life out of us all. It must have the capacity to love us back lest each day a new sub-national group rises to challenge this *abusive relationship* either by fighting back or supporting the next opportunistic political leader that courts their rage. Uganda must be an entity to which we are all proud and honoured to pledge our allegiance to. That is a common aspiration that we must all work towards attaining.
Otherwise, blood and confrontation are more real to our genetic configuration than alien impulses of peace. All people will continue to evolve politically, socially and economically. That is the nature of things as is! What is the reign of UPC, NRM, FDC, DP, or a state whose future is uncertain compared to the reign of Kingdoms whose next in line for 2-3 generations is assured and unchallenged? What is love for Uganda if that love is only felt by the sub-national group that happens to be in control of the state at any given time? We can either build on independence from colonialism to achieve independence for us all, or new movements keep rising to attempt their own independence that makes sense to them. This is not going away; not by a long shot! Not until we earn and exercise the goodwill of all citizens that call these geographical boundaries home and country!
1.Kings have always been brutal.eg (i)When the pharaohs of Egypt died,they would be buried with all their property and their servants would be buried alive(ii)King Henry the IV killed most of his wives(iii) Zeu the Greek God was also another one(iv)The King of Ankole would would spit in his servants’ mouth i dont know whether they would swallow the saliva.The temptation to have have monarchs should not happen again.
2.In Europe, monarchs like King Henry IV made a great impact ie he established the Church of England when he broke away from the Roman Catholic church this later resulted to the wide spread of Christianity in most common wealth nations.
3.If Kings want to live in harmony with the state they should allow to be our pets.Kabaka had been misled by the opposition leaders like(Nambooze you would think she was a princess) thats why he was driven to Statehouse at a breakneck speed the good thing with him is that he had sensed danger thats why he requested a bishop to accompany him that alone made the State relax.(Everyone fears God’s representative)
4.Govt used alot of unnecessary force during the Kasese attack.In Nakasaongola, there are many bullet proof cars couldn’t they use them how can a panga cut an armored car?
5.You would die of laughter if you saw the kind of witchcraft found at the palace eg the dogs of the king eat grass and sweet potatoes,his hens climb & sleep on trees.
6.This time i accept that Obote was ahead of NRM in management of Kingdoms.
Hahahahaha. Your submission #3 is laughable and naive. The Kabaka can not be a pet. By “our pets” i presume you are part of state apparatus and thus feel a sense of ownership. That is the fallacy created by illusion of power.
I think you have heard of sections of Ankole clamouring for a Kingdom. While others think their attempt premature, i can assure you they are being very visionary. NRM is M7 and M7 is NRM. The end of his presidency – even though a lifetime presidency – is the end of NRM. The leaders of Ankole a very wise in attempting to restore a Kingdom around which they can rally as a sub-national group and by which they can build a progressive society. That is the only hope. Otherwise, unless one is delusional, the next president of Uganda will neither be from NRM nor Ankole.
Those counting their fortunes on Maj Gen Muhoozi need to think twice. I believe him to be one of the most sensible people who will not fall for illusions of power. Only cronies and hangers on hope he will fall for their power thirst. In terms of people relations, i believe he is second to Salim Saleh. He will bid his time like Uhuru Kenyatta and by the time he comes on stage, he will be needed. At the moment, he holds real power and only need act with integrity to win hearts and minds.
Kingdoms therefore, are very much here to stay. Best find your bearings. Perhaps your King will be a pet but not the Kabaka. He only need speak a word and an entire nation would revolt. Two examples have been given and none can dispute their effect. First, as a Prince when his mere visit to the bush get life to the NRA struggle in Central Uganda, Second was the spontaneous response of his subjects during the Buganda riots and third was the boycott on New Vision and Bukedde. In all instances, you can see that the people only need read his mind to respond with such spontaneity that would be disastrous. A King though is not an emotional leader with power thirst. He is born into power and even his Prince son is recognised as heir apparent. Those are generations of sustainable leadership. They will long outlive NRM!
1.The Euphoria and pomp the Buganda show the Kabaka in most cases is just stage managed with the intention to Provoke the govt and to make it seem that govt isn’t loved.how come all Mengo’s affairs are handled by Opposition learning members?its coz Mengo is shy they know their limit so they take cover using the opposition.of recent ,they have improved their relation with govt coz they employed some lawyers you know us learned fellows we r sincere.
