List of heads of government and state by net worth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of heads of state and government by the net worth of their liquid assets. This list does not include property and other material goods.
1. Hassanal Bolkiah -Sultan of Brunei - $28 billion
2. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, - total assets $21 billion
3. Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - King of Saudi Arabia - $21 billion
4. Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan, President of the United Arab Emirates - $19 billion
5. Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister and Vice President of the United Arab Emirates, ruler of Dubai - $14 billion
6. Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg - $5 billion
7. Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands - $4.7 billion[1]
8. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran, and his family - $4.1 billion
9. Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein - $4 billion
10. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey - $2 billion
11. Albert II, Prince of Monaco - $1 billion
12. Fidel Castro, President of Cuba - $900 million (disputed [1][2] Forbes estimate based on Cuba's GDP [3])
13. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, President of Equatorial Guinea - $600 million
14. Harald V, King of Norway - $240 million
15. Mswati III, King of Swaziland - $50 million
16. Ferenc Gyurcsány, Prime Minister of Hungary - $16 million [4]
17. Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu, Prime Minister of Romania - $15 million
18. George W. Bush, President of the United States - $15 million
19. Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda - $11 million
20. Margrethe II, Queen of Denmark - $10 million
21. Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden - $9 million
22. Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic - $9 million
23. Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand - $5 million
24. Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt - $5 million
25. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - $3 million
26. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines - $1.3 million
Tanzanians say no to East African Federation
News April 17, 2007
JOYCE KISAKA
DODOMA
About 80 per cent of Tanzanians who have responded to the Wangwe Commission, which is collecting views on the fast-tracking of the East African Political Federation, have said they are not for the idea.
Although the views’ collecting mission is not complete, with just 55 per cent of the Mainland and 20 per cent of the Isles covered so far, sources within the Ministry of East Africa told The Citizen last week that the mid term review, conducted early this month, has revealed that 10 regions in the Mainland have totally rejected the political federation plan.
Sources said it was not a secret within the Wangwe Commission that Tanzania is not interested in the political federation. In fact, sources say, what the officials are doing is simply to go through the formalities because the exercise on views’ collection must be completed and people's views registered. "Reports that Zanzibaris are not ready are not mere rumours either, this is true for Zanzibar wants to remain as it is," one source said.
The exercise is expected to come to an end by next month when the report on what Tanzanians have decided will be handed over to PresidentJakaya Kikwete . The report is expected to form the basis for determining the fate of the federation.
The three commissions collecting locals’ views in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda met in Arusha on April 2 to compare notes after the midterm review and each of them got the chance to explain their position before they jointly finalised a strategy on how to complete the exercise.
Following this meeting, Prof Samuel Wangwe, who heads the Tanzanian commission, told journalists last week in a press conference that the review was not meant to compare statistics as to how many people want the Federation, instead it aimed to review how far the exercise had gone and what have been the challenges and improvements that are needed.
He further told the media that in Tanzania, his commission met many challenges especially with regards to people's scanty understanding of the federation. This scenario forced them to embark on educating people on the matter before they asked them to give opinions.
JOYCE KISAKA
DODOMA
About 80 per cent of Tanzanians who have responded to the Wangwe Commission, which is collecting views on the fast-tracking of the East African Political Federation, have said they are not for the idea.
Although the views’ collecting mission is not complete, with just 55 per cent of the Mainland and 20 per cent of the Isles covered so far, sources within the Ministry of East Africa told The Citizen last week that the mid term review, conducted early this month, has revealed that 10 regions in the Mainland have totally rejected the political federation plan.
Sources said it was not a secret within the Wangwe Commission that Tanzania is not interested in the political federation. In fact, sources say, what the officials are doing is simply to go through the formalities because the exercise on views’ collection must be completed and people's views registered. "Reports that Zanzibaris are not ready are not mere rumours either, this is true for Zanzibar wants to remain as it is," one source said.
The exercise is expected to come to an end by next month when the report on what Tanzanians have decided will be handed over to PresidentJakaya Kikwete . The report is expected to form the basis for determining the fate of the federation.
The three commissions collecting locals’ views in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda met in Arusha on April 2 to compare notes after the midterm review and each of them got the chance to explain their position before they jointly finalised a strategy on how to complete the exercise.
Following this meeting, Prof Samuel Wangwe, who heads the Tanzanian commission, told journalists last week in a press conference that the review was not meant to compare statistics as to how many people want the Federation, instead it aimed to review how far the exercise had gone and what have been the challenges and improvements that are needed.
He further told the media that in Tanzania, his commission met many challenges especially with regards to people's scanty understanding of the federation. This scenario forced them to embark on educating people on the matter before they asked them to give opinions.
Federo is not a Buganda only issue
MR Gawaya Tegulle’s article “Buganda leadership should seek alternative to federo” published in Daily Monitor on March 7 can be appreciated in the context that President Museveni is not about to grant federal status to Buganda.
But I strongly oppose the writer’s idea of pegging federalism to Buganda. Refer to the book “On the Kabaka’s road for Uganda” written by Joseph Muwanga. This most readable account treats federalism as a national issue. Muwanga discusses more than ten sound reasons why it should be good for Uganda.
One, it would help correct the current imbalance in regional development. Under federalism, each region would “grow” its capital city.
Two, is what Muwanga terms the “Winner Region syndrome”, a product of the over concentration of power, money jobs, and influence at the centre. Since independence, this has moved along a cycle. From the north, to the north western and now south western region. The rule is that the home area of the head of government becomes the “winner region”, a fact which is resented by the other regions.
Kris. O. Opiyo,
Kampala
But I strongly oppose the writer’s idea of pegging federalism to Buganda. Refer to the book “On the Kabaka’s road for Uganda” written by Joseph Muwanga. This most readable account treats federalism as a national issue. Muwanga discusses more than ten sound reasons why it should be good for Uganda.
One, it would help correct the current imbalance in regional development. Under federalism, each region would “grow” its capital city.
Two, is what Muwanga terms the “Winner Region syndrome”, a product of the over concentration of power, money jobs, and influence at the centre. Since independence, this has moved along a cycle. From the north, to the north western and now south western region. The rule is that the home area of the head of government becomes the “winner region”, a fact which is resented by the other regions.
Kris. O. Opiyo,
Kampala
Federo and democratic governance
One of the controversial political issues in Uganda today is that of federalism (particularly for Buganda); what are your views on this matter?
This is an important debate, not only in Uganda, but also in many other countries. The debate is essentially about two things: how to truly democratise governance, and how to celebrate diversity within a fabric of unity. I believe that power should be located at the closest proximity to those whose lives are seriously affected by its exercise. I also believe that one can be, for example, a proud Muganda (celebrating the rich kiganda heritage, history and culture) and a patriotic Ugandan at the same time; I see no contradiction in this two-tier identity.
OLARA OTUNNU is a former UN Special Representative for children in armed conflict areas. Now president of LBL Foundation for Children, an independent organisation devoted to promoting protection, hope, healing and rehabilitation for children in communities devastated by war
Buganda leadership should seek alternatives to ‘federo’
Inside Politics March 7 - 13, 2007
Buganda leadership should seek alternatives to ‘federo’
GAWAYA TEGULLE
One of those fascinating incidents which Ugandans seem to have decided to forget happened 13years ago. The year was 1993, and the country was gearing up for the restoration of traditional institutions in general.
But of particular import was that the much-longed for and even more-talked-about restoration of the Buganda Kingdom was at hand. Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi was warming up to formally step into the shoes of his father Sir Edward Mutesa II.
But just when it looked like everything was okay, some smart lawyer woke up and moved to seek an injunction against the proceedings. His name was Kenneth Kakuru, very brilliant as a lawyer, but with a penchant for stirring up trouble at just the wrong moments.
Waving the 1967 Republican Constitution, Kakuru argued that the restoration of kingship was unconstitutional.
Realising the impending catastrophe, President Yoweri Museveni simply called an emergency session of the legislature - the National Resistance Council, NRC - which amended the offending constitutional provisions to accommodate the restoration of traditional institutions. On July 31 that year, Ronald Mutebi was crowned King of Buganda.
The move established what has now become a pattern of the Museveni administration: when the President makes up his mind to do something, he will bend every rule to accomplish it - you don't have to coerce or beg him.
This 1993 incident does come to mind largely for purposes of contrast, following the recent sacking of Buganda Katikkiro (Premier) Dan Muliika who was appointed with specific instructions to deliver what, try as she might, Buganda has still failed to achieve: federalism or 'federo'.
Conservative, radical and ruthless, Muliika was a complete contrast of his predecessor Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere who had perfected the art of diplomacy; able to discuss the most unpleasant issues with a smile, rather than the smirk which we have been accustomed to seeing on Muliika's face as he made his case for 'federo'. Apparently Mulwanyamuli's diplomacy was interpreted as weakness and some thought that what the Museveni administration needed was a dose of ruthlessness. The overtures of the two former Katikiros have proved what Buganda ought to know by now: neither diplomacy nor strong-arm tactics will move President Museveni to grant 'federo'.
President Museveni does hold the key to Buganda's 'federo' aspirations. But truth is that as long as he stays in State House, the 'federo' issue will remain a distant dream.
If he had thought it important to give 'federo' to Buganda, he'd have bent or broken every rule in the book to get it done.
But the President clearly recognises that 'federo' would fundamentally undermine the process of nation building. You cannot build a modern nation by dividing it up along tribal lines. Neither would his successors (he is surely lining up those, and the keen eye can in fact identify some of them already) depart from this position.
Evidence suggests that the President holds the view that in modern statecraft, traditional rulers should remain cultural icons, symbols of good conscience, reflections of our social values and aspirations, and instruments of social cohesion, rather than political entities in themselves.
Britain herself has been from time to time debating the relevancy of the royal family, including things like whether or not the Queen should be taxed.
A look at the royalty in Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and the like tells you that the trend worldwide is for monarchs to be as far from politics as possible, just remaining symbols of social norms and aspirations around which the people rally.
As a good politician, all the President is doing is keep Buganda talking, without getting anywhere concrete. That is negotiation at its best.
The big surprise is that Buganda has up to now failed to discern that the Museveni administration really has no intention of granting 'federo'.
It is like endlessly submitting marriage proposals to a woman who is diplomatically and ever so subtly, sending quiet signals that her heart - and mind - are elsewhere.
Even when playing the almost mandatory hard-to-get that ladies love to put up for a while, making a man go round in circles, a lady who will say 'yes' often leaves some clues that all is not lost and that if the man loves her enough to pursue further, he will get her. In this case, the Museveni administration has already spoken its mind unequivocally, but Buganda has not yet discerned the reality.
Part of the problem seems to be that Buganda is not bowing to the winds of change that have engulfed the world and made certain dispositions untenable. Buganda has chosen to resist change, refusing even the slightest modification that would allow them to fit in, and preferring to live in the past.
Even by independence (1962), Buganda wanted to be restored to its pre-colonial position as a kingdom, accorded preferential treatment over other areas, and generally lead life as though the colonialists had never been or independence and statehood had never been granted to the entity we now know as Uganda.
Buganda has painted 'federo' as the magical formula, which, once it arrives, will turn everything right side up, then Buganda will live happily ever after - which is of course not true at all, since people would still have to work hard for development (and in a poor country, some things will always take long to change anyway, federo or no federo).
