Buganda-Uganda Relations
As previously mentioned, Uganda’s government in 1993 declined to reinstate the federal structure created by the 1900 Agreement that had granted Buganda substantial self-governance during colonial rule. Consequently, while Buganda maintains its cultural importance today, it possesses reduced political authority compared to its historical position, with most power now concentrated in Uganda’s central government. Neil Kodesh indicates that the kingdom’s officials began to use European monarchical social norms implemented during colonial rule to present a royalist history of Buganda’s past that emphasized the role of kings as social actors.
1Kodesh 2010, 3. This may have resulted in the current understanding that the king is a solitary ruling figure rather than an extension of the people, a relationship that was, at one time, negotiated within the royal court music institution. Derek Peterson notes that new ideas introduced during the colonial period influenced an emerging East African ethnic patriotism, where nationalist groups throughout the region presented themselves as new social formations in contrast to what they insisted were derelict, defective ethnic groups of the past.
2Peterson 2012, 15. This mindset was evident in Uganda’s earlier postindependence leaders, including Prime Minister (later President) Milton Obote and his contemporaries.
Beyond the national government’s abandoning traditional political institutions, Uganda also witnessed a social and moral shift. Mikael Karlström’s work shows that during the postindependence period, kinship and clanship structures became less important as the moral and social structure of the Baganda began to deteriorate.
3Karlström 2004, 598. Politically, this tension between tradition and modernity has persisted in the present day. Although in 1993 the Uganda national government restored traditional political institutions that Obote had abolished in 1967, the people were wary of letting kings amass too much political power and popularity. Accordingly, the national government confined them to being “cultural leaders” and limited the number of large events that they could participate in. In the case of Buganda, these events provided key performance opportunities for court music performers, as some people saw court music as an expression of the halcyon days of the Kiganda kingship. Others believed that the national government was limiting the heavy promotion and revival efforts of court song performances because as an extension and affirmation of the kingship, they could feed into calls for Kiganda autonomy, which would pose a threat to the central government. The inherent connection between court musicians and the king meant that these artists were also subjected to the same anti-royalist treatment under the national government.