The American President is the most powerful man on earth for very simple reasons, the United states continues to be the richest and biggest economy in the world with twenty-five percent of the world’s GDP. The American President can wake up in the night and order to “kill” somebody anywhere in the world or invade the country or bomb anything, a city, an installation, name it. This audacity comes from the sole power of wealth. From 1871 the US took over from Britain as the largest economy in the world, America has been the policeman of the world, they have the technology, the money and as a result they have largely set the rules on which the world order has been managed. Former presidential candidate John McCain, a respected Senator has confidently talked about why they should bomb Iraq or Afghanistan. Where does he get that courage? Money, money that America has. This is true for most American leaders they don’t mince their words when talking about bombing targets in poor countries. Even their less rich cousins the British, the French or the Germans who are not so wealthy but stand out among the rich countries also now and again raise their voices talking about how they should bomb one country or the other. Of course they all tread carefully when talking about Russia or North Korea or Iran. Since they don’t know what to expect or actually know the resultant chaos, so they impose sanctions!
Wealth gives you power but more important if it is backed up by knowledge. The Saudis have the money but they don’t have the scientific knowledge and as a result they can not sit on the same table with the western countries to talk about how the world order should be shaped. Where is the future of our kingdoms without economic power?
In the developing countries politicians vie for power through elections or other means but even when they get there, they cannot accumulate the power that an American president has, this is because their countries do not have the wealth that countries like America have. Kingdoms worldwide have been reduced to traditional institutions without any power. They are supported by governments though some live off their earlier accumulated wealth. In some countries you will not even hear of them. They were abolished. Austria, Iran, Libya are examples.
The Kingdoms in Uganda are largely known due to the kind of power they had before the British took over the country. Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole are the most known because they were most powerful. These kingdoms had resources at their disposal in their then circumstances. Busoga at that time had much smaller kingdoms which the British herded together to create the Kyabazingaship. A Busoga kingdom as a unified entity did not exist and hence the proper nomenclature is not Busoga kingdom but Obwa Kyabazinga Bwa Busoga (OKBB). I do not know how to translate that in English! As the British established order in Uganda, Semei Kakungulu was the first president in Busoga he was subsequently replaced by Ezekieli, Tenywa Wako. But Wako did not simply become the president of Busoga the British who used existing governing systems to govern brought the eleven small kingdoms of Busoga together to create one Busoga entity. Each of the eleven would take over the chair of the presidency for three months and this would rotate among the eleven kings. As I said when you have money and power you dictate things, the British decided that these are not called Kings and Kingdoms but rather Chiefs and Chiefdoms. Up to date we have accepted this nomenclature! When you are wealthy and powerful they do not dictate to you. Among the eleven kingdoms the Muloki Wako and Nadiope families were the most educated at the time. Wako was a young man among elderly Kings. The kings decided that Wako takes over the management of the Busoga establishment Wako was initially president which was subsequently named Kyabazingaship Wako was President/Kyabazinga for twenty years from 1929-1949. He then requested the kings, who were now no longer known as kings, but abalangira, to replace him. The Balangira now known as Abensikirano or chiefs selected Nadiope to become the next Kyabazinga which he did for about 5 years (1949-1955). The Balangira wanted Wako to return as Kyabazinga thereafter but he said he was tired and gave them his son- Henry Wako Muloki. In the 1961 elections, Nadiope unseated Muloki in the famous ‘agityeimemu’ saga. The Kyabazingaship was abolished by Obote in 1966 and he subsequently imprisoned Sir William Wilberforce Nadiope making all kinds of accusations against him. When the kingdoms were restored in 1993 government agreed that they are not kings but rather they are cultural or traditional leaders. We use the words interchangeably. Since Uganda is “Republic” it cannot have kings and kingdoms! But the fact that these institutions were cherished wherever they existed their restoration was crucial for the stability of the country. In Ankole however, the restoration of the Bugabe would not have created stability like in other areas but rather the opposite.