2.You really believe that if Mengo boycotted buying Newvsion & Bukedde newspapers the company would collapse?1st of all 80% of the Baganda dont understand English yet they claim civilization began in Buganda(dont you see how they praise John Nagenda their very own mbu he writes and speaks good English yet all he writes are extracts from Bernard Shaw,TS Eloit,Shake spares’s writings..3rdly,dont you know that most of the revenue Newvison generates is from govt advertisements have you ever seen any advert on Buganda Kingdom in the press actually they love freebies.
3.William Pike ensured that all regions had their local papers so as to keep up with current affairs thats why we have Etop,Orumiri,Rupinyi & Bukedde.
4.In Britain, some sections of the Public think the monarch is straining the economy its only in the rich Arab nations where kingdoms are flourishing.
5.Do you know why the NRM has ruled for this long?its coz our ideology is original by the way, NRM is so transparent & flexible in its workings thats why we dwell more on service delivery than politics.(when you move all over the nation M7 ‘s name is on all foundation stones my only fear is that opposition has began destroying these marks so as to erase evidence of the good NRM work.
Winnie wrote: “..its coz our ideology is original by the way, …” What is the ideology?
1.An ideology is a system of ideas that forms policy .This means that ,systems should be flexible & can be modified to suit current needs of society.
2.Ideologies have been so fatal in history e.g (i)The Juche ideology of N.Korea is all about preventing the infiltration of N.Korea(ii)The Cuban ideology is also about settling scores with USA.(iii) Why is it that most political ideologies are about class struggle?i really pity you you are ideologically beyond redemption.
3.How come no African state has succeeded coz of failure to adhere to a specific ideology? why do you think Ug is unique? for me i believe that an ideology is meant to brain wash people it actually has an element of threat& cult like following and they tend not be so tolerant of other peoples views.
4.UPC had no ideology its just that back then,Govts owned all properties & this was the world order then you should thank NRM for transitioning smoothly to capitalism.
I am tempted to let you have the last shout on this one, so bear with these few:
80% of Baganda don’t understand English? clearly arrivalism is at play here and best we let it be.
NRM is built around politics – very astute politics. The service delivery part is subjective but the politics part is a given. You will be forgiven for not understanding NRM politics or Mr M7s politics. Cronies seldom do!
The New Vision / Bukedde boycott is not an illusion. It happened and the two papers dedicated an entire publication to an apology to the Kingdom. You can check the archives if you were born post 2005; Otherwise, if you were already politically active at the time, then amnesia is the issue at play.
The Euphoria and pomp the people of Buganda and Uganda show to the Kabaka is no stage-managed pomp. The Royal Family is the most popular in Uganda and the Kabaka holds a very high place in popularity ratings – any popularity ratings. You can commission a scientific poll and share the results.
Lastly, the nature of politics is that the one that demands must build locus. You will be surprised at the number of Mengo leaning politicians that the NRM government employs both officially and unofficially. However, that the visible ones are opposition leaning, stems from the demand nature that builds political pressure. That is the nature of politics; learn some.
To think Mengo is shy is purely a figment of your excited imagination. It is in my interest to hope it remains excited. Only then are deeper realities able to escape your thought process; realities i would rather remained further away from your
Remember, you have the last shout on this one!
Well put brother to say the least. I know Winnie with all the connections and many years of picking dung from a cow’s a*s (meaning the NRM) can’t comprehend this level of intellectualism. I guess she needs to shut up, good lick her wounds. For here she has no space in realms of intellectual giants.
Gotto in this forum,we have passed that era of insults.
Francis Kigundu wrote: “NRM is built around politics – very astute politics.”
Please read the following analysis of NRM politics:
I salute you for the window into your mind; made available in the tagged OpEDs. It is a rich mind, albeit unhinged from the point that my submission hoped to make. I will attempt to further explain what i had hoped would have been crystal in that one sentence quoted, not in support of NRM – far from it – but in doubling down on what it is i meant by it.
By saying NRM is built around politics – very astute politics, i meant the politics of governance that have managed to hold the state together for 30 years. One can argue for or against the quality of governance and the desire to change it, but we cannot discard the astute politics that has delivered a coup-less state for three decades.
That astute politics could be as a result of the broad based government as you referenced Odrek Rwabwogo in the second OpED or it could be as a result of management of armed forces in politics to create a stability of the state for which political power would have to be wrestled by politicians as opposed to captured by the army. The as yet inability of the politicians to wrestle that power, or the sadistic politics employed to thwart the ability of politicians to wrestle power, is a question of tactics employed by either side in relation to their stated objectives.
