In these primitive modes, these communities tend to be internally closed: they marry only their own, and have a special rudimentary attachment to place. When they settle in areas predominantly settled by other ethnics, they never integrate but constantly hanker to go back.
With a hunter ethic (chase, trap, kill, and go), they actually behave like hunters bordering on thieves. To different degrees, almost all Ugandan ethnic communities – with special exception of Buganda – continue to build around this tribalist-primordial-hunting ethic.
But once societies are touched by modernity, individuals learn to live on the strength of their ideas and labour. Once their social and economic security is built on their intellectual/labour prowess, they can settle or marry anywhere. Etcetera.
This question of lack of a civilisational sophistication to Uganda’s past and present leadership explains the tribalism problem of the country. Let me explain: Even if they tried, Museveni, Obote or Amin, could not overcome their primordial tribal baggage.
Their clans/tribesmen – their first love and identity –would never understand why after “a successful hunt,” they were not working hard to benefit the ethnic line. Milton Obote, the most sophisticated of Uganda’s presidents thus far, tried to run the country on the strength of ideas. But he later caved in.
The most primordial of them all, Museveni – from a pre-civilisational cattle-keeping background, did not even pretend to try building a modern non-tribal state. From the very beginning, Museveni saw power as a successful hunt, and has so obediently gifted a folk and knife to all kin and kindred.
You need to see minutes of the Museveni tribal/clan meeting that sat at Museveni’s home in Rwakitura on March 15, 1992 to consolidate a clan ethic [In 2008-2010, The Independent magazine had a stubborn page we had called “Declassified Intelligence” where this stuff was run verbatim. We would be ransacked endlessly by Media Crimes boss Charles Kataratambi. I should not digress, but will surely tell this story another day].
The point I’m labouring is that Museveni and tribemates took the primordial hunting ethic to another level to even suggesting that they had “to ensure that after H.E. the next president must come from the Basiita clan” a subclan of the Bahima, because, “H.E had done a lot for the Basiita and had taken a lot of risks for [them] for the last 20 years…”
My contention is this: For Uganda to learn to detribalise, it will need to sit down and take lessons from Buganda. Built on a cosmopolitan ethic, and also the first to interact with colonialism, Buganda has to provide the political and intellectual base upon which Uganda should be built.
This actually means having a substantive Muganda president to help cultivate a non-tribal ethic. It needs to be cultivated. It might mean Bugandanizing Uganda, which actually means, taking Buganda (as an idea, its cosmopolitan ethic) away from Baganda while retaining the distinct cultural traditions of every ethnic.
This is like a Tanzanian model, but slightly different. Of course, the distinct traditions of every ethnic community will be constantly repackaged to suit the changes in time. I am aware this contention of mine is a problematic one.
My surname being Serunkuma, many non-Baganda readers of mine will jump to the easy conclusion that here comes another Muganda supremacist chanting their “tribalist claims.”
But be patient with me, dear reader, let’s do this slowly. This argument is actually a story of my life. It is the story of Buganda. To begin, I am not a Muganda in the conventional sense. There is an often mistaken view that being Muganda means one’s ancestors were the stone-age people of Buganda, and lived here from the beginning of time.
Actually, there is nothing like that in Buganda. Instead, I am like many other “non-Baganda” with Baganda names. But the difference between my type and our other “non-Baganda with Baganda names” is that we delightfully underwent complete Bugandanization – and became Baganda.
This is actually the historically accurate way all Baganda became Baganda. In truth, everyone can become a Muganda if they lost all attachment to their primordial tribal affiliations. But our other non-Baganda-with-Baganda-names who travelled to Buganda as labourers on farms have refused to Bugandanize.
They love but hate Buganda at the same time. Sadly for the entire country that colonialism cobbled together, they earned power with a primordial tribalist and hunting ethic – and have thus failed to build the country. They see Buganda as hunting ground – and are chasing down prey, killing and taking back. [Refer to the minutes cited above].
How then does a Muganda president help Uganda de-tribalise? Isn’t this the crass and cheap – and actually tribalist/racist – intellectualism in claims that certain tribes, races, religious groups are wont of certain ideas, behaviours, and super power simply because they are that group? No.
This position of mine is more complex, more historically grounded. The beginning point is that Buganda ought to be seen not as a tribe, but as an idea. The Baganda were both privileged and disadvantaged: colonialism started in Buganda, and instead of opposing, the Baganda collaborated.
This came with two outstanding strengths. First, Baganda would be first to be exposed to literacy and the complexity of ideas – thus learning to survive off their labour, and strength of ideas as opposed to surviving from kin and kindred relations. I argued on August 12, 2020 [“In praise of Buganda cosmopolitanism], that the 1900 Buganda Agreement was not an agreement on land per se; it was an agreement on culture; it solidified an already ongoing cultural/economic shift in the ways in which Baganda sought their sustenance.
The arrival on private property in Buganda was the final blow to reliance of kin and kindred ties, but rather labour, and revolution. The second outstanding advantage of colonialism starting in Buganda is that Uganda starts to build from Buganda. It was a natural choice.
To this end, from wherever they came, Baganda owned the discursive and physical space, and moment upon which Uganda builds. The problem, Baganda – I mean those who have fully imbibed the ethic – have not had the opportunity to teach Uganda their cosmopolitanism.
You cannot grow without a firm intellectual base. See, fully-formed Baganda never chase alien new-comers but rather, seek to incorporate them. Organising around kingship and custom, Baganda have always sought to build Buganda working with talented persons from other tribal communities, whom they integrate and turn into Baganda. [the stories of Daudi Ochieng, Umar Mandela, Rajni Taylor are quite well known].
The problem here, for reasons of their own genius, fully formed Baganda too quickly handed over the new country to primitive primordial types (especially Obote and Museveni). To understand my thesis well, one has to flip it, and appreciate the baggage carried by non-Baganda Ugandan presidents – with a capital in Buganda.
There is inherent insecurity in being a non-ethically Muganda head of state in a country which starts to build from Buganda. [Recall those idiotic legislations that the capital city is technically outside of Buganda!]. And since developing Uganda requires that the head of state focuses on Buganda first, the hunter mentality makes it difficult to appreciate this dynamic. [The idea of building Buganda first so as to build Uganda is premised on a simple principle that the centre must hold first.
Capitals being the centres of cultural, political and economic production tend to trickle down into near and remote regions as they learn by example – picking their merchandise and intellectualism from the capital.]
Museveni’s primordial cattle-keeping mentality has blinded him to this reality. Instead, Kampala remains a sprawling ghetto, which he and clansmen/tribesmen have decided to steal from instead of building it for the entire country.
But my argument is not that this is Museveni’s problem per se – of course, Mr Museveni has more selfish agency. But there is no evidence that under a different hunter-gatherer, Uganda would be less tribalistic. Any educated fellow from primordial societies will be trapped in their ethnic primordialism.
yusufkajura@gmail.com
The author is a political theorist based at Makerere University.