The turns and twists of the Obugabe Debate

Vincent Nuwagaba

Published on Saturday January, 16, 2010

President Museveni has ordered the stop of the Obugabe Debate. see Museveni stops Ankole Kingdom debate (Daily Monitor, Monday January 11, 2010) said.
The media reports quoted the President to have stopped the debate because the Kingdom agitators were using money to influence the district councils and that they were involved in politics.Speaking in Runyakole in Bushenyi, President Museveni told the Bushenyi District leadership that what the Omukama of Bunyoro wrote to district councils in Ankole was not in order. “After realising that they (Kingdom agitators) were putting in money, we have stopped it. ….Where are they getting money? They stop it and if not we shall arrest them,” he
The President dovetails with Major General Otafiire who spat fire on the issue while he was hosted on B FM Radio Station in Bushenyi. The President’s remarks have attracted varied responses from the academics and civil society activists. Gilbert Musinguzi, a civil society activist said, “The president’s act is undemocratic. It is a violation of the constitution which provides for freedom of expression”. JK Zirabamuzale, Chairman Uganda Prisoners Aid Foundation feels uncomfortable with the turns and twists in regard to the Obugabe of Ankole. He says, “As a human rights activist, in regard to the whole institutional framework as enshrined in the 1995 constitution, I find the situation in regard to the Obugabe of Ankole unfortunate”. Mr. Zirabamuzale added, “It is the right and freedom of those interested in the institutional activities. However few they are, their rights should not be trampled upon”. Mr. Zirabamuzale regrets to note that the rights and freedoms are not addressed in their universality. “If the fifteen, twenty or fifty people in Kayunga can be granted the right to form their cultural institution even when there is no historical record to it; if the Bamoli in Mubende whose institution we are learning of for the first time in the history of Uganda are also being recognised, what is wrong with agitation for the restoration of the Kingdom whose background is known and clear? We are witnessing selective treatment in terms of observance of cultural rights”, remarked Zirabamuzale. Article 246(3) (d) says no person shall be compelled to pay allegiance or contribute to the cost of maintaining a traditional or cultural leader.

Asked whether, it was proper for the majority Bairu to accept being subjected to the institution they feel is oppressive, Mr. Zirabamuzale said, “Let the Bairu complain about the bad things of the Kingship. But also, let the agitators have a chance to present their case. It is incredible that people can be gagged”. On the cultural leaders talking politics, Zirabamuzale said, “If Uganda Joint Christian Council - a religious institution takes political positions, what’s wrong with cultural leaders involving in politics”. As for Mr. Fredrick Luzee, a political analyst cum humanitarian aid worker says, “According to Museveni, politics is anything that he doesn’t agree with. If the cultural leader supports Museveni, that is alright, if he disagrees with him, they are indulging in politics. Otherwise, if two cultural leaders are talking cultural issues what is political about that?” Observers feel the president is doing exactly what he decried about past leaders soon after he captured power. “Museveni ridiculed past leaders who portrayed politics as a dirty game. He defined politics as the art and science of management of society. Today he should give us his definition of politics if he doesn’t cultural and religious leaders to get concerned with how society is managed”. If I am a cultural leader and see my people being evicted do I keep quiet?” Mr. Luzee added.
The constitution doesn’t bar cultural leaders from participating in politics but partisan politics. Cultural leaders should have a level at which to participate in politics although they don’t compete for political offices. Otherwise barring them from ever engaging in politics would tantamount to disenfranchising them.