By specifically mentioning NRM, i refer to the governance period post-war by which they formed government and thus applied politics to govern. The bulk of the attached OpEDs seemed to attempt to decipher or debunk the war philosophy, liberation ideology or political strategy that the NRA armed wing used to capture power. That too can be discussed at length but was not covered in the parameters of the “astute politics of the NRM”. It could be intellectually honest to remind ourselves that NRA waged war against UPC and that this comments section will not suffice to settle those scores.
What i did find interesting, was the first OpED in which you attempted to link ideology as a common consciousness to the politics of governance of the state. While ideology may inform the governance style of politics, it has been shown by the governance style of UPC that even with a “good ideology”, a political party can still mismanage the affairs of the state or practice bad politics. To thus have a well defined ideology is not a guarantee that it will either be practised or reflected in the political management of society.
This, your quote, from the first attachment will perhaps guide us “…Mamdani goes further and argues that if that experience is of oppression, then the consciousness which arises is that of resistance…” From this quote that you used to build your submission on the bankrupt ideology of NRM – by which you meant the NRA Armed war phase of seeking power, i found myself asking what that meant for a good ideology of UPC if the same reverse actions were true for it.
At no point did NRA overthrow the UPC government. Yes, they resisted it, but on both occasions when it was toppled in 1971 and 1985, it was by armed forces operating under the jurisdiction of the UPC government. From Mamdani’s argument, the only conclusion is that UPC created an experience of oppression for which the consciousness that arose was that of resistance. The FRONASA and NRA outfits were thus not only creations of UPC oppression for which the arising consciousness was resistance, but extensions of resistance from within UPC that twice saw the armed forces topple the UPC government. We may thus have to look deeper into internal weaknesses even when it may be more convenient to look to NRA/M in escapist charades.
On the astute politics by which NRM has held the state together, the exact formula of which we can discuss, whether oppressive or regressive, to the extent that – for now – political power must be wrestled by the politicians, i will once more draw on the weaknesses of the UPC governance to show that a good ideology had nothing to do with the good or bad politics by which we can measure astuteness.
The UPC in Uganda, as with KANU in Kenya and CCM in Tanzania, formed the first post-colonial governments in East Africa and the nature of politics they practised, formed the basis of stability or instability of the states they governed; for whom those respective foundations still apply. In Uganda, the UPC that entered a conscious *POLITICAL* alliance with Kabaka Yekka to form government, decided to involve the armed forces in settlement of political disputes with its allies.
Irrespective of the nature of political spin of both parties, and what has since transpired as our concocted history, the truth is that UPC did not inherit a troublesome state with political cultural institutions. To the contrary, it wilfully and consciously entered a political alliance with a cultural institution, with the head of its ally; Kabaka Yekka, becoming President and the head of UPC becoming Prime Minister. Whatever grievances or issues that thus arose form that alliance was political and should have been settled politically. The UPC in seeking to have its way (discard the official narrative you propagate) decided to use the armed forces to disband its political allies. That was political mismanagement of the state and we have never recovered from those actions.
It would be naive to assume that Kenya and Tanzania did not have traditional power structures that the colonialists dealt with and that therefore Jommo Kenyatta’s KANU or Mwalimu Nyerere’s CCM did not have challenges in setting up stable post-colonial states, or that they did not have armies at their disposal as heads of state and ruling parties. Kingdoms have always been political and thus the statement you make in one of those attachments that “…the 1966 pronouncements had abolished Monarchies…” goes on to prove Mamdani’s submission that you created experiences of oppression for which the arising consciousness was resistance – in this case manifested by a very much alive Kingdom sponsoring resistance against Obote 2.
I hope in conclusion, i have endeavoured, obviously not to your satisfaction, to show that the astuteness of NRM politics that i alluded to; in how it had nothing to do with its revolutionary ideology as NRA nor by way of answer to you, any correlation between ideology and the politics of governance. The founding principles of a human or party could be very compelling at initiation of their mission goals, but the execution thereof may be far from intended. UPC thus with a clear ideology did mismanage the politics of our nation by inviting armed forces into the settlement of political scores; the legacy for which was two military coups against it by its own armed forces, and a succession of military governments that ensued, NRM Inclusive – with continued involvement of armed politics as soon as recently.