'Federo' ought to remain a vision; something distant that Buganda yearns and aspires for; not an immediate achievable target that so much time, money and energy should be spent on. Buganda therefore has a choice. Either continue being radical and rigid about getting 'federo' (and get nothing), or adapt (bend) to the winds of change and develop workable alternatives.
For example in Japan, until September 2006 when the Emperor's younger son (Prince Akishino) gave birth to a boy, bringing an end to what had been a succession of girl children born into the royal family, the Japanese had considered amending their Imperial House Law to allow for a female to ascend to the throne.
In fact, if Mengo were prudent, they would at a time like this, appoint a sober consultancy to establish how the kingdom can take advantage of the present circumstances and move forward, see what opportunity lies in the apparent 'difficulty', instead of trying to push an obstacle that has no intention of moving.
The consultants could also draw examples from how traditional institutions in other countries are managing to fit within their societies and how they relate to the broader superstructure called a nation.
Generally, Ugandans need to begin thinking as Ugandans rather than as members of certain tribes. Nation building includes integration of cultures and peoples and we must move towards that.
Buganda therefore ought to be thinking of how to preserve her culture rather than see nation-building through cultural integration as a threat to her own existence.
In choosing to pursue 'federo' relentlessly, Buganda must be commended for her earnestness and never-give-up attitude. But more importantly, she ought to look again and do a reality check to make sure she is not, under the guise of seeking 'federo', failing to prioritise her needs and in the process, sapping much-needed energies needlessly, losing allies and making even fewer friends.
Buganda leadership should seek alternatives to ‘federo’
GAWAYA TEGULLE
One of those fascinating incidents which Ugandans seem to have decided to forget happened 13years ago. The year was 1993, and the country was gearing up for the restoration of traditional institutions in general.
But of particular import was that the much-longed for and even more-talked-about restoration of the Buganda Kingdom was at hand. Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi was warming up to formally step into the shoes of his father Sir Edward Mutesa II.
But just when it looked like everything was okay, some smart lawyer woke up and moved to seek an injunction against the proceedings. His name was Kenneth Kakuru, very brilliant as a lawyer, but with a penchant for stirring up trouble at just the wrong moments.
Waving the 1967 Republican Constitution, Kakuru argued that the restoration of kingship was unconstitutional.
Realising the impending catastrophe, President Yoweri Museveni simply called an emergency session of the legislature - the National Resistance Council, NRC - which amended the offending constitutional provisions to accommodate the restoration of traditional institutions. On July 31 that year, Ronald Mutebi was crowned King of Buganda.
The move established what has now become a pattern of the Museveni administration: when the President makes up his mind to do something, he will bend every rule to accomplish it - you don't have to coerce or beg him.
This 1993 incident does come to mind largely for purposes of contrast, following the recent sacking of Buganda Katikkiro (Premier) Dan Muliika who was appointed with specific instructions to deliver what, try as she might, Buganda has still failed to achieve: federalism or 'federo'.
Conservative, radical and ruthless, Muliika was a complete contrast of his predecessor Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere who had perfected the art of diplomacy; able to discuss the most unpleasant issues with a smile, rather than the smirk which we have been accustomed to seeing on Muliika's face as he made his case for 'federo'. Apparently Mulwanyamuli's diplomacy was interpreted as weakness and some thought that what the Museveni administration needed was a dose of ruthlessness. The overtures of the two former Katikiros have proved what Buganda ought to know by now: neither diplomacy nor strong-arm tactics will move President Museveni to grant 'federo'.
President Museveni does hold the key to Buganda's 'federo' aspirations. But truth is that as long as he stays in State House, the 'federo' issue will remain a distant dream.
If he had thought it important to give 'federo' to Buganda, he'd have bent or broken every rule in the book to get it done.
But the President clearly recognises that 'federo' would fundamentally undermine the process of nation building. You cannot build a modern nation by dividing it up along tribal lines. Neither would his successors (he is surely lining up those, and the keen eye can in fact identify some of them already) depart from this position.
Evidence suggests that the President holds the view that in modern statecraft, traditional rulers should remain cultural icons, symbols of good conscience, reflections of our social values and aspirations, and instruments of social cohesion, rather than political entities in themselves.
Britain herself has been from time to time debating the relevancy of the royal family, including things like whether or not the Queen should be taxed.
A look at the royalty in Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and the like tells you that the trend worldwide is for monarchs to be as far from politics as possible, just remaining symbols of social norms and aspirations around which the people rally.
As a good politician, all the President is doing is keep Buganda talking, without getting anywhere concrete. That is negotiation at its best.
The big surprise is that Buganda has up to now failed to discern that the Museveni administration really has no intention of granting 'federo'.
It is like endlessly submitting marriage proposals to a woman who is diplomatically and ever so subtly, sending quiet signals that her heart - and mind - are elsewhere.
Even when playing the almost mandatory hard-to-get that ladies love to put up for a while, making a man go round in circles, a lady who will say 'yes' often leaves some clues that all is not lost and that if the man loves her enough to pursue further, he will get her. In this case, the Museveni administration has already spoken its mind unequivocally, but Buganda has not yet discerned the reality.
Part of the problem seems to be that Buganda is not bowing to the winds of change that have engulfed the world and made certain dispositions untenable. Buganda has chosen to resist change, refusing even the slightest modification that would allow them to fit in, and preferring to live in the past.
Even by independence (1962), Buganda wanted to be restored to its pre-colonial position as a kingdom, accorded preferential treatment over other areas, and generally lead life as though the colonialists had never been or independence and statehood had never been granted to the entity we now know as Uganda.
Buganda has painted 'federo' as the magical formula, which, once it arrives, will turn everything right side up, then Buganda will live happily ever after - which is of course not true at all, since people would still have to work hard for development (and in a poor country, some things will always take long to change anyway, federo or no federo).
'Federo' ought to remain a vision; something distant that Buganda yearns and aspires for; not an immediate achievable target that so much time, money and energy should be spent on. Buganda therefore has a choice. Either continue being radical and rigid about getting 'federo' (and get nothing), or adapt (bend) to the winds of change and develop workable alternatives.
For example in Japan, until September 2006 when the Emperor's younger son (Prince Akishino) gave birth to a boy, bringing an end to what had been a succession of girl children born into the royal family, the Japanese had considered amending their Imperial House Law to allow for a female to ascend to the throne.
In fact, if Mengo were prudent, they would at a time like this, appoint a sober consultancy to establish how the kingdom can take advantage of the present circumstances and move forward, see what opportunity lies in the apparent 'difficulty', instead of trying to push an obstacle that has no intention of moving.
The consultants could also draw examples from how traditional institutions in other countries are managing to fit within their societies and how they relate to the broader superstructure called a nation.
Generally, Ugandans need to begin thinking as Ugandans rather than as members of certain tribes. Nation building includes integration of cultures and peoples and we must move towards that.
Buganda therefore ought to be thinking of how to preserve her culture rather than see nation-building through cultural integration as a threat to her own existence.
In choosing to pursue 'federo' relentlessly, Buganda must be commended for her earnestness and never-give-up attitude. But more importantly, she ought to look again and do a reality check to make sure she is not, under the guise of seeking 'federo', failing to prioritise her needs and in the process, sapping much-needed energies needlessly, losing allies and making even fewer friends.
Museveni, Kabaka to meet for fresh talks on federo
ROBERT MWANJE & AL-MAHDI SSENKABIRWA
MENGOPRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has expressed desire to resume Federo negotiations with Buganda Kingdom, Daily Monitor has learnt. He, however, wants to speak directly to Kabaka Ronald Mutebi.
READY: Mutebi
Optimistic: Museveni
Daily Monitor has learnt that Mr Museveni believes direct negotiations with the Kabaka would yield fruit unlike the previous talks central government held with a team from Mengo.
Buganda Kingdom Information Minister Medard Sseggona Lubega in a statement dated February 28 confirmed they had received communication from the government to resume the negotiations.
"The Kingdom has learnt that President Yoweri Museveni has accepted to resume federo negotiations with Buganda. We are grateful to the President for having understood our concerns," read part of the statement.
Also to be discussed is the issues of Buganda Land. Information and National Guidance Minister Kirunda Kivejinja yesterday confirmed the negotiations but was noncommittal on when they would resume.
"This is a declaration of intention indicating that there is no barrier for fresh negotiations between the two parties. But we have not yet fixed the date," he said yesterday.Federo negotiations hit a dead-end in mid 2005 after both parties failed to agree on various issues.
The government reportedly offered the Mengo team a regional tier system of governance instead of the kingdom's much cherished federo. The Buganda Lukiiko (Parliament) unanimously rejected the regional tier system; months after Parliament had passed the proposal. The new regional tier arrangement dictates that the katikkiro of Buganda be elected under adult suffrage contrary to Mengo's tradition of the Kabaka naming his katikkiro.
Electing a katikkiro was not well received by the Baganda. Speaking at a local FM station late last year, the President said he was not happy about Mengo' decision to reject the regional tier.
"I am arranging to meet the Kabaka over federo issues because we discussed these issues with his team at Nakasero. He even sent me clan heads but later the Lukiiko dismissed everything and this annoyed me," Mr Museveni said then.
FedsNet Blogger: Isn't the first citizen in Uganda enticing a cultural leader into politics. Isn't this breaking the law as per Museveni Constitution, 1995? You be the judge!
Revisiting federo debate in Buganda Kingdom
Moses Byaruhanga
Recently the Kabaka made changes at Mengo. When the new team took office, they renewed the fight for federalism which in Buganda is known as federo, and the return of the 9,000 square miles of land.
These two subjects are talked about by Mengo people with a lot of emotion and in some cases not well explained. When one talks of federalism, what does he really mean? Federalism is the sharing of power between various levels of administration, with the federal government at the top, with state or provincial governments below.
In some cases within a state or a province you have lower governments like districts or counties. The leaders at various levels in a federal system are elected by the voters. When the federo issue came up again during the constitutional amendments government took cognisance of the existing power sharing within the country between the central and local governments.
There was general agreement between those who were advancing federo and the central government leaders that the powers at district level should not be tampered with. The issue then was what powers should be given to a level higher than the district. The central government agreed to cede some powers on education, health, intra-district roads etc.
The other subject of concern was how should leadership at the regional level be determined? The government position was that they should be elected. The federo team wanted some leaders appointed by the Kabaka who is constitutionally barred from engaging in politics.
The argument of government was that in a modern world of multiparty politics where leaders at various levels compete on party basis, how do you appoint a leader at a regional government?
The leaders at Mengo who are resurrecting the federo debate should answer these questions. It is pertinent to note how history has shaped other monarchies in the world. In Britain, at one time before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the monarch was absolute. However, with democratic evolution the monarchy in Britain left administration to the elected leaders.
Parties compete and when one party wins elections, the monarch retains a constitutional role of conferring the instruments of power to the Prime Minister. The monarch does not make a choice of who becomes the Prime Minister.
My challenge to Mengo and some of the opposition groups who, for opportunistic reasons, promise federo to Mengo is how do you mix monarchism with democracy today? Monarchs nowadays have only non-partisan roles like that of the Queen in England.
