Manipulation, Exploitation, and Reciprocity
Various elements of “Federalism” make it interpretable in many different contexts. These include the song’s plea for the implementation of federalism in Uganda. Acknowledging that a constitution is the absolute foundation for a proper federation, John Magandaazi Kityo comments on how some of Uganda’s leaders have violated the charter, as they continually revise it to fit their own interests, paying no attention to the effects that this might have on the people. Given the frequency of these changes, many citizens have to seek out the details of constitutional rights from their leaders. Kityo explains this trend:
Because of the constant changes to the constitution, many Ugandans are unaware of the rights the constitution provides them and because of this are unable to defend those rights effectively. If the public were more informed about their constitutional rights, the nation would be in a much better state because the population would have a better grasp of the leadership and laws that govern them. Instead, however, people put all their hopes in the president to solve their problems, even those that the constitution outlines and protects.
1Kityo interview, December 14, 2019.According to Kityo, rather than relying on the unspoken pact of their relation, the people feel compelled to always seek out what they need from their leaders. The relationship fails to be mutual because leaders pretend that they only have the capacity to fulfill the bare minimum rather than taking on extensive and exhausting demands. Leaders consistently use the subjects’ reliance on them to further manipulate and skew things in their own favor. These realities remind us that a federalist constitution is a covenant between leaders and subjects. Evident in its lyrics, “Federalism” becomes a commentary on the way leaders have sidestepped the constitution and replaced it with disagreeable arrangements (“neck twisters”). This framing shows how such betrayal of the people’s interests has recurred throughout history.
To this point about following a constitution, Steven Mukasa Kabugo’s lyrical interpretation stresses the importance of upholding one’s word and maintaining formal agreements, and he cautions:
When entering into an agreement or formal solution with another party, it is best practice to follow through and uphold the agreement as much as possible. If one party fails to implement the agreement in full and further fails to heed any sort of counsel, they will have to face God’s judgment. Dishonoring an agreement in this manner results in several repercussions, the main one of which is becoming an unreliable hypocrite in the eyes of others.
2Kabugo interview, December 19, 2019.Kabugo highlights how political agreements intersect with social and personal agreements, arguing that they are relevant to the micropolitical and macropolitical realms.
Kabugo further clarifies that the personal encounters that influence one’s conception of the world will ultimately impact those political encounters that one considers the exclusive “drivers” of political change in the past. In this sense, human nourishment will factor into political nourishment:
People should do their best to avoid hypocrisy in any form. This is the case with those who claim they are advocates for federalism and yet infringe on the federal rights of others. They are hypocrites who need to learn how to respect others in the same way they want those people to respect their own rights. They should respect the principles of federalism, which is a system of governance that gives individuals autonomy over issues such as speech, religion, and marriage.
3Ibid.Rather than restricting the song to a commentary on the movement at the macropolitical level, Kabugo demonstrates its relevance to the smaller points of interaction occurring between people within communities.
Picking up from Kabugo’s point about the infringement of the rights of others, Peter Kinene’s reading of “Federalism” gives examples of when the national government allegedly rejected an opportunity meant to help Baganda because it was not financially beneficial for themselves:
Selfishness and taking from others what is theirs remains a prominent problem in Ugandan society. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Buganda launched a fundraising campaign for the rebuilding of the Kasubi tombs. The project was part of a broader program named the Brick (Ettoffaali), which was the brainchild of Buganda’s current prime minister, Charles Mayiga. He visited various areas to collect funds. His office then used the funds to pay for the construction of a fence wall around the perimeter of the roughly fifteen acres of land on which the royal tombs are situated. The funds also supported the construction of the Masengere commercial building in Kampala, the erection of the Muganzirwazza commercial building in Katwe, and the founding of a television station. Unfortunately, the national government sabotaged the fundraising campaign because they were unable to tax and profit from the masses’ donations. In other words, the national government soon realized that the funds that participants in the program were donating to Buganda to develop itself were nontaxable, so they ordered the halt of the program. They did not benefit directly from it. The national government needs to recognize that they should not deny things to others just because they themselves cannot gain from them. They should not take away the peace of others; instead, they should let their subjects keep what they have.
4Kinene interview, December 16, 2019.Kinene demonstrates how the central government’s behavior broke relations between leaders and the people they serve, evoking the image of the leaders “belching” after embezzling to their hearts’ content. These leaders belch not from satisfaction but from overindulging in pleasures. The belch appears to represent the contempt that Buganda’s leaders hold toward their civilians, smug that their greed will have no consequences.
Jessy Ssendawula contributes to the conversation on “Federalism” by introducing the concept of regional rights. He stresses that national and regional powers must find a delicate balance that can inspire a harmonious Uganda. However, he notes that regions are currently struggling beneath the weight of the more powerful national government. His interpretation of “Federalism” speaks to the ways in which today’s leaders exploit their positions of power to take advantage of the formerly independent states that it encompasses. Much like the new leaders the song references, some politicians appear to only think of themselves, embezzling to their “satisfaction,” often at the expense of those whom they are meant to represent:
The song holds particular significance as the former federal states continue to compete in developing the services and resources available in their own areas, as well as for the larger picture of regional balance. For example, the Kingdom of Bunyoro could take a larger part in the oil drilling that takes place in their region. The taxes it collects from the project could help to build roads and towns, while funding from the central government could fund projects such as improving health and education, helping schools and health centers to run better. Furthermore, federalism and greater state autonomy could help minimize the effects of corruption at higher levels of government, with local officials having bigger stakes in the fulfillment of the basic needs of their area. On the whole, it is truly time for federalism in Uganda. The song “Federalism” is … calling for a new agreement between the national government and the eight former federal states of Uganda to restore federalism. It expresses the unfairness of the current situation, where the national government feeds on all the resources of the federal states, while the states themselves languish in anarchy and poverty. The government does not even remit the tax it collects in areas like Kampala to the treasury of the associated federal state. Instead, it remits all tax to the national government. However, the song is not calling for disunity or secession. It is advocating for the respect of regional diversity and autonomy. It is promoting the idea that the central government should remain at the same “dining place” while the federal states retire to their own “habitats” after partaking in a meal together.
5Ssendawula interview, December 28, 2019.Providing broader context to the song’s commentary, Ssendawula describes how Deziderio’s lyrics extend beyond criticizing colonialism to criticizing human exploitation more broadly. At the same time, this interpretation emphasizes the mutuality between the king and his subjects. All at once, embezzling from the king’s funds comes to mean embezzling from the masses, as the king and his people are extensions of each other. Thus, when the national government cheats, manipulates, or steals from the king, per Ssendawula’s claims, his people suffer as well. This mutuality extends beyond just a shared vulnerability, however. It simultaneously represents the king and his subjects’ united strength as violating the interests of one without incurring the frustration of the other.
Jimmy Ssenfuka Kibirige provides greater context for the reasons that some Baganda are proponents of regional rights in his interpretation of “Federalism.” According to Kibirige, President Museveni manipulated the interests of the Baganda to benefit his own agenda, and as a result, he ruined any chance of a meaningful relationship between himself and the Kingdom of Buganda to whom he demonstrated his