January 2014
Vol. 16, No. 1
Ugandan Cultural Revival
2. The kingdoms: Buganda vs. Uganda
By Rebecca Salonen
The Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and
Properties) Statute of 1993 was a surprise. Yoweri
Museveni had negotiated it in a closed meeting with
NRM leaders, most of whom were strongly antimonarchist; then he persuaded Parliament to pass it. 1
But the Humpty-Dumpty task of restoring the
kingdoms set in motion new national troubles.
Monarchy restored. After 20 years of exile in
Britain and a Cambridge education, Ronald
Muwenda Mutebi II was crowned the 36th Kabaka
of Buganda on July 31, 1993, in ceremonies
attended by President Yoweri Museveni, African
kings, and millions of people. Thousands of ordinary
Baganda had been involved in the work of more than
200 coronation committees.
Not far behind the scenes lay significant political
maneuvering. Shortly before Independence political
parties were formed in Uganda, but they represented
ethnic and religious factions, whose rivalries
eventually tore the country apart.2 When the
National Resistance Movement took over the
country in 1986, it instituted a “no-party” regime,
with hopes of developing grassroots democracy,
down to the village level, that would transcend
ethnic and religious rivalries.3
In 1988, the NRM had put in place preparations
for a Constituent Assembly to draft a new
constitution. The NRM needed enough votes in the
Assembly to extend the no-party state for a few
more years and approached Buganda’s leaders, who
represented the country’s largest voting bloc. In
return, the NRM would authorize the coronation of
1
Mikael Karlström, “The Cultural Kingdom in Uganda: Popular
Royalism and the Restoration of the Buganda Kingship,”
University of Chicago Ph.D. dissertation, June 1999. See p. 235
footnote.
2
For example, the KY, or Kabaka Alone, party included only
Baganda. The UPC was a Protestant coalition, considered antiBuganda, and the smaller DP comprised Catholics.
3
See the extensive discussion in Aili Mari Tripp, “The Politics of
Constitution making in Uganda,” Endowment of the U.S. Institute
of Peace,
the Kabaka, arguing that cultural but not political
restoration of the monarchy was possible under the
1967 constitution, still in force, that had abolished
kingdoms as political entities. The NRM pledged
that it would also restore Buganda’s autonomy in
exchange for its support of the Movement system in
the Assembly; but later, when Buganda’s votes were
no longer essential, the NRM argued for its own
decentralized unitary system instead.4 Baganda
royalists felt betrayed, and their bitterness and
opposition to the Museveni government grew.
Federo and ebyaffe. Thus, restoration of the
Buganda kingship did not include restoration of
autonomy (known as federo, federalism) or fiscal
power. The Kabaka, whose duties include many
levels of patronage as well as protecting the dignity
of his office, was reduced to financing the kingdom
through renting out his buildings and selling
certificates to supporters. Tensions between
Buganda and the Republic of Uganda remain one of
the most salient features of Ugandan politics.
Neither side is conciliatory; each provokes the other.
Buganda’s leaders have supported opposition
candidates in the last two presidential elections.
Far from endorsing federo, President Museveni
has encouraged parts of Buganda to break away
from the kingdom, resulting in 2009 in riots that
claimed the lives of more than 30 people. In 2004,
and again in 2009, the President proposed to resolve
the federo impasse by creating regional “tiers,” in a
semi-federal system embracing the present
decentralized districts. Buganda would have been
one of the regional centers, but the restored Lukiiko
rejected the proposal, as it would have limited the
monarchy’s power to tax, control its land, and select
leaders. 5 Nevertheless, Parliament approved the
4
Cathrine Johannessen, Chr. Michelsen Institute, Norway,
“Kingship in Uganda: The Role of the Buganda Kingdom in
Ugandan Politics,” October 2005.
5
Following Buganda’s lead, the areas with traditional power
centers – Bunyoro, Toro, Busoga, Lango, and Teso, for example
GODPARENTS NEWS, JANUARY 2014
PAGE 1
1
Godparents Association, Inc.
•
409 Waldemere Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604-5633
•
www.godparents.net
regional tier system, likely to be implemented in the
future as decentralization grows. Critics consider the
measure part of “an open battle with Buganda,” and,
disturbingly, “a replica of the build-up to the 1966
crisis” between Buganda and Milton Obote.6
A second acrimonious dispute concerns ebyaffe
(“our things”), the return of kingdom properties
confiscated or occupied by the central government.
In 1993, kingdom buildings like the Kabaka’s palace
and the seat of the Lukiiko were returned, but much
more property, such as sites of county offices and
police stations, remained “occupied” by the
Ugandan government.