Even here in Uganda with colonialism which gave birth to the 1900 and the 1955 Buganda agreements, the powers of the monarch were greatly reduced to the extent that the Kabaka could no longer appoint any minister, including the Katikiro, without the approval of the colonial administration.
On the 9,000 square miles, at the time of the 1900 agreement, Buganda had approximately 17,000 square miles. Out of this 8,000 square miles were portioned out to 1,000 leaders including the Kabaka who was given 350 square miles.
Imagine the whites being the ones giving the Kabaka land in his own kingdom where prior to the agreement he held all the land in trust. The other 9,000 square miles went to the crown. On both lands there were local people who were tilling. Those who were on the 8,000 square miles became tenants and started paying busulu (a tax) to the new landlords who never bought the said land.
Various legislations since then have put the 9,000 square miles under various controls. When Mengo talks about this land they give the impression that it is lying somewhere being held by the state. To cut a long story short, whoever is in Buganda and is not on malio land in on that land.
All those who have land titles and bibanja outside the mailo land are what the Mengo talks about when it demands the 9,000 square miles. Government has rejected demands for restitution of this land. After all the 1995 constitution gives ownership of land io the citizen dwelling on it.
That which is not occupied or allocated was vested in the district land boards. On the current debate on whether to transform mailo land into freehold system of tenure, my view is that the two are the same and in order to avoid political confusion mailo system of land tenure should be maintained.
The writer is Special Presidential Assistant on Political Affairs.
political@infocom.co.ug
Recently the Kabaka made changes at Mengo. When the new team took office, they renewed the fight for federalism which in Buganda is known as federo, and the return of the 9,000 square miles of land.
These two subjects are talked about by Mengo people with a lot of emotion and in some cases not well explained. When one talks of federalism, what does he really mean? Federalism is the sharing of power between various levels of administration, with the federal government at the top, with state or provincial governments below.
In some cases within a state or a province you have lower governments like districts or counties. The leaders at various levels in a federal system are elected by the voters. When the federo issue came up again during the constitutional amendments government took cognisance of the existing power sharing within the country between the central and local governments.
There was general agreement between those who were advancing federo and the central government leaders that the powers at district level should not be tampered with. The issue then was what powers should be given to a level higher than the district. The central government agreed to cede some powers on education, health, intra-district roads etc.
The other subject of concern was how should leadership at the regional level be determined? The government position was that they should be elected. The federo team wanted some leaders appointed by the Kabaka who is constitutionally barred from engaging in politics.
The argument of government was that in a modern world of multiparty politics where leaders at various levels compete on party basis, how do you appoint a leader at a regional government?
The leaders at Mengo who are resurrecting the federo debate should answer these questions. It is pertinent to note how history has shaped other monarchies in the world. In Britain, at one time before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the monarch was absolute. However, with democratic evolution the monarchy in Britain left administration to the elected leaders.
Parties compete and when one party wins elections, the monarch retains a constitutional role of conferring the instruments of power to the Prime Minister. The monarch does not make a choice of who becomes the Prime Minister.
My challenge to Mengo and some of the opposition groups who, for opportunistic reasons, promise federo to Mengo is how do you mix monarchism with democracy today? Monarchs nowadays have only non-partisan roles like that of the Queen in England.
Even here in Uganda with colonialism which gave birth to the 1900 and the 1955 Buganda agreements, the powers of the monarch were greatly reduced to the extent that the Kabaka could no longer appoint any minister, including the Katikiro, without the approval of the colonial administration.
On the 9,000 square miles, at the time of the 1900 agreement, Buganda had approximately 17,000 square miles. Out of this 8,000 square miles were portioned out to 1,000 leaders including the Kabaka who was given 350 square miles.
Imagine the whites being the ones giving the Kabaka land in his own kingdom where prior to the agreement he held all the land in trust. The other 9,000 square miles went to the crown. On both lands there were local people who were tilling. Those who were on the 8,000 square miles became tenants and started paying busulu (a tax) to the new landlords who never bought the said land.
Various legislations since then have put the 9,000 square miles under various controls. When Mengo talks about this land they give the impression that it is lying somewhere being held by the state. To cut a long story short, whoever is in Buganda and is not on malio land in on that land.
All those who have land titles and bibanja outside the mailo land are what the Mengo talks about when it demands the 9,000 square miles. Government has rejected demands for restitution of this land. After all the 1995 constitution gives ownership of land io the citizen dwelling on it.
That which is not occupied or allocated was vested in the district land boards. On the current debate on whether to transform mailo land into freehold system of tenure, my view is that the two are the same and in order to avoid political confusion mailo system of land tenure should be maintained.
The writer is Special Presidential Assistant on Political Affairs.
political@infocom.co.ug
Tooro PM in for regional tier system
Tooro PM in for regional tier system
JOSEPH MUGISA
KABAROLEThe tier system of governance is good provided it doesn't conflict with the customs of the people, according to the Prime Minister of Tooro kingdom."What we want as a kingdom is peace, development, and unity and if the regional tier will bring this, then I have no problem with it," Mr Stephen Irumba told scribes recently in Fort Portal town.
Mr Irumba, popularly known as Omutima Gw'Ihanga, was briefing journalists about the kingdom's new year plans.
"Our culture should remain uninterrupted by the new system," he said, adding that his fear was that the tier provides for election of a premier under universal adult suffrage instead of the king appointing the chief minister .
"This would mean usurping the powers of the king and rendering him useless," he said.Buganda kingdom has fervently opposed the regional tier in preference to a federal system of governance commonly called federo.
The newly appointed premier said that as soon as he announces a new cabinet, the team would focus on poverty eradication, sensitising the people on the importance of cultural institutions and fighting illiteracy.
The premier said Tooro is facing a financial crisis and needs support from the central government and individuals.
He commended the Bakiga and Bafumbira resident in Tooro for supporting the kingdom financially and materially. Mr Irumba urged local governments in Kamwenge, Kyenjojo and Kabarole which form the kingdom, to consider remitting some funds to the cultural body.
Asked why he had taken long to announce his cabinet, the premier said he was still consulting.
JOSEPH MUGISA
KABAROLEThe tier system of governance is good provided it doesn't conflict with the customs of the people, according to the Prime Minister of Tooro kingdom."What we want as a kingdom is peace, development, and unity and if the regional tier will bring this, then I have no problem with it," Mr Stephen Irumba told scribes recently in Fort Portal town.
Mr Irumba, popularly known as Omutima Gw'Ihanga, was briefing journalists about the kingdom's new year plans.
"Our culture should remain uninterrupted by the new system," he said, adding that his fear was that the tier provides for election of a premier under universal adult suffrage instead of the king appointing the chief minister .
"This would mean usurping the powers of the king and rendering him useless," he said.Buganda kingdom has fervently opposed the regional tier in preference to a federal system of governance commonly called federo.
The newly appointed premier said that as soon as he announces a new cabinet, the team would focus on poverty eradication, sensitising the people on the importance of cultural institutions and fighting illiteracy.
The premier said Tooro is facing a financial crisis and needs support from the central government and individuals.
He commended the Bakiga and Bafumbira resident in Tooro for supporting the kingdom financially and materially. Mr Irumba urged local governments in Kamwenge, Kyenjojo and Kabarole which form the kingdom, to consider remitting some funds to the cultural body.
Asked why he had taken long to announce his cabinet, the premier said he was still consulting.
Buganda won’t give up Federo - Kabaka
By Henry MukasaMonday, 26th February, 2007
ONE PEOPLE: The Kabaka (centre) waves to his subjects before opening the 15th Lukiiko
ONE PEOPLE: The Kabaka (centre) waves to his subjects before opening the 15th Lukiiko
BUGANDA will never waver in its demand for federalism and repossession of her land taken by the central government, Kabaka Ronald Mutebi has declared.
The Kabaka pointed out that the 1962 Constitution gave the kingdom a federal status and returned land that was taken from it by colonialists. However, he added, former president Apollo Obote reversed the gains in 1966. It is then that Obote abolished kingdoms and forced Kabaka Mutesa II into exile.
Mutebi observed that the Baganda clearly demanded federo during the submission for proposals before the making of the 1995 Constitution and during the process of reviewing it under the Ssempebwa Commission.
“Buganda’s stand has not changed. The struggle for federo is enormous. And I am aware it will not be won by one person or a few people. We have to fight on, united as one block,” Mutebi asserted.
In response to the notion that his sacking of the Katikkiro Dan Muliika was due to political interference, Mutebi observed that although political differences were healthy and brought development, they should not divide the people.
He added: “Under the Constitution the kingdom is barred from partisan politics. Indeed we cannot prosper when we are divided. Differences in opinions should not breed hatred.”
On allegations that the kingdom was riddled by corruption, the Kabaka noted that he instituted a royal commission headed by A. Ntate in May 2002 to probe the income and expenditure of Buganda.
He called upon the Lukiiko (Buganda parliament) to debate the findings of that commission. “We shall relentlessly work to streamline accountability at Mengo,” Mutebi vowed.
The king also urged his subjects to work for personal development and observed that since the 1970s, the living standards of the Baganda had been deteriorating due to a slump in cotton prices and destruction of coffee by the coffee wilt disease.
Kabaka Mutebi made the remarks yesterday while opening the 15th session of the Buganda Lukiiko at Bulange, Mengo. His wife, Nabagereka Sylivia Nagginda and other royals attended.
At the same function, three new ministers were introduced. They are Edward Lutaaya Mukomazi (agriculture), Fred Masagazi (education) and Medard Lubega (information).
Baganda are wrong on Muliika, federo
Opinions
Edward Mulindwa
Toronto, CANADA
The exit of Katikkiro Dan Muliika has been a major issue of late. Some Ugandans even demonstrated at Bulange, Mengo, against Mr Muliika's dismissal. Although some Baganda had developed love for Mr Muliika, I wonder whether it was based on an understanding of the man or on ignorance; ignorance of how Buganda runs, and how he or any other Katikkiro comes to and leaves power.
Many have been politically biased over this issue and yet Mengo is not a political entity; it's cultural. While appointing Mr Muliika, Kabaka Ronald Mutebi based his decision on grounds that we are not privy to. And that is what our culture dictates. He has power to hire and fire, without giving reasons.
But what surprised me most was that a man of Mr Muliika's age could challenge the Kabaka to explain why he fired him!
Federalism
But let us look at another issue. Many people have argued that Mr Muliika was fired because he was fighting for federalism. We however need to discuss this issue further because many Baganda and other Ugandans do not seem to understand it.
There are mainly two political systems; unitary and federal. Uganda is currently running on a unitary system. Deciding what system should take centre stage in Uganda is not arrived at from a cultural but rather from a political basis. So, Mengo cannot demand federalism in isolation of other Ugandans.
To federate means that regions in a given country want to live together - and use some assets collectively but exert some control over other assets. For example, Buganda can decide to control its immigration laws but also depend on the national army for its defence.
True federo
Canada, in which I live, is a federal state. However, Quebec [a part of Canada] has [after many years] refused to sign the Canadian Constitution because it is not in its best interest to do so.
When regions of a given country agree on what [assets or services] they will combine and what they cannot combine, they then endorse a final document of understanding, which they try to sell to the central government. The latter then makes a decision based on several other factors -- but many of which are based on "what is in it for it [the central government".