I believe the astute politics that i alluded to in construction of that sentence had everything to do with the politics that they have employed and for which they hope to continue employing through various pseudo mechanisms. All else is subjective and open to debate in as far as the benefit or detriment of their style of politics for the nation…
Francis Kigundu wrote: “At no point did NRA overthrow the UPC government. Yes, they resisted it, but on both occasions when it was toppled in 1971 and 1985, it was by armed forces operating under the jurisdiction of the UPC government” The 1971 coup is more complicated than what you present here; please read: http://upcparty.net/memboard/19mar10_amincoup.htm
“…All else is subjective and open to debate in as far as the benefit or detriment of their style of politics for the nation…”
Who made this statement and where was it published?
I made the statement and it was published in the comments’ section hereto. It is the last statement of my submission – to which you replied. It meant all you have raised in reply to me are a matter of opinion and part of the envisioned welcome debate on the subjective aspects of my submission.
Quoting it to you meant your follow up reply was welcome but unnecessary since all points you have raised fall under “subjective and open to debate…”
I’m moving on…
1.Its a fact that New vision would not collapse coz of Mengo ‘s threats.
2.M7 had all the power to restore a functional and strong Ankole Kingdom but he chose not to do so coz he knew the implication.
3.Have you ever heard of the term playing the fool?the apology Vision group made was for purposes of harmony .
4.The pomp the Kabaka receives from his subjects is definitely stage managed coz human beings are not homogeneous in nature how can all the Baganda get excited at once?
Francis Kigundu wrote: “The leaders of Ankole are very wise in attempting to restore a Kingdom around which they can rally as a sub-national group and by which they can build a progressive society.” I get the feeling you don’t know Ankole at all. Begin from the fact that Ankole is caste society. The Bahima are about 15% and they are the dominating caste. Before the 1966 revolution the Bairus were clamouring to rid themselves of the domination of the bahima. this was resolve with the abolition of the Obugabe which had been the fulcrum of their domination. they don’t want the restoration of the Obuganda at all.
It is an attempt in its infancy. Best we watch how it blossoms. Perhaps i don’t know Ankole at all. What i do know is the nature of politics and how it is shaping up.
The majority of NRM members will desert that party immediately M7 leaves power. There is therefore no hope of consolidating both power and assets accumulated during the NRM governance period under the NRM Party. Even Uhuru Kenyatta did not win under KANU. These realities are real and worrisome for those bent on preserving legacies, especially if those legacies are calculated to spring another generation to power at some point.
The aim of analysis is to look at the trends – all of them – and make deductions and projections. In my view, the clamour for a Kingdom, amidst a seeming clampdown on Kingdoms, is not to be viewed lightly, especially in terms of intent.
I have known certain sections of the Bahima make these claims as far back as 1986; what infancy are you talking about?
You wrote: ” In my view, the clamour for a Kingdom, amidst a seeming clampdown on Kingdoms, is not to be viewed lightly, especially in terms of intent.” This sentence just doesn’t make sense. first of all, as I have already said, this clamour has been on longer than the present crisis in Kasese. Secondly, this Kasese thing is not a clampdwon on monarchies. Museveni has not made any pronouncement to that effect and he has not disturbed any of the other kingdoms, including those he created.
Your second paragraph is simply a tissue of contradictions.
If you need Museveni to make a pronouncement, then bear with us staying ahead of the curve.
@ Kiggundu what do you mean when you say the colonialists created Kingdoms?Does a Briton understand Luganda or Lusoga?
@Winnie, that is a quotation from paragraph 2 of my submission. Where does it say that i insinuated that colonialists created Kingdoms? – “Kingdoms in Uganda were not bequeathed but rather forged through expansionist wars and assertive assimilation. 54 years of a botched experiment is about 10% of their official existence.”
Obote was dealing with a condition caused by a congenital problem of the colonial state – A struggle for power and sovereignty between the central gov’t and a colonially created ‘native’ authority. Museveni on the other hand actually created this particular native authority( or resurrected it from the dead) and has infact created more native authorities than even the colonials did — and they function in very much same way – to make native authorities dependent on the central government and in the process strengthening power at the center.Museveni has not just maintained the power structures of the colonial state — he has exacerbated them – used them has political tools – not to preserve and strengthen Uganda’s sovereignty but his own power. Obote was correcting a power structure he did not create — Museveni was destroying a power structure he created — huge difference.
Hi there everyone, it’s my first pay a quick visit at this web page, and post is really fruitful for me, keep up posting these articles