When President Museveni appeared at the 20th
anniversary celebration of the Kabaka’s coronation,
in August 2013, a half-million Baganda erupted in
jeers and cries of “Thief!” The crowd could not
know that, only the day before, the President and the
Kabaka had secretly signed a memorandum of
understanding that satisfied most of their ebyaffe
claims. Although the MOU was not made public,
Uganda reportedly agreed to return 18 county and
192 sub-county headquarters with many acres of
surrounding land, traditional gardens, and Buganda
markets. Compensation was to be paid for a
Kampala commercial center built on kingdom land
and the Mutesa House in London, which had been
sold by President Milton Obote. The government
also agreed to pay back rent, court costs, and profits
accrued from use of Kiganda assets.
Blood feud. Two years earlier, on March 16,
2010, in Kampala, fire destroyed the Kasubi tombs,
the burial place of the Kabakas. An impressive
grass-thatched structure built in 1882, Kasubi is a
UNESCO World Heritage site where Baganda
guides enforce court etiquette on visitors. Some
artifacts were destroyed in the fire, but the remains
of Kabakas Mutesa I, Mwanga II, Daudi Chwa II,
and Sir Edward Muteesa, repatriated from exile,
were saved.
Many Baganda gathered to put out the fire; they
stoned the fire engines as intruders. Giving vent to
their anti-government sentiments, the rock-throwing
crowd forced the President to withdraw when he
arrived to inspect the site, and several people were
killed. An observer said the events had “turned a
– were also demanding federo for themselves. Most of them were
amenable to the regional tier idea, however.
6
International Crisis Group, “Uganda: No Resolution to Growing
Tensions,” April 5, 2012, p 17.
cold war into a blood feud,” for the moment at least,
between Buganda and the Ugandan government.7
Baganda blamed the government for what was likely
an accidental fire, but its cause will probably never
be known.
“Foreign occupation.” In the 1900 agreement
with the British, large tracts of Buganda territory
were given to 3,700 clan leaders and others who had
served as agents for the British. The land was
awarded in perpetuity, registered, and made buyable
and salable under title.8 By the 1920s, immigrants in
significant numbers were being sought as workers
on Baganda commercial farms. In 1959, immigrants
were 42 percent of Buganda’s African population,
and 75 percent of them worked for Baganda, not for
Europeans.9 Following the example of Baganda
commoners, these immigrants also bought land and
aspired to status and political power.
In Dallas, on August 31, 2013, the Ugandan
North America Association opened its annual threeday conference, attended by top officials from
Uganda and hundreds of expatriates in the U.S. At
the same moment, a breakaway Baganda group,
Ttabamiruka, held a separate conference in New
Jersey, with the theme “Is Buganda under
Occupation?” The foregone answer from attendees
was yes. Not only was Buganda land occupied by
the central government (Kampala, the capital, is in
Buganda), but because of the presence and power of
wealthy non-Baganda landowners, it was said, only
in Buganda could “foreigners” be elected MPs.
The organizers refused to allow Ugandan
government officials to attend. Buganda officials in
turn boycotted the meeting, and the Kabaka sent
orders that the conference was not to attack the
Ugandan government. His information minister said,
“The people in the Diaspora are not advised on what
is going on here, they have been more
confrontational to the central government and this
must stop.” Since the signing of the MOU and the
return of ebyaffe property, he said, the kingdom had
“embraced another chapter.” !
7
Interview with senior Buganda Kingdom official, 21 May, 2010,
”Uganda: No Resolution.” The Kasubi site will be rebuilt for an
estimated $3.7 million, provided by UNESCO, the Ugandan
government, Buganda, and the public.
8
The system made landowners secure. Elsewhere in Uganda,
where unregistered land is held under customary tenure, people
may secure land based on culturally determined local rules in
force. Typically such land may not be bought or sold.
9
See Karlström, “The Cultural Kingdom in Uganda.”
GODPARENTS NEWS, JANUARY 2014
PAGE 2
2
Godparents Association, Inc.
•
409 Waldemere Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604-5633
•
www.godparents.net
News and Information
UK FGM: Child Abuse
The Guardian of November 3, 2013, reported on
“Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in the UK:
Intercollegiate Recommendations for Identifying,
Recording and Reporting,” a document that was
presented in the House of Commons the next day by
the Royal Colleges of Midwifery, nursing, and
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Unite union;
and Equality Now, with various authors. A foreword
to the report was written by Keir Starmer, former
director of public prosecutions in the UK, who said
in a Guardian interview that it was “only a matter of
time before prosecutions for FGM took place.” Janet
Fyle, a policy adviser of the Royal College of
Midwives, noted that it was just as important for
health authorities to report incidences of FGM to the
police as it was for them to report child abuse.
According to the report, no prosecutions related
to FGM have occurred in the UK, though an
estimated 66,000 women in England and Wales have
undergone it, and at least 24,000 girls under 15 are
considered at risk of being cut. Such girls should be
treated by health professionals as if they were at risk
for child abuse, according to the recommendations.