Piece of advice
If Mengo or Buganda wants federalism, then they ought to start the campaign in Lango, Karamoja, Ankole and Kigezi regions, etc. They need to convince others of the need to federate. Then and only then can they come up with a final memoranda of understanding and present it to the central government.
I therefore disagree with folks who claim that Mr Muliika was fighting for Buganda's federalism. With whom were you going to federate? In that federation, what were you going to gain or lose?
The more you look at this issue, the more you realise that Buganda is acting with an "I do not care about any one in Uganda," attitude, which is wrong. And if that is the case, then we are not looking for federo but rather to secede. And if to secede is what we want then let us state so boldly.
mulindwa@look.ca
FedsNet Blogger: Federo is not equivalent to secession as this article struggles to suggest!
http://www.federo.com
Edward Mulindwa
Toronto, CANADA
The exit of Katikkiro Dan Muliika has been a major issue of late. Some Ugandans even demonstrated at Bulange, Mengo, against Mr Muliika's dismissal. Although some Baganda had developed love for Mr Muliika, I wonder whether it was based on an understanding of the man or on ignorance; ignorance of how Buganda runs, and how he or any other Katikkiro comes to and leaves power.
Many have been politically biased over this issue and yet Mengo is not a political entity; it's cultural. While appointing Mr Muliika, Kabaka Ronald Mutebi based his decision on grounds that we are not privy to. And that is what our culture dictates. He has power to hire and fire, without giving reasons.
But what surprised me most was that a man of Mr Muliika's age could challenge the Kabaka to explain why he fired him!
Federalism
But let us look at another issue. Many people have argued that Mr Muliika was fired because he was fighting for federalism. We however need to discuss this issue further because many Baganda and other Ugandans do not seem to understand it.
There are mainly two political systems; unitary and federal. Uganda is currently running on a unitary system. Deciding what system should take centre stage in Uganda is not arrived at from a cultural but rather from a political basis. So, Mengo cannot demand federalism in isolation of other Ugandans.
To federate means that regions in a given country want to live together - and use some assets collectively but exert some control over other assets. For example, Buganda can decide to control its immigration laws but also depend on the national army for its defence.
True federo
Canada, in which I live, is a federal state. However, Quebec [a part of Canada] has [after many years] refused to sign the Canadian Constitution because it is not in its best interest to do so.
When regions of a given country agree on what [assets or services] they will combine and what they cannot combine, they then endorse a final document of understanding, which they try to sell to the central government. The latter then makes a decision based on several other factors -- but many of which are based on "what is in it for it [the central government".
Piece of advice
If Mengo or Buganda wants federalism, then they ought to start the campaign in Lango, Karamoja, Ankole and Kigezi regions, etc. They need to convince others of the need to federate. Then and only then can they come up with a final memoranda of understanding and present it to the central government.
I therefore disagree with folks who claim that Mr Muliika was fighting for Buganda's federalism. With whom were you going to federate? In that federation, what were you going to gain or lose?
The more you look at this issue, the more you realise that Buganda is acting with an "I do not care about any one in Uganda," attitude, which is wrong. And if that is the case, then we are not looking for federo but rather to secede. And if to secede is what we want then let us state so boldly.
mulindwa@look.ca
FedsNet Blogger: Federo is not equivalent to secession as this article struggles to suggest!
http://www.federo.com
The federal system works
February 18 - 24, 2007
SUNDAY COMMENT
Monsignor J. Wynand KatendeLink
With effect from February 2007, the Catholic Archdiocese of Kampala will be governed under a federal system. Different pastoral zones and commissions have been created and entrusted with Episcopal Vicars, who will exercise delegated powers from the Archbishop.
This arrangement will go a long way to realise the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is a call to guarantee a space for both personal and collective responsible participation, at all levels. It endows the people of God to identify local needs and solve them as locally as possible.
A higher organisation must not, therefore, claim for itself the functions which the lower organisation can perform adequately. If, in case of disability, the higher organisation takes over, then the main purpose should be to enable the lower organisation resume its role as soon as possible.
On the other hand, it is equally socially unjust if a lower organisation arrogates to itself functions that can be fulfilled for the common good only by a higher organisation. According to E.F. Schumacher, "the burden of proof lies always on those who want to deprive a lower level of its functions and thereby of its freedom and responsibility. Good governance is always government by exception. Except for exceptional cases, the subsidiary unit must be defended and upheld".
The principle of subsidiarity does not work automatically, however; it calls for a level of maturity that comes with education of people for personal responsibility and co-responsibility. Church and society must work to establish structures that encourage people's readiness and capacity to accept responsibility.
"The legacy of Catholicism's concept of subsdiarity is a loud cry for liberty, freedom of choice, voluntary association, local community and pluralism of custom and manner", comments B.V. Manno (Subsidiarity and Pluralism: A Social Philosophy Perspective).
This goes a long way to realise a self-governing, self-propagating and self-sustaining church. The doctrine of subsidiarity was introduced in the Church by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939). "If the principle of subsidiarity is applied faithfully, there will soon no longer exist a world divided into rulers and the ruled," said Pope John XXIII (1958-1963). The Catholic Church in Uganda is already enjoying success under the four federal metropolitan provinces governed by four archbishops.
As a political entity, Uganda could also offer a good case for federalism, as already agitated by some regions and an arrangement that has already proved viable in the past.
SUNDAY COMMENT
Monsignor J. Wynand KatendeLink
With effect from February 2007, the Catholic Archdiocese of Kampala will be governed under a federal system. Different pastoral zones and commissions have been created and entrusted with Episcopal Vicars, who will exercise delegated powers from the Archbishop.
This arrangement will go a long way to realise the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is a call to guarantee a space for both personal and collective responsible participation, at all levels. It endows the people of God to identify local needs and solve them as locally as possible.
A higher organisation must not, therefore, claim for itself the functions which the lower organisation can perform adequately. If, in case of disability, the higher organisation takes over, then the main purpose should be to enable the lower organisation resume its role as soon as possible.
On the other hand, it is equally socially unjust if a lower organisation arrogates to itself functions that can be fulfilled for the common good only by a higher organisation. According to E.F. Schumacher, "the burden of proof lies always on those who want to deprive a lower level of its functions and thereby of its freedom and responsibility. Good governance is always government by exception. Except for exceptional cases, the subsidiary unit must be defended and upheld".
The principle of subsidiarity does not work automatically, however; it calls for a level of maturity that comes with education of people for personal responsibility and co-responsibility. Church and society must work to establish structures that encourage people's readiness and capacity to accept responsibility.
"The legacy of Catholicism's concept of subsdiarity is a loud cry for liberty, freedom of choice, voluntary association, local community and pluralism of custom and manner", comments B.V. Manno (Subsidiarity and Pluralism: A Social Philosophy Perspective).
This goes a long way to realise a self-governing, self-propagating and self-sustaining church. The doctrine of subsidiarity was introduced in the Church by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939). "If the principle of subsidiarity is applied faithfully, there will soon no longer exist a world divided into rulers and the ruled," said Pope John XXIII (1958-1963). The Catholic Church in Uganda is already enjoying success under the four federal metropolitan provinces governed by four archbishops.
As a political entity, Uganda could also offer a good case for federalism, as already agitated by some regions and an arrangement that has already proved viable in the past.
Federo giving government sleepless nights!
News February 13, 2007
Government plans to oust Mengo team - Kiggundu
JUDE LUGGYA
KAMPALA
MEMBERS of the Buganda Forum, a cultural pressure group, alleged yesterday that they had unearthed a plot by the Central government to oust the Mengo establishment and throw the monarchy into a crisis similar to that of 1966. Buganda Forum champions mainly Buganda’s interests.
The members led by their chairman Sulaiman Kiggundu told journalists in Kampala yesterday that they had learnt that the plot to oust the Mengo team was being pushed by State House.
Dr Kiggundu (right), who is also the national chairman of the opposition FDC, said several meetings had already been held.
The Minister for the Presidency Beatrice Wabudeya, however, dismissed the claims yesterday as a concoction. “All those meetings in State House are just somebody’s imagination. Why should we be concerned about Buganda only. The Batoro, Banyoro etc have kingdoms too,” she said.
Dr Kiggundu said the meetings are largely meant to lay strategy for weakening the Mengo establishment.
He said the meetings that have been held in State House and several other venues have taken place since June last year.
Dr Kiggundu said several central government ministers; their colleagues in the Mengo government, former Mengo ministers, Buganda elders and some employees in various Mengo institutions have attended the clandestine meetings.
He produced a September 28, 2006 correspondence from the Principle Private Secretary to the President Amelia Kyambadde inviting the Vice President Gilbert Bukenya to one of the meetings to discuss the Buganda Lukiiko.
Reads the letter; “This is to inform you that H.E the President will chair a meeting on Friday November 10, 2006 on the above subject [Buganda Lukiiko] at State House Nakasero.”
“By copy of this letter, relevant people have been informed. The protocol officer will communicate the exact time of this appointment through your Principle Private Secretary,” Mrs Kyambadde’s letter reads.
“We have been saddened that it was resolved in these meetings that the Kabaka sacks his Katikkiro Dan Muliika so that a weaker person is appointed to replace Muliika. The preferred person is one who would nod as the Kabaka’s Kingdom is destroyed,” Dr Kiggundu said.
“Mr Muliika is regarded by the Central government as a stumbling block to the regional tier system of government. He [Muliika] has re-energised Buganda’s quest for federo. Even other areas like Acholi have seen the advantages of federo which is giving the government sleepless nights,” he said.
Government plans to oust Mengo team - Kiggundu
JUDE LUGGYA
KAMPALA
MEMBERS of the Buganda Forum, a cultural pressure group, alleged yesterday that they had unearthed a plot by the Central government to oust the Mengo establishment and throw the monarchy into a crisis similar to that of 1966. Buganda Forum champions mainly Buganda’s interests.
The members led by their chairman Sulaiman Kiggundu told journalists in Kampala yesterday that they had learnt that the plot to oust the Mengo team was being pushed by State House.
Dr Kiggundu (right), who is also the national chairman of the opposition FDC, said several meetings had already been held.
The Minister for the Presidency Beatrice Wabudeya, however, dismissed the claims yesterday as a concoction. “All those meetings in State House are just somebody’s imagination. Why should we be concerned about Buganda only. The Batoro, Banyoro etc have kingdoms too,” she said.
Dr Kiggundu said the meetings are largely meant to lay strategy for weakening the Mengo establishment.
He said the meetings that have been held in State House and several other venues have taken place since June last year.
Dr Kiggundu said several central government ministers; their colleagues in the Mengo government, former Mengo ministers, Buganda elders and some employees in various Mengo institutions have attended the clandestine meetings.
He produced a September 28, 2006 correspondence from the Principle Private Secretary to the President Amelia Kyambadde inviting the Vice President Gilbert Bukenya to one of the meetings to discuss the Buganda Lukiiko.
Reads the letter; “This is to inform you that H.E the President will chair a meeting on Friday November 10, 2006 on the above subject [Buganda Lukiiko] at State House Nakasero.”
“By copy of this letter, relevant people have been informed. The protocol officer will communicate the exact time of this appointment through your Principle Private Secretary,” Mrs Kyambadde’s letter reads.