Talking about Sir William Wilberforce also reminds me of another Sir- Sir Edward Mutesa this goes to emphasize the issue of wealth, knowledge and power. In the United Kingdom Her Majesty the Queen or if there’s a man His Majesty the King, in recognition of the efforts and service of people, contribution to society, they are knighted and given the title Sir. These are like the medals the government of Uganda now and again gives people to recognize their performance. You can not knight a king except when you are doing so to spite a person! Because of the weakness of the Ugandan kingdoms the queen chose to spite the kings by knighting them. But because we did not know, we proudly refer to our leaders as Sir this, Sir that. The British went further to prevent African kings from using the word Majesty, indeed my Kyabazinga is His Royal Highness and this is applicable to other African Kings elsewhere.
Kingdoms were the administrative units in the different parts of Africa until when those who had power and money, colonialists came and established a new order. The demands for this new order were that you required education to gain knowledge and you required an economic activity to gain resources. The other way of gaining power and influence was through waiting for the elections or the military coups to gain resources required to be able to take decisions. Today, Africa is known for having nurtured leadership initially through elections subsequently through the military and in the recent years through elections. The indepedence elections were tribal or religious, the western powers had little influence on them though they did influence them. The western powers influenced the coups in Africa most of them planned by the CIA or any other espionage organs from rich countries. These coups were intended to punish those African leaders that were denying business opportunities to the powerful west. In an attempt to improve governance and fit Africa into the new world order coups were stopped and elections restarted. There’s no party in opposition in Africa that is not funded by western powers and there’s no successful government in Africa that is not directly or indirectly influenced by the rich west. This has made governance in Africa a proxy of western interest.
So what is the fate of kingdoms? They are lame ducks. Not dead but of no consequence unless if they have economic power. This they cannot either. The kingdoms in the western countries were sealed. They are show-biz, highly respected and sold off to the public as national institutions of consequence but they are lame ducks. Fortunately, many of them have wealth accumulated over the years and can afford to look after themselves. Despite this, in some countries government looks after them.
In many Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, the monarchy is still a political body but they are there because the West says so. If it was not for the strategic and tactical support these kingdoms get, they would be no more. The demand for democracy that has swept the world would have swept them away. But this creates another problem for the West, democracy creates create politicians who can speak against the West and western interests. You will create politicians like those in Iran who condemn the West’s suppression of human and political rights of ordinary people in the moslem world, you will create politicians who can stand up against Israel. So the kingdoms are kingdoms of convenience to serve those political-economic interests of western countries. In some other places kingdoms are no more, the modern political system swept them away and are incognito.
Turning to Uganda, at the time of independence the power of the kingdoms was seen creating a constitution that gave a federal status to the kingdom areas of Buganda, Ankole, Bunyoro, Tooro and Busoga. Indeed, the most powerful Sir Edward Mutesa, became the President of Uganda! And Sir William Wilberforce Nadiope, Kyabazinga of Busoga became Vice President. History was made. The political formation at the time of independence was driven by religion more than anything else. DP a catholic founded party having won the self-governance elections could not be allowed to rule the country by the British. This alliance of UPC with kingdoms that were Anglican gave UPC an edge in the independence elections. But kings are not elected though they have influence and Obote was quick to abolish them four years later in 1966 to enable him assert his authority as a politician.
Those kingdoms that had property were able to re-start their activities after the restoration of these kingdoms in 1993. Uganda continues to a Republic and therefore has no place for kingdoms! but again these kingdoms were restored but not as kingdoms but as cultural institutions. Buganda which probably had the best administrative system and well organized government before the kingdoms were abolished was able to re-start. But it too is a lame duck. Any form of government that has no power to tax cannot be labelled a government or kingdom. this is also the fate of our local governments, without the authority to collect revenue, they, like those kingdoms are lame ducks.