Sarian Karim, a south London community worker
who was circumcised in Sierra Leone at age 11,
before immigrating to the UK, said, “FGM is a
normal thing for us. We don’t know it is against the
law, but I know that it damages girls and leaves
them scarred for life – mentally and physically. It is
very important that everyone knows that FGM is
illegal [in the UK].”
The UK Act on the Prohibition of Female
Circumcision (1985) did not give rise to any
prosecutions at all but did lead to the sanctioning of
three doctors who had committed “serious
professional misconduct” related to FGM. The FGM
Act of 2003 (and the 2005 Act in Scotland) replaced
the 1985 law and extended the offense to include
anyone who facilitates FGM on UK residents
overseas. The law makes female genital mutilation a
crime, and women who have been circumcised are
considered victims entitled to redress, regardless of
where they were cut, if they resided in the UK after
March 2004 (when the law was enacted).
While FGM is a form of child abuse and an act of
violence against women, health professionals appear
to consider FGM-related reporting as only an
optional duty. “Tackling Female Genital Mutilation
in the UK,” attributes the sparse reporting of
incidents to professional lack of awareness of FGM,
concerns that health workers may risk offending
people in the communities they serve, worries that
referrals of at-risk girls would overwhelm social
services, lack of good monitoring and surveillance
systems, and lack of accountability. The report
recommends, among other measures, more rigorous
application of guidance already available for
frontline professionals and coordination between
national and local agencies.
Activist Leyla Hussein claims that Britain is
known in Europe as a “soft touch” and that girls are
being brought to the UK to be cut to avoid strictures
elsewhere. (In France, for example, more than 100
case have been prosecuted.) Hussein wrote in The
Guardian on November 5 that while filming a
documentary for British television she “took to the
streets asking people to sign a petition in favour of
FGM.” She was shocked when she got 19 signatures
in less than half an hour, apparently from those who
did not want to criticize cultural practices. She
pointed out that the multi-agency guidelines
regarding FGM are not statutory, and she urges the
Home Office to enforce “a national strategy and
action plan to eliminate FGM in the UK.”
BBC News in Scotland wrote online on
November 15 that Scotland is also seen as a “soft
touch” and that European families travel there to
have their daughters cut. Besides lack of fear of the
law, a reason is expense: An Edinburgh activist said,
“Because it’s getting expensive to take a daughter
back home and circumcise or mutilate them, women
are putting together money and bringing over
someone who can cut the girls” in Scotland.
Gill Imery, detective superintendent of Police
Scotland, said that every girl born in Scotland to a
woman who has undergone FGM should be
considered a child protection case. “[FGM] most
definitely is a form of child abuse and would be
investigated as such,” she said. The government
estimates that 2,403 girls were born in Scotland to
mothers from FGM-practicing countries between
1997 and 2011, but the police have not received
even one FGM-related referral from health
practitioners. About 10 at-risk cases have been
referred to local social workers, according to BBC
inquiries. !
GODPARENTS NEWS, JANUARY 2014
PAGE 3
3
Godparents Association, Inc.
•
409 Waldemere Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604-5633
•
www.godparents.net
T H E G O D P A R E N T S A S S O C I A T I O N is an independent, non-sectarian, 501(c)(3)
organization whose mission is to nurture and support the education of young people at risk, particularly young women
subject to FGM and others deprived of education because they are orphans, physically handicapped, traumatized by war, or
marginalized by poverty. Girls who choose to resist FGM will need the life options education can provide. If they remain
dependent in village life, they will eventually be obliged to submit to genital cutting. To foster the education of these young
women and their emergence into the life of their nation and the world, the Godparents Association works with their parents
and community and civic leaders and raises the funds to pay the girls’ secondary-school fees. We are grateful for the
contributions and support of all individuals and organizations that wish to join in our efforts, without regard to their religious,
political, or cultural background. Their participation, however, is strictly limited to their support of our stated purpose and
does not necessarily imply any endorsement by the Godparents Association.
T O J O I N the Godparents Association, please send $25 to Godparents Association, Inc., 409 Waldemere Ave.,
Bridgeport, CT 06604-5633 USA. Additional unrestricted contributions will be added to the Education Fund. A contribution
of $1,000 will pay secondary-school fees and boarding expenses for a girl for one year.
This month’s picture
A sign in Kapchorwa warns against sharing of
circumcision knives, which might transmit HIV.
Godparents Association, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation. All contributions are
tax-deductible. Membership is $25 annually, and
includes a subscription to Godparents News, a
monthly publication.
President: Rebecca Salonen
Secretary: Anne Edwards
Treasurer: Louise Strait
Uganda Country Coordinator: Erinah Rutangye
Assistant Country Coordinator: Carole Karungi
Godparents News Editor: Rebecca Salonen
409 Waldemere Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604-5633