“We have been saddened that it was resolved in these meetings that the Kabaka sacks his Katikkiro Dan Muliika so that a weaker person is appointed to replace Muliika. The preferred person is one who would nod as the Kabaka’s Kingdom is destroyed,” Dr Kiggundu said.
“Mr Muliika is regarded by the Central government as a stumbling block to the regional tier system of government. He [Muliika] has re-energised Buganda’s quest for federo. Even other areas like Acholi have seen the advantages of federo which is giving the government sleepless nights,” he said.
Mengo launches federo campaign
Tuesday, 6th February, 2007
By Luke Kagiri
The Buganda government on Saturday launched a campaign to sensitise the public on good leadership, culture, economic development and the federal system of governance.
The drive was launched at the Ssaza hall in Mityana town by the chairperson of the Buganda youth council, Joseph Kawuki. Present was Mityana South MP Ssozi Kaddu Mukasa.
Kawuki, who is also the commissioner for education in Buganda kingdom, said Kabaka Ronald Mutebi gave the order to sensitise masses on development to the youth.
“We have started from Mityana in Ssingo county, but we shall go to Kyaggwe at Mugulu on Saturday. We expect to cover other counties in the coming weeks,” he said.
He explained that the seminars would address the increasing immorality and help people to preserve their culture.
Kawuki said Buganda would sensitise the public on the federal system of governance first before Uganda goes into the East African Federation.
Speaking at the opening of the first seminar, Mukasa said the federal system of governance was the basis of good leadership.
“It respects the cultures of different societies. It is the only system which can ensure good leadership,” Mukasa explained.
He appealed to the public to avoid discrimination basing on political beliefs.
“Let us unite for development,” he said.
By Luke Kagiri
The Buganda government on Saturday launched a campaign to sensitise the public on good leadership, culture, economic development and the federal system of governance.
The drive was launched at the Ssaza hall in Mityana town by the chairperson of the Buganda youth council, Joseph Kawuki. Present was Mityana South MP Ssozi Kaddu Mukasa.
Kawuki, who is also the commissioner for education in Buganda kingdom, said Kabaka Ronald Mutebi gave the order to sensitise masses on development to the youth.
“We have started from Mityana in Ssingo county, but we shall go to Kyaggwe at Mugulu on Saturday. We expect to cover other counties in the coming weeks,” he said.
He explained that the seminars would address the increasing immorality and help people to preserve their culture.
Kawuki said Buganda would sensitise the public on the federal system of governance first before Uganda goes into the East African Federation.
Speaking at the opening of the first seminar, Mukasa said the federal system of governance was the basis of good leadership.
“It respects the cultures of different societies. It is the only system which can ensure good leadership,” Mukasa explained.
He appealed to the public to avoid discrimination basing on political beliefs.
“Let us unite for development,” he said.
Create four federal states in Uganda
Thursday, 16th November, 2006
I am happy that the people of Acholi have come out to demand the creation of four federal states in Uganda (Daily Monitor, September 30).
This is what the Baganda have all along been demanding. Therefore this is the time for all Ugandans to come out boldly and request President Yoweri Museveni to convene a national conference in March 2007 to discuss and approve the creation of the four federal states. The Acholi are the dominant tribe in northern Uganda.
Both Baganda and Acholi have been instrumental in the politics of Uganda since before independence. Before independence the Acholi had the biggest number of educated people in the north.
They had the biggest number of people in the army, police and prisons. Even the Kabaka’s police at Mengo had a big number of Acholi before 1966. Therefore this group cannot be wished away easily.
I call upon MPs, political party leaders, religious leaders, elders, farmers, traders, women leaders and university communities to approach the President and request him to grant the four federal states.
The federal states should be names as follows: lBuganda, to be under the Kabaka and the Buganda Lukiiko lRwenzori, comprising Bunyoro, Toro, Ankole and Kigezi. lMasaba, comprising Busoga, Bukedi, Teso, Bugisu, Sebei and Karamoja.
Nile, comprising Lango, Acholi and West Nile. The tribal kings in those states will retain their status and traditions. I have suggested geographical names (except in the case of Buganda) because they are neutral and I believe they will be acceptable to the people concerned.
The collection of taxes will by both the state governments and the federal government and shared equally (where possible) between the two entities. An acceptable system of tax collection can be worked out.
The creation of federal states is in line with the “back to the land policy” which we must adopt now in Uganda. Through this policy people will be encouraged, assisted and persuaded to go back to their rural areas and develop those areas.
Some Baganda elders plan to meet the Katikkiro of Buganda and introduce this plan to him. This plan will be the driving force in Buganda to eradicate poverty. This new system will, above all, make the young Baganda know and understand the value of their land. The system of selling land will be reviewed so that the people will be assisted to use t heir land profitably instead of selling.
The “back to land policy” in the case of B uganda will bet to take the young Baganda back to the land for farming on a small scale and large scale.
The Kabaka’s government will be encouraged to establish “Buganda State Farms” and thousands of young Baganda will work and manage those farms.
We have had the unitary system for the last 41 years which Milton Obote introduced in 1966.
Ugandans know that we have spent almost all these years in tribal conflicts. Under the unitary system we had the small tribe ruling a big tribe and in the process the small tribe did everything possible to undermine the big tribe.
The unitary system has completely failed to develop Uganda economically. Under the federal system, the tribes in the west, north, east and Buganda will rule themselves. Parliament will be the unifying factor.
Finally I would like to assure the people of Uganda that the federal system of government is the best for Uganda. I call upon Joseph Kony and his LRA and the people of Acholi to end the war so that we embark on the task of developing our country.
The state governments will be able to acquire loans for economic development from both local banks and foreign sources.
I am happy that the people of Acholi have come out to demand the creation of four federal states in Uganda (Daily Monitor, September 30).
This is what the Baganda have all along been demanding. Therefore this is the time for all Ugandans to come out boldly and request President Yoweri Museveni to convene a national conference in March 2007 to discuss and approve the creation of the four federal states. The Acholi are the dominant tribe in northern Uganda.
Both Baganda and Acholi have been instrumental in the politics of Uganda since before independence. Before independence the Acholi had the biggest number of educated people in the north.
They had the biggest number of people in the army, police and prisons. Even the Kabaka’s police at Mengo had a big number of Acholi before 1966. Therefore this group cannot be wished away easily.
I call upon MPs, political party leaders, religious leaders, elders, farmers, traders, women leaders and university communities to approach the President and request him to grant the four federal states.
The federal states should be names as follows: lBuganda, to be under the Kabaka and the Buganda Lukiiko lRwenzori, comprising Bunyoro, Toro, Ankole and Kigezi. lMasaba, comprising Busoga, Bukedi, Teso, Bugisu, Sebei and Karamoja.
Nile, comprising Lango, Acholi and West Nile. The tribal kings in those states will retain their status and traditions. I have suggested geographical names (except in the case of Buganda) because they are neutral and I believe they will be acceptable to the people concerned.
The collection of taxes will by both the state governments and the federal government and shared equally (where possible) between the two entities. An acceptable system of tax collection can be worked out.
The creation of federal states is in line with the “back to the land policy” which we must adopt now in Uganda. Through this policy people will be encouraged, assisted and persuaded to go back to their rural areas and develop those areas.
Some Baganda elders plan to meet the Katikkiro of Buganda and introduce this plan to him. This plan will be the driving force in Buganda to eradicate poverty. This new system will, above all, make the young Baganda know and understand the value of their land. The system of selling land will be reviewed so that the people will be assisted to use t heir land profitably instead of selling.
The “back to land policy” in the case of B uganda will bet to take the young Baganda back to the land for farming on a small scale and large scale.
The Kabaka’s government will be encouraged to establish “Buganda State Farms” and thousands of young Baganda will work and manage those farms.
We have had the unitary system for the last 41 years which Milton Obote introduced in 1966.
Ugandans know that we have spent almost all these years in tribal conflicts. Under the unitary system we had the small tribe ruling a big tribe and in the process the small tribe did everything possible to undermine the big tribe.
The unitary system has completely failed to develop Uganda economically. Under the federal system, the tribes in the west, north, east and Buganda will rule themselves. Parliament will be the unifying factor.
Finally I would like to assure the people of Uganda that the federal system of government is the best for Uganda. I call upon Joseph Kony and his LRA and the people of Acholi to end the war so that we embark on the task of developing our country.
The state governments will be able to acquire loans for economic development from both local banks and foreign sources.
UPC rows caused the 1966 crisis
Monday, 25th September, 2006
Peter Mulira
A LEARNED FRIEND WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Although the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) has been largely at loggerheads with the central region for the greater part of its 40 six years of existence, its greatest handicap has always been its internal contradictions and intrigues.
The party’s tenure in government has twice been terminated by military coups carried out by once trusted supporters in the army. The 1966 crisis which changed the face of this country was preceded by infights and struggles for power within the party.
To understand the life and times of UPC one has to start with the direct elections to the legislative council (Legco) which were held in 1958 two years before the formation of the party.
Buganda boycotted the elections, much to its disadvantage, as later events proved. Out of the 10 elected members of the legco, five belonged to the Uganda National Congress (UNC) one to DP and the rest registered as independents.
With Buganda absent on the national scene, the 10 representaitves soon saw the opportunity for snatching national leadership from the central province where all the political parties had started and out of this new sentiment, they formed the Uganda People’s Party (UPP) with only Milton Obote of UNC and Oda of DP staying out.
In taking this step, the legislators were greatly aided by Buganda’s obscurantism as well as by the fact that all the leaders of the traditional parties with the exception of DP had been exiled by the British government, an action which rendered their parties moribund. However, UPP’s anti-Buganda’s stance denied it a foothold in the central region where it mattered a lot to have support and due to the efforts of Barbara Saben who was a British member of legco and one of Uganda’s greatest ladies UPP joined with Obote to form UPC with Obote as leader.
At the time of UPC’s birth in April 1960 members of the Asian community were still smarting from the effects of the trade boycott of 1959 and were undecided about their future in the country. Some young Asians who included Gurdial Singh, Waheed Karim, Anil Clark, Shaffique Arain in well-attended meetings which were held in Kampala and Jinja managed to convince their compatriots to identify themselves with the African cause. The Asians decided to throw in their lot and UPC became the beneficiary of their support and financial muscle.
With the Asian problem out of the way, only the Buganda issue remained to be resolved. Obote, the shrewd politician who had been totally opposed to Buganda’s demands, suddenly changed his mind at the London constitutional conference which was held in June 1961 and supported Buganda’s federal status in exchange for Mengo’s agreement to deliver all the 21 Buganda parliamentary seats to UPC due in April 1962.
As expected, UPC won the elections with 56 seats to DP’s 24 but the relationship between UPC and Kabaka Yekka (KY) became contentious soon after independence with KY members claiming that they were being sidelined by the principal party.
Within UPC itself, things were not all that comfortable. The intrigues within the party started even before it formed the first government in April 1962.
Under the constitutional arrangements in force then nine special members of parliament were to be elected by the parliamentary group and Kakonge as secretary general of the party expected to make it to the house through this door but as things turned out he was rigged out whereupon he exiled himself to Tanzania.