The pundits now ask: Does Museveni genuinely believe in the suspension of the debate or he did it for political reasons? If the use of money to promote the Kingdom agitators’ cause is wrong, why is it not wrong for Museveni to use money to promote his political interests such as the removal of term limits from the constitution? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In fact, on the question of Kingdom agitators’ using money to promote their cause, Mr. Zirabamuzale states, “This is my position not from a human rights angle. If the Honourable Members of Parliament could be given shs 5m each to lift the term limits as were enshrined in the 1995 constitution, what is wrong with people giving money to district councilors to pass a resolution in favour of the Kingdom”. He added, “If MPs could be lined up in a brothel where they were given money to lift the term limits, what is wrong with Councillors being facilitated?” On what could be the reason that informed the President’s suspension of the debate, Gilbert Musinguzi said, “I cannot speculate on the reasons he bases himself to do that. I personally base my argument on the fact – the constitution”. He further added, “But of course, as a fountain of honour, he can suspend the debate but he needs to give a time frame within which it would be resumed”. Ben Mark Kapwepwe, said “How can Barigye and Iguru talk about restoration of the King when we have a Ssabagabe – Museveni? We have a grand king; you cannot talk of these other small kings in Ankole”. Accordingly, Museveni views him self as a grand King – a Ssabagabe or King of Kings especially in Ankole sub-region. Accordingly, he doesn’t want divided allegiance. As for me, I want to categorically state that I personally don’t support the restoration of Obugabe because of the historical injustice that it meted onto the majority Bairu. However, as a human rights defender, I strongly support the debate about the subject. I am guided by a French philosopher Voltaire who stated that, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And incidentally, if the debate goes on, I would advise the Bairu to suggest that if Kingship is to be restored, the King should be voted in which case the Omugabe will not necessarily be Prince John Barigye. The matter could even be taken for a referendum.
The Kingdoms were banned in Uganda by Obote after the Kabaka crisis. In 1993, however, Museveni restored the Cultural institutions. I am deeply convinced that Museveni didn’t restore the cultural institutions because he loved it but because he knew it would win him political capital especially in Buganda where Obote was strongly hated because of the abolition of kingdoms. It is noteworthy, however, that although the Baganda hated Obote, they didn’t necessarily love Museveni and the NRM. Hatred for UPC didn’t necessarily mean love for NRM. Instead the majority Baganda were allied to the Democratic Party. Thus, in order to trim the growing wings of the Democratic Party Museveni had to appease the ordinary Baganda whose love for the Kabaka is unreserved.

Museveni has mastered the art of Machiavellian politics. Machiavellian politics is summed up in the principle of “the end justifies the means”. Accordingly Machiavellian politicians will do anything to capture, consolidate and retain state power”. This defines whatever Museveni does. Anything that wins him political mileage and/or capital whether or not it is right Museveni will support it. Like all Machiavellians, Museveni and his people have the ability to always create contentious debates so that they later appear to be the saviours. I have a hunch that the Obugabe debate is part of Museveni’s political gimmicks to keep NRM relevant in the eyes of the voters.

Ankole has two sub-ethnic groupings: the Bairu and the Bahima. While traditionally the King had to emerge from the royal family and must be a Muhima, the Bairu were the subjects. The majority Bairu suffered greatly under Kingship that they cannot stand to hear anybody talk about the restoration of the Ankole Kingdom. Thus, even if Museveni supported the restoration of the Kingdom, he would risk losing the support of the majority Bairu for they view kingship as a monster that can devour them.
I, however, think the debate on the restoration of Kingship is diversionary. I am even worried that it could be a strategy Museveni is using to re-capture the fourth term by diverting the Banyankole from questioning the President about his promises and raising the issues of national importance such as corruption, unemployment, unaffordable university fees which were hiked up to 126 percent, etc. Museveni is a person who always benefits from any form of confusion. Ultimately, he will be the beneficiary of the confusion brought by the Obugabe debate. It shouldn’t take anybody by surprise if the people that are igniting the Obugabe debate are ardent supporters of President Museveni. The President and company know quite well that the Obugabe issue causes goose bumps to a large section of Ankole people because of the historical injustice and oppression that the Bairu suffered under Kingship. I strongly feel that if Museveni is to get votes come 2011 from the majority Banyankole it would be because he has liberated them from the Obugabe and I suspect many of his campaign agents will say, please reward the man who has saved you from the Obugabe agitators. Just like the mere mention of Obote in Buganda won Museveni massive support in 1996, a mention of the Obugabe will invoke sad memories in Ankole. So the debate is a calculated move as we approach 2011.
Mr. Nuwagaba is a human rights defender.
mpvessynuwagaba@gmail.com