Read on Twitter
In September 1985; as the Okello's were consolidating their power, NRA was marching in West, a group of academics, Journals, & CSO's gathered in Denmark to discuss a pertinent question; What were the causes of our national troubles? Which ones were primary? Secondary?
The essays presented were later compiled into a book, Uganda Now: Between Decay and Development.
But among those presented, Christopher Wrigley's arguments provoked much thought. In his essay, he attempted to highlight four tragic 'steps towards disaster'...
But among those presented, Christopher Wrigley's arguments provoked much thought. In his essay, he attempted to highlight four tragic 'steps towards disaster'...
...that made any kind of viable political independence for Uganda in the years after 1962 so much less likely than might have been otherwise the case.
Key points:
"It is not at first sight obvious that there are any problems, either economic or political, that are peculiar to Uganda. At the time of independence the economic prospects looked good, the country being neither as poor as Tanzania nor as class-ridden as Kenya"
"It is not at first sight obvious that there are any problems, either economic or political, that are peculiar to Uganda. At the time of independence the economic prospects looked good, the country being neither as poor as Tanzania nor as class-ridden as Kenya"
On closer inspection, however, the very lack of apparent contradictions may provide a partial clue to the trouble. Uganda's prosperity being almost entirely agricultural, without important foreign penetration of the rural sector, the capitalist class was small,...
"Society thus consisted effectively of a mass of peasant cultivators, living in communities that had not wholly lost their tribal character, and a small ruling class composed mostly of state officials"
"Social aspirants thus sought above all to control the levers of government power for their own and their communities' benefit, and economic competition was heavily politicised from the start."
The division between Bantu, Nilotic & Sudanic peoples is no more an intrinsic reason for conflict than the division of Europe into Latins, Teutons & Slavs was the cause of the First World War. Such categories become politically significant only when politicians find use for them.
"To explain the disorder we must turn to historical contingency; and there are perhaps four points at which history may be seen to have taken a wrong turning in Uganda...."
"The first lies so far back in time.... It consists of the events that gave the country its revealing name, which reminds us that it was in origin the kingdom of Buganda with such bits and pieces as the British found it convenient to tack on."
In many ways the situation of Buganda was like that of the Prussians in 19th century Germany... The difference was, however, that they were not in a position to control Uganda. In one sense Buganda was too big for its context, but in another sense it was not big enough.
It was only when decolonisation came on to the political agenda placed there by the British themselves that an impasse became apparent, & even then tragedy was not predestined. It was in fact an attempt to avoid the impasse that led to the second wrong turning, the 'Kabaka crisis
"Cohen, a civil servant with unusually clear and radical aims, had come to Uganda determined to initiate the process of transition from colonial dependency to nation-state, and he saw the kingdom as an obstacle to be removed from his path."
Cohen himself aimed to incorporate the kingdom into an eventually independent, African-ruled Ugandan nation, his political masters had not decided whether the ultimately sovereign state should be Uganda or East Africa (or East-Central) Africa, nor what form its gov't should take.
Hancock rejected a federal solution, that seductive compromise that has so often caused more conflicts than it has resolved; for he knew that federations are the most difficult of all political systems, requiring a fundamental consensus & a political tradition of restraint,...
a willingness to abide by the rules, such as could not be expected in a newly formed political society. So the Uganda that began to take shape in 1955 was a unitary state, but its unitariness was concealed by the continued functioning of a kingdom too large and too ceremonious .
to be easily cast in the role of a local-government unit.... @RoyjayJoel
"In place of power, it was now decided, there would be a delicate manipulation of influences through the Special Relationship, the European alliances and the Commonwealth connection...
...In this new perspective colonial dependencies, even in eastern Africa, became costly liabilities to be discarded with all possible speed, hopefully being transformed into 'Commonwealth partners' instead."
Pressures from within Uganda did not play a decisive part. Though the Buganda crisis had quickened political consciousness throughout the Protectorate the nationalist movement was in its infancy,& the idea of aUgandan nation had hardly begun to enter the consciousness of majority