Many saw the hand of Grace Ibingira behind Kakonge’s experience. Within three months of independence, UPC found itself preoccupied with problems arising from its alliance with KY. but early in 1963, the party was also beset by the problems caused by its youth wingers who were operating from the party headquarters and had become a law unto themselves.
The youth wingers seemed to be aligned to communists and at one time the secretary for youth in the party, Mr. Opio Nasau, who belonged to a different group claime d that there were ideological schools in Kampala which were trying to capture the youth and workers. The youth problem escalated into the Ibingira-Kakonge factions which split the party down the middle. Initially, Obote and Ibingira appeared to be in the same camp to the extent that Ibingira publicly supported Obote’s call for the establishment of a one-party system.
Kakonge, on his part, was not hiding his enthusiasm for communism, a thing which alarmed many of his colleagues and put his tenure as secretary general of the party under threat. It came as no surprise when Ibingira replaced Kakonge as secretary general in a raucous general meeting which was held in Gulu in May 1965.
In the meantime, the party was making a determined effort to establish itself in the central region and at the regional annual general meeting in August, 1965, Godfrey Binaisa the regional chairman declared openly that the party was ready to capture the government at Mengo.
At the same conference, Ibingira called on members to stop what he called “internal personalism in the party” but when Obote stood up to speak, he said he did not want to discuss what Ibingira said. This indicated that all was not well in the party. By the end of 1965 the country was awash with rumours of a coup until an mP, Daudi Ochieng, dropped a bombshell when he claimed that senior members of government together with a high ranking army officer, Idi Amin, were planning a military coup and accused them of being involved in smuggling of gold from the Congo.
On February 14, 1966 Obote denied Ochieng’s allegations and later on April 17, 1966 he himself announced the setting up of a judicial commission of inquiry to look into the allegations. He also announced that Amin would be dealt with according to the provisions of the Army Act.
With the country already in a state of suspense it came as no surprise when Obote announced, “In the interest of national stability and public security and tranquility, I have today the 22nd day of February, 1966, taken over all powers of Uganda. I shall henceforth be advised by a council of ministers whose names I shall name later.”
Thus the constitution was abrogated and five UPC ministers were detained, including Ibingira. The events preceding the abrogation indicate very clearly that it was not Buganda or federalism which caused the 1966 crisis. Neither can it be claimed that religion had a hand in those events.
The crisis was caused by contradictions and struggles for power within the governing party.
In other words, if Obote had not acted as he did, perhaps another group was ready to do so. It was a case of survival of the fittest.
Peter Mulira
A LEARNED FRIEND WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Although the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) has been largely at loggerheads with the central region for the greater part of its 40 six years of existence, its greatest handicap has always been its internal contradictions and intrigues.
The party’s tenure in government has twice been terminated by military coups carried out by once trusted supporters in the army. The 1966 crisis which changed the face of this country was preceded by infights and struggles for power within the party.
To understand the life and times of UPC one has to start with the direct elections to the legislative council (Legco) which were held in 1958 two years before the formation of the party.
Buganda boycotted the elections, much to its disadvantage, as later events proved. Out of the 10 elected members of the legco, five belonged to the Uganda National Congress (UNC) one to DP and the rest registered as independents.
With Buganda absent on the national scene, the 10 representaitves soon saw the opportunity for snatching national leadership from the central province where all the political parties had started and out of this new sentiment, they formed the Uganda People’s Party (UPP) with only Milton Obote of UNC and Oda of DP staying out.
In taking this step, the legislators were greatly aided by Buganda’s obscurantism as well as by the fact that all the leaders of the traditional parties with the exception of DP had been exiled by the British government, an action which rendered their parties moribund. However, UPP’s anti-Buganda’s stance denied it a foothold in the central region where it mattered a lot to have support and due to the efforts of Barbara Saben who was a British member of legco and one of Uganda’s greatest ladies UPP joined with Obote to form UPC with Obote as leader.
At the time of UPC’s birth in April 1960 members of the Asian community were still smarting from the effects of the trade boycott of 1959 and were undecided about their future in the country. Some young Asians who included Gurdial Singh, Waheed Karim, Anil Clark, Shaffique Arain in well-attended meetings which were held in Kampala and Jinja managed to convince their compatriots to identify themselves with the African cause. The Asians decided to throw in their lot and UPC became the beneficiary of their support and financial muscle.
With the Asian problem out of the way, only the Buganda issue remained to be resolved. Obote, the shrewd politician who had been totally opposed to Buganda’s demands, suddenly changed his mind at the London constitutional conference which was held in June 1961 and supported Buganda’s federal status in exchange for Mengo’s agreement to deliver all the 21 Buganda parliamentary seats to UPC due in April 1962.
As expected, UPC won the elections with 56 seats to DP’s 24 but the relationship between UPC and Kabaka Yekka (KY) became contentious soon after independence with KY members claiming that they were being sidelined by the principal party.
Within UPC itself, things were not all that comfortable. The intrigues within the party started even before it formed the first government in April 1962.
Under the constitutional arrangements in force then nine special members of parliament were to be elected by the parliamentary group and Kakonge as secretary general of the party expected to make it to the house through this door but as things turned out he was rigged out whereupon he exiled himself to Tanzania.
Many saw the hand of Grace Ibingira behind Kakonge’s experience. Within three months of independence, UPC found itself preoccupied with problems arising from its alliance with KY. but early in 1963, the party was also beset by the problems caused by its youth wingers who were operating from the party headquarters and had become a law unto themselves.
The youth wingers seemed to be aligned to communists and at one time the secretary for youth in the party, Mr. Opio Nasau, who belonged to a different group claime d that there were ideological schools in Kampala which were trying to capture the youth and workers. The youth problem escalated into the Ibingira-Kakonge factions which split the party down the middle. Initially, Obote and Ibingira appeared to be in the same camp to the extent that Ibingira publicly supported Obote’s call for the establishment of a one-party system.
Kakonge, on his part, was not hiding his enthusiasm for communism, a thing which alarmed many of his colleagues and put his tenure as secretary general of the party under threat. It came as no surprise when Ibingira replaced Kakonge as secretary general in a raucous general meeting which was held in Gulu in May 1965.
In the meantime, the party was making a determined effort to establish itself in the central region and at the regional annual general meeting in August, 1965, Godfrey Binaisa the regional chairman declared openly that the party was ready to capture the government at Mengo.
At the same conference, Ibingira called on members to stop what he called “internal personalism in the party” but when Obote stood up to speak, he said he did not want to discuss what Ibingira said. This indicated that all was not well in the party. By the end of 1965 the country was awash with rumours of a coup until an mP, Daudi Ochieng, dropped a bombshell when he claimed that senior members of government together with a high ranking army officer, Idi Amin, were planning a military coup and accused them of being involved in smuggling of gold from the Congo.
On February 14, 1966 Obote denied Ochieng’s allegations and later on April 17, 1966 he himself announced the setting up of a judicial commission of inquiry to look into the allegations. He also announced that Amin would be dealt with according to the provisions of the Army Act.
With the country already in a state of suspense it came as no surprise when Obote announced, “In the interest of national stability and public security and tranquility, I have today the 22nd day of February, 1966, taken over all powers of Uganda. I shall henceforth be advised by a council of ministers whose names I shall name later.”
Thus the constitution was abrogated and five UPC ministers were detained, including Ibingira. The events preceding the abrogation indicate very clearly that it was not Buganda or federalism which caused the 1966 crisis. Neither can it be claimed that religion had a hand in those events.
The crisis was caused by contradictions and struggles for power within the governing party.
In other words, if Obote had not acted as he did, perhaps another group was ready to do so. It was a case of survival of the fittest.
Turn regions into federal states
I am responding to Mr Mafabi’s opinion in Sunday Monitor, September 3 titled “The LRA Does Not Speak For Northern And Eastern Uganda”. He talks about the perception of the North-South divide in Uganda. I suggest that each region north, east, west and central be made into a state.
I live in the United States and the way it’s divided up in 50 states is very efficient. Each state has its own laws, its own budget and different economy in a way. Florida is famous for its oranges, and tourism. California is famous for its wine. Some states in the mid west were famous for their car industry although that is changing now due to globalisation. Foreign car companies have set up shops in some other states, but it still creates jobs for people in these other states as foreign cars are being assembled in these states, which in turn contribute to the overall American economy.
In the mid west again some states are famous for their corn, wheat, potatoes etc..., and so it goes on. Since the majority of Ugandans are engaged in farming in one way or another, different regions or states could concentrate on growing different crops based on their soils and climate.
Just this past week I read about the growth of sun flowers being affected in the north. The west has beef, milk, matoke, and now oil recently found in Bunyoro. The central grows crops too, and it’s also the major financial centre since the capital city Kampala is located there. The east again could concentrate on growing crops that do well in the soils and climate there.
If each region became a state concentrating on growing different crops, and also engaging in other specialised economic ventures, it would bring some unity and regional balance in Uganda because all regions will be contributing to Uganda’s economic development.
I believe that if people were able to attain a decent living and feed themselves and their families, all the bickering between the north and south, or any underlying resentment between tribes or ethnic groups in Uganda would be minimal.
The central government would act like the federal government here in the United States. It would provide services that all the regions need like security such as the military and intelligence services, ministries such as those of education, foreign affairs, public works and transportation, health, agriculture etc which already exist.
Regina Lule
United States
I live in the United States and the way it’s divided up in 50 states is very efficient. Each state has its own laws, its own budget and different economy in a way. Florida is famous for its oranges, and tourism. California is famous for its wine. Some states in the mid west were famous for their car industry although that is changing now due to globalisation. Foreign car companies have set up shops in some other states, but it still creates jobs for people in these other states as foreign cars are being assembled in these states, which in turn contribute to the overall American economy.
In the mid west again some states are famous for their corn, wheat, potatoes etc..., and so it goes on. Since the majority of Ugandans are engaged in farming in one way or another, different regions or states could concentrate on growing different crops based on their soils and climate.
Just this past week I read about the growth of sun flowers being affected in the north. The west has beef, milk, matoke, and now oil recently found in Bunyoro. The central grows crops too, and it’s also the major financial centre since the capital city Kampala is located there. The east again could concentrate on growing crops that do well in the soils and climate there.
If each region became a state concentrating on growing different crops, and also engaging in other specialised economic ventures, it would bring some unity and regional balance in Uganda because all regions will be contributing to Uganda’s economic development.
I believe that if people were able to attain a decent living and feed themselves and their families, all the bickering between the north and south, or any underlying resentment between tribes or ethnic groups in Uganda would be minimal.
The central government would act like the federal government here in the United States. It would provide services that all the regions need like security such as the military and intelligence services, ministries such as those of education, foreign affairs, public works and transportation, health, agriculture etc which already exist.
Regina Lule
United States
Does Federo require 2 days of prayers, eh?
Opinions July 24, 2006
Two days of national prayers show the absurdity of African thinking
Matsiko wa Mucoori
It started as a joke, then progressed into a circus and now it has matured into a laughable reality. When honourable members of a national Parliament, who have attained formal education, resort to fatalism to determine the country’s destiny, you know danger is lurking.
When Ruhama County MP and First Lady Ms Janet Museveni made her maiden contribution in Parliament by declaring that she had examined Uganda’s problems with microscopic exactness and discovered that the cure lies in “two days of national prayers, I laughed to breaking point. I was resting in the belief that no person of modern and scientific learning would lend any slightest attention to such.