The Busoga Kingdom has been unique, Kyabazinga who is supposed to be the Busoga King is not hereditary. He is elected from among the 11 who are hereditary. Of course, the issue of these elections has been contentious it is a source of division among the eleven and conflict among different groups of Basoga. To be elected is not any different from how governments worldwide are formed, it is those with the money and ideas that win the day. Among the 11 the Nadiope and Muloki houses have had more resources and more influence. It is not surprising that the two houses have provided the Kyabazingas that we know, Tabingwa has resources unfortunately does not fit into the kyabazinga institution, he’s catholic. Munuulo of Bunya is educated, a lawyer but a moslem! So he too can not fit the office of the Kyabazinga. Having been a ‘Katwikiiro” of the OKBB, I realised that we did not have a kingdom primarily because the majority of our balangila did not have high level of education, not even key members of their family but most important they were poor! They had no resources, the institutional resources that existed by the OKBB were land in Bugembe and the various sub-counties of the Busoga region. Most of this has been turned into local government property. The little that was there especially in Bugembe was stolen, illegally sold to various people who do not contribute to the OKBB as an institution therefore, OKBB has no resources. You will be surprised that the land at the OKBB headquarters in Bugembe which had been demarcated as Bishop Bamwoze park opposite the Alice Muloki library was sold, the land at the Cathedral near the old library was also sold. The land around the stadium was sold including the gate to the stadium. So was the car park outside the stadium. Bugembe stadium used to be the alternative stadium to Nakivubo stadium but today you cannot hold a match there because there’s no parking! The stadium cannot be extended because all the land around it was sold. Out of the several square miles OKBB had, I would be surprised if they have more than 10 acres.
So what is the future of OKBB? OKBB and Isebantu are symbols of Obusoga. Busoga culture can only preserved by the OKBB. People love their culture and Basoga are indeed proud of their culture. But OKBB like all other kingdoms worldwide are lame ducks. Like it or not, that is the fact. OKBB is dead but it must live. It must live to preserve Obusoga. So what next? OKBB has 3 choices; one is the kyabazinga to continue to be a ceremonial Kyabazinga without resources and therefore without power and influence. He will be propped up by those Basoga who pay allegiance to him and have resources supplemented by some funds from central government now and again. The role of a Kyabazinga will be a symbol of Busoga’s tradition and culture. The second choice is for Basoga to organize themselves define the Kyabazingaship and fund it, the Basoga will then determine what the Kyabazinga will do, the Baganda have experimented with this without success! The etofali campaign did not collect enough money to run a government of the Buganda magnitude, the Baganda love their Kabaka, they are wealthier than the Basoga, am not sure how much can be collected in Busoga to run an OKBB government meaningfully. It will require a budget of Shs 100 billion per year! This is besides the budget of local governments. The third option is to have the kingdoms further institutionalized in the Uganda constitution to enable them secure funding from central government, they will be recognized as part of the governance systems of the country and funded probably based on the population. This will of course reduce the power and influence of the kings but that’s the only way they can survive.
So how does the current situation in Busoga fit into this? Busoga has a 29-year-old Kyabazinga who has a great future ahead of him. He’s yet to have a family and am sure he would like to have his children study in the best schools as a king he would wish to drive the best car in town. If he were in Kampala, he should stay in Kololo but how does he do this when the OKBB has no resources to support him. The Basoga definitely have no resources to support him, the Basoga then must find a compromise- the Kyabazingaship must be transformed. The compromise must be able to uphold the values and traditions of Busoga while having a modern young Kyabazinga.
The recent appointment of the Isebantu to the position of Ambassador should be seen in this context, it may not have been appropriate that Isebantu was put on the list for vetting. I believe this was an error and it can be corrected but the less than 30-year-old Kyabazinga needs to be engaged both intellectually and culturally. He needs an activity that is near to a profession where he can put his thoughts and exercise his intellectual abilities. He also needs to perform those cultural activities that are required of him as Isebantu. Of course most of these are supposed to be performed by the Katwikilo and his cabinet. Isebantu has little role in them other than a ceremonial one to agree, open, close, to endorse and such similar activities. While Busoga can choose from the above and other alternatives, it has very little leeway. The region is extremely poor and cannot raise funds on its own. This leaves us little choice but to having a working Kyabazinga one that can tap into national resources without bringing him into direct conflict.
The decision that must be made by Abasoga is not unique to Busoga only. It is a decision other kingdoms in Uganda or elsewhere in Africa and indeed most African countries must make. African countries have been stunted because they failed to evolve policies appropriate for their development. Even at the micro level, the family, decisions must be made. Many families in Africa continue to be large in number of children and very little land, a prescription for poverty. On that small piece of land, they don’t even use it to produce things that can give them an income. So most families do not have a proper house, do not eat enough calories, have no toilets and they look to government, NGOs, to help them secure the necessities of life.
African countries are not different, they are stuck with policies that will not cause growth and they look out for the nations. African countries must rethink their development strategies. They can continue the way they are and perpetually stay in poverty or develop a different development model. The writing is on the wall for African leaders
No comments:
Post a Comment