That evening I and my pals at our local drinking joint, mentioned Janet’s motion in the House. We all burst into explosive laughter and declined to comment on it because we believed it was an obvious joke.
Shock came the following day upon hearing that the MPs had overwhelmingly endorsed that “two days of national prayer” was a critical and logical solution to Uganda’s prevailing problems. By endorsing the motion, the MPs confirmed their firm belief that Janet had discovered such a great cure, which had eluded them for all these years.
So Uganda’s problems; rising poverty, electricity crisis and the dropping of Lake Victoria’s water level, robbers, killers, defilers, drought, corrupt government officials who swindle money meant to buy drugs for the sick, the poor roads, rising HIV infection, will be best addressed by two days of praying!
Did Janet consult God and so did He tell her that He is not satisfied with the regular Friday, Saturday and Sunday prayers Christians and Muslims hold every week? Could it be the reason why God had been reluctant to help Uganda?
This just shows the inside of the brain of a typical Black African. Africans are not guided by scientific thinking. They survive on belief in a supernatural being because they don’t believe that solutions to their problems are within their means or knowledge. That’s why Africa will remain the most backward continent for centuries. We are so stuck in fatalism that we firmly (but falsely) believe we cannot determine our destiny by ourselves. There must be a divine intervention.
That’s why from Cairo in the north, down to Cape Town in the south, no single Black African has made a discovery of world standard.
When HIV/Aids cases were first detected in Uganda in 1980s, most people first called it a curse from God. Others said it was witchcraft. They had resigned to fate until a non-Black African discovered that actually Aids was caused by a virus called HIV.
This warped Black African thinking is what has ruined and continues to ruin Africa and its populace. Otherwise how would a progressive brain in this 21st century suggest that a country’s material problems are curable by mere prayers? That is why in Africa, we can still have a vice president who engages in live sex with an HIV infected woman and after he has enjoyed his fill, he runs to bathe with soap thinking he will not catch the virus.
When other countries were busy engaged in advance tactical and strategic planning on how to win the World Cup in Germany, Togolese were busy soliciting services of a witchdoctor to help them win the world trophy. Though the witchdoctor was denied a visa to travel.
Recently in Niger, the world’s poorest country whose 60 per cent of the population survives on less than one dollar a day, the President Mamadou Tandja, joined national prayers, like Janet’s, to pray for the seasonal rains to come. All people who went to school know what causes rain and definitely prayers are not among the factors. So if Africa is blessed with such leaders, who seek solutions to their countries’ problems from the divine world, not their brains, how will this continent and its people develop?
Resorting to prayers is an indelible admission of desperation. People go for prayers when they have lost all hope of finding any pragmatic redress to their plight. In Uganda, the problems we have are not spiritual and therefore their solutions do not lie in the prayers. We have government officials who have swindled public money. I would have expected Janet to call for tougher penalties to such fraudsters. She would call for their arrest and prosecution and probably say that upon conviction such criminals should be retired without benefits or should be forced to pay back the stolen money. Do such people need prayers or jail?
If we were to engage in marathon prayers to fight crime, wouldn’t we wake up one day to find the country besieged by criminals? But perhaps Janet and her fellow MPs can help me understand this: How will prayers for instance help raise the water level of Lake Victoria and solve our power crisis? How will prayers solve our poverty? How will they repair our roads? How will the prayers solve cattle rustling in Karamoja? This thinking is just embedded in the Black African mind. Africans always want to blame someone for their dilemma and they will find colonialism their easy target even when what colonialists left behind has been wasted or destroyed by the African pseudo-liberators/revolutionaries.
You will attend a conference presided over by professors and other intellectuals purportedly to tackle Africa’s problems. But speaker after speaker, will be blaming colonialists for Africa’s backwardness. Most present day developed nations were also one time colonised. America, the world’s super power today, was colonised by the British until 1783.
So was Japan, Korea, China, Russia, India etc. But how come they have developed and Africa has not? If colonialism was the cause, how come Ethiopia and Liberia which were never colonised are not Africa’s super powers or the world’s developed economies?
The logical question is: For how long shall we lament about colonialism? The colonialists had no obligation to develop Africa. It’s like blaming the Pope for not promoting Islam. If Africans had colonised Europe, they would have done the same.
The author is a journalist
pmatsiko@monitor.co.ug
0772-431939
Two days of national prayers show the absurdity of African thinking
Matsiko wa Mucoori
It started as a joke, then progressed into a circus and now it has matured into a laughable reality. When honourable members of a national Parliament, who have attained formal education, resort to fatalism to determine the country’s destiny, you know danger is lurking.
When Ruhama County MP and First Lady Ms Janet Museveni made her maiden contribution in Parliament by declaring that she had examined Uganda’s problems with microscopic exactness and discovered that the cure lies in “two days of national prayers, I laughed to breaking point. I was resting in the belief that no person of modern and scientific learning would lend any slightest attention to such.
That evening I and my pals at our local drinking joint, mentioned Janet’s motion in the House. We all burst into explosive laughter and declined to comment on it because we believed it was an obvious joke.
Shock came the following day upon hearing that the MPs had overwhelmingly endorsed that “two days of national prayer” was a critical and logical solution to Uganda’s prevailing problems. By endorsing the motion, the MPs confirmed their firm belief that Janet had discovered such a great cure, which had eluded them for all these years.
So Uganda’s problems; rising poverty, electricity crisis and the dropping of Lake Victoria’s water level, robbers, killers, defilers, drought, corrupt government officials who swindle money meant to buy drugs for the sick, the poor roads, rising HIV infection, will be best addressed by two days of praying!
Did Janet consult God and so did He tell her that He is not satisfied with the regular Friday, Saturday and Sunday prayers Christians and Muslims hold every week? Could it be the reason why God had been reluctant to help Uganda?
This just shows the inside of the brain of a typical Black African. Africans are not guided by scientific thinking. They survive on belief in a supernatural being because they don’t believe that solutions to their problems are within their means or knowledge. That’s why Africa will remain the most backward continent for centuries. We are so stuck in fatalism that we firmly (but falsely) believe we cannot determine our destiny by ourselves. There must be a divine intervention.
That’s why from Cairo in the north, down to Cape Town in the south, no single Black African has made a discovery of world standard.
When HIV/Aids cases were first detected in Uganda in 1980s, most people first called it a curse from God. Others said it was witchcraft. They had resigned to fate until a non-Black African discovered that actually Aids was caused by a virus called HIV.
This warped Black African thinking is what has ruined and continues to ruin Africa and its populace. Otherwise how would a progressive brain in this 21st century suggest that a country’s material problems are curable by mere prayers? That is why in Africa, we can still have a vice president who engages in live sex with an HIV infected woman and after he has enjoyed his fill, he runs to bathe with soap thinking he will not catch the virus.
When other countries were busy engaged in advance tactical and strategic planning on how to win the World Cup in Germany, Togolese were busy soliciting services of a witchdoctor to help them win the world trophy. Though the witchdoctor was denied a visa to travel.
Recently in Niger, the world’s poorest country whose 60 per cent of the population survives on less than one dollar a day, the President Mamadou Tandja, joined national prayers, like Janet’s, to pray for the seasonal rains to come. All people who went to school know what causes rain and definitely prayers are not among the factors. So if Africa is blessed with such leaders, who seek solutions to their countries’ problems from the divine world, not their brains, how will this continent and its people develop?
Resorting to prayers is an indelible admission of desperation. People go for prayers when they have lost all hope of finding any pragmatic redress to their plight. In Uganda, the problems we have are not spiritual and therefore their solutions do not lie in the prayers. We have government officials who have swindled public money. I would have expected Janet to call for tougher penalties to such fraudsters. She would call for their arrest and prosecution and probably say that upon conviction such criminals should be retired without benefits or should be forced to pay back the stolen money. Do such people need prayers or jail?
If we were to engage in marathon prayers to fight crime, wouldn’t we wake up one day to find the country besieged by criminals? But perhaps Janet and her fellow MPs can help me understand this: How will prayers for instance help raise the water level of Lake Victoria and solve our power crisis? How will prayers solve our poverty? How will they repair our roads? How will the prayers solve cattle rustling in Karamoja? This thinking is just embedded in the Black African mind. Africans always want to blame someone for their dilemma and they will find colonialism their easy target even when what colonialists left behind has been wasted or destroyed by the African pseudo-liberators/revolutionaries.
You will attend a conference presided over by professors and other intellectuals purportedly to tackle Africa’s problems. But speaker after speaker, will be blaming colonialists for Africa’s backwardness. Most present day developed nations were also one time colonised. America, the world’s super power today, was colonised by the British until 1783.
So was Japan, Korea, China, Russia, India etc. But how come they have developed and Africa has not? If colonialism was the cause, how come Ethiopia and Liberia which were never colonised are not Africa’s super powers or the world’s developed economies?
The logical question is: For how long shall we lament about colonialism? The colonialists had no obligation to develop Africa. It’s like blaming the Pope for not promoting Islam. If Africans had colonised Europe, they would have done the same.
The author is a journalist
pmatsiko@monitor.co.ug
0772-431939
Kony wants federo
By Henry Mukasa
THE Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has demanded federalism and self determination for the north and east as a solution to political marginalisation. The rebel group, at the ongoing talks in Juba, Southern Sudan, came short to calling for secession.
The LRA yesterday demanded in its position paper on “Participation in National Politics and Institutions; Economic and Social Development of Northern and Eastern Uganda” that the Uganda Constitution be amended to provide for federal states. “Since we are ‘primitive’, ‘backward’ and ‘uncivilised’, and nobody within the present political dispensation wants to civilise us, we opt for self determination so that we are free to civilise ourselves and develop our own institutions within our capabilities in partnership with any nations of the world,” the LRA stated.
Led by Joseph Kony, the LRA which has been fighting to establish a government run on the basis of the Biblical commandments seems to have abandoned the spiritual path and is making real political demands. Kony claims to operate on the directives of the ‘Holy Spirit’. Last year, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Kony and four of his commanders for crimes against humanity. This is the second statement the LRA is issuing attacking the Government since the talks opened on July 5.
However, the Government delegation has said it will not be diverted from the talks by unfounded allegations. “Since the Government seems to be so unapologetic about its bad politics of marginalisation of the north and the east, LRA’s demand in respect of participation in our national politics and institutions is an overhaul of the Constitution to provide for, among others, federalism,” the rebel group stated in its paper.
Every federal state, they said, may cultivate its best energies and synergies for its own development. They argued that the states would exploit resources within their boundaries for the good of its people first, and only contribute to the central government as a secondary beneficiary. They said donors shall deal directly with the federal states “to avoid dissipation of funds by corrupt central government officials covered by State immunity”.
The rebels also demanded the re-introduction of presidential term limits lifted by Parliament during the amendment of the Constitution last year. They said they wanted a political dispensation that guarantees the unity and stability of the country through fair sharing of the national cake.
“The north and the east should not be politically persecuted and marginalised for any perceived wrong committed by any past regime. We demand a proportionate power sharing arrangement that takes care of regional and population balance of the country,” they said. Each delegation is supposed to present a stand on participation in national politics and tackle matters to do with political marginalisation, imbalance in participation in national institutions, inequitable and unbalanced economic development and disparity in the provision of social infrastructure. Sources say that while presenting the LRA paper at a closed meeting at Juba Raha Hotel, Obonyo Olweny, the spokesman for the LRA team, told chief mediator Dr. Riek Machar, the Southern Sudan Vice President, that his team was concerned that the Government team seemed not to have “mandate to negotiate with us but to demand terms of surrender”. He reportedly added, “Nevertheless we wish to reaffirm our firm commitment and that of our principals, to quick, expeditious but fair and just resolutions of the causes of the conflict.”
The LRA maintained its claims that Nilotics were being persecuted, adding that even with his military dictatorship, Idi Amin never pursued such a deliberate policy to keep the country divided “as it is today in Uganda”. “It is regrettable that, upon assumption of state power, the NRM embarked on a deliberate policy to divide the country, firstly between the Bantu and the Nilotics; and secondly to ethnic group and lineage kinship and marriage relationships,” the LRA said. The rebels said a cursory look at appointments in all government statutory authorities and commissions, parastatals and departments pointed to favouritism. The LRA also bashed the Government for what they called “rampant corruption and abuse of office” that “has no comparison in the history of post-Independence Uganda.” They pointed a finger at the agreement for the exploration and production of the recently discovered oil deposit on the shores of Lake Albert as one that “smacks of the usual outrage Ugandans are now accustomed to”.
“Can you countenance the fact that the nation shall only end up getting less than 26% of this natural resource? Considering that nearly all the people involved in the negotiation of the deal are from one region of the country, it is irresistible to hazard the suggestion of a possibility of foul play somewhere,” they stated. “If the world does not intervene and come to our aid, catastrophe looms over the north and the east of the country. The Government should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of insecurity,” the rebels said, inviting the UN and other humanitarian agencies to investigate “all the allegations of persecution of genocidal proportions.”
Meanwhile the Government delegation, which is led by Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, has decided it will not be responding to LRA statements in the media any more, because they are diversionary. Capt. Paddy Ankunda, the delegation’s spokesman, said this will not change unless it is found that a response is absolutely necessary and in the spirit of the talks.
“These statements from their face value seem to be meant to make us lose focus from tackling more meaningful issues that pertain to the success of the peace talks. We will not engage in this ping pong,” Ankunda said. He advised the LRA team to grab the chance to negotiate for a soft landing. He said the LRA attacks and sentimental allegations with no requests for reconciliation were not in the spirit of peace talks. Ankunda noted that the LRA delegation was attempting to articulate some semblance of a political agenda for LRA and give it a political face.
“One wonders why nothing has so far been mention about Kony’s agenda of wanting to rule Uganda using the ten commandments,” he observed He was, however, optimistic that the talks would succeed.
“There is more hope today than ever before that peace for northern Uganda and Southern Sudan is just around the corner,” he said. Ends
Published on: Saturday, 22nd July, 2006
THE Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has demanded federalism and self determination for the north and east as a solution to political marginalisation. The rebel group, at the ongoing talks in Juba, Southern Sudan, came short to calling for secession.
The LRA yesterday demanded in its position paper on “Participation in National Politics and Institutions; Economic and Social Development of Northern and Eastern Uganda” that the Uganda Constitution be amended to provide for federal states. “Since we are ‘primitive’, ‘backward’ and ‘uncivilised’, and nobody within the present political dispensation wants to civilise us, we opt for self determination so that we are free to civilise ourselves and develop our own institutions within our capabilities in partnership with any nations of the world,” the LRA stated.
Led by Joseph Kony, the LRA which has been fighting to establish a government run on the basis of the Biblical commandments seems to have abandoned the spiritual path and is making real political demands. Kony claims to operate on the directives of the ‘Holy Spirit’. Last year, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Kony and four of his commanders for crimes against humanity. This is the second statement the LRA is issuing attacking the Government since the talks opened on July 5.
However, the Government delegation has said it will not be diverted from the talks by unfounded allegations. “Since the Government seems to be so unapologetic about its bad politics of marginalisation of the north and the east, LRA’s demand in respect of participation in our national politics and institutions is an overhaul of the Constitution to provide for, among others, federalism,” the rebel group stated in its paper.
Every federal state, they said, may cultivate its best energies and synergies for its own development. They argued that the states would exploit resources within their boundaries for the good of its people first, and only contribute to the central government as a secondary beneficiary. They said donors shall deal directly with the federal states “to avoid dissipation of funds by corrupt central government officials covered by State immunity”.
The rebels also demanded the re-introduction of presidential term limits lifted by Parliament during the amendment of the Constitution last year. They said they wanted a political dispensation that guarantees the unity and stability of the country through fair sharing of the national cake.
“The north and the east should not be politically persecuted and marginalised for any perceived wrong committed by any past regime. We demand a proportionate power sharing arrangement that takes care of regional and population balance of the country,” they said. Each delegation is supposed to present a stand on participation in national politics and tackle matters to do with political marginalisation, imbalance in participation in national institutions, inequitable and unbalanced economic development and disparity in the provision of social infrastructure. Sources say that while presenting the LRA paper at a closed meeting at Juba Raha Hotel, Obonyo Olweny, the spokesman for the LRA team, told chief mediator Dr. Riek Machar, the Southern Sudan Vice President, that his team was concerned that the Government team seemed not to have “mandate to negotiate with us but to demand terms of surrender”. He reportedly added, “Nevertheless we wish to reaffirm our firm commitment and that of our principals, to quick, expeditious but fair and just resolutions of the causes of the conflict.”
The LRA maintained its claims that Nilotics were being persecuted, adding that even with his military dictatorship, Idi Amin never pursued such a deliberate policy to keep the country divided “as it is today in Uganda”. “It is regrettable that, upon assumption of state power, the NRM embarked on a deliberate policy to divide the country, firstly between the Bantu and the Nilotics; and secondly to ethnic group and lineage kinship and marriage relationships,” the LRA said. The rebels said a cursory look at appointments in all government statutory authorities and commissions, parastatals and departments pointed to favouritism. The LRA also bashed the Government for what they called “rampant corruption and abuse of office” that “has no comparison in the history of post-Independence Uganda.” They pointed a finger at the agreement for the exploration and production of the recently discovered oil deposit on the shores of Lake Albert as one that “smacks of the usual outrage Ugandans are now accustomed to”.
“Can you countenance the fact that the nation shall only end up getting less than 26% of this natural resource? Considering that nearly all the people involved in the negotiation of the deal are from one region of the country, it is irresistible to hazard the suggestion of a possibility of foul play somewhere,” they stated. “If the world does not intervene and come to our aid, catastrophe looms over the north and the east of the country. The Government should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of insecurity,” the rebels said, inviting the UN and other humanitarian agencies to investigate “all the allegations of persecution of genocidal proportions.”
Meanwhile the Government delegation, which is led by Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, has decided it will not be responding to LRA statements in the media any more, because they are diversionary. Capt. Paddy Ankunda, the delegation’s spokesman, said this will not change unless it is found that a response is absolutely necessary and in the spirit of the talks.
“These statements from their face value seem to be meant to make us lose focus from tackling more meaningful issues that pertain to the success of the peace talks. We will not engage in this ping pong,” Ankunda said. He advised the LRA team to grab the chance to negotiate for a soft landing. He said the LRA attacks and sentimental allegations with no requests for reconciliation were not in the spirit of peace talks. Ankunda noted that the LRA delegation was attempting to articulate some semblance of a political agenda for LRA and give it a political face.
“One wonders why nothing has so far been mention about Kony’s agenda of wanting to rule Uganda using the ten commandments,” he observed He was, however, optimistic that the talks would succeed.
“There is more hope today than ever before that peace for northern Uganda and Southern Sudan is just around the corner,” he said. Ends
Published on: Saturday, 22nd July, 2006
Govt should adopt federo system
Ugandans need to identify the root cause of our country's problems and do something about it.
The unitary system has failed Ugandans and the majority of the problems are caused by lack of strong regional governments.
As long as the power is in the hands of a chosen few in Kampala, then corruption, security, poverty, ethnic tensions, wars will never go away. They're a result of the unitary system.
We need to recognise the necessity to abandon the current unitary model of governance. We should be debating federo and how to implement it. All past and present experiments with other governance structures have not been able to deal successfully and satisfactorily with the problems of a complex multi-ethnic society.
Writing the constitution when Museveni was President and amending it while he was still President, giving him more bisanja and enabling him to rule for life, clearly points to what's wrong with the current system. With multi parties, one party or no parties, Uganda is bound to remain the same, a country full of power struggles, corruption and poverty.
It's time to be candid, face the reality, and find a lasting solution which is an all-inclusive federo system of governance for Uganda.
FN Lugemwa
Kampala
The unitary system has failed Ugandans and the majority of the problems are caused by lack of strong regional governments.
As long as the power is in the hands of a chosen few in Kampala, then corruption, security, poverty, ethnic tensions, wars will never go away. They're a result of the unitary system.
We need to recognise the necessity to abandon the current unitary model of governance. We should be debating federo and how to implement it. All past and present experiments with other governance structures have not been able to deal successfully and satisfactorily with the problems of a complex multi-ethnic society.
Writing the constitution when Museveni was President and amending it while he was still President, giving him more bisanja and enabling him to rule for life, clearly points to what's wrong with the current system. With multi parties, one party or no parties, Uganda is bound to remain the same, a country full of power struggles, corruption and poverty.
It's time to be candid, face the reality, and find a lasting solution which is an all-inclusive federo system of governance for Uganda.
FN Lugemwa
Kampala
Katikkiro of Bunyoro supports regional tier
News July 14, 2006
Ausi Balyesiima
Hoima
THE Katikkiro of Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom, Mr Erisa Byenkya Kagoro, has said political leaders who are against the regional tier system of governance are enemies of Bunyoro. “Bunyoro has unique problems compared to other regions in the country and a regional government is the only voice to help Bunyoro if development is to be attained,” he said.
Byenkya was addressing residents at Masindi Boma Grounds during celebrations to congratulate Ms Kabakumba Matsiko upon winning Bunjeje County parliamentary polls in February.
The celebrations were presided over by the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Henry Kajura.Kajura, who is also the Minister of Public Service, appealed to leaders in the area to mobilise the population into working hard to fight poverty.
Kabakumba thanked the people for their prayers which led to her appointment as the government chief whip. She promised to work with every body to develop the country.
Ausi Balyesiima
Hoima
THE Katikkiro of Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom, Mr Erisa Byenkya Kagoro, has said political leaders who are against the regional tier system of governance are enemies of Bunyoro. “Bunyoro has unique problems compared to other regions in the country and a regional government is the only voice to help Bunyoro if development is to be attained,” he said.
Byenkya was addressing residents at Masindi Boma Grounds during celebrations to congratulate Ms Kabakumba Matsiko upon winning Bunjeje County parliamentary polls in February.
The celebrations were presided over by the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Henry Kajura.Kajura, who is also the Minister of Public Service, appealed to leaders in the area to mobilise the population into working hard to fight poverty.
Kabakumba thanked the people for their prayers which led to her appointment as the government chief whip. She promised to work with every body to develop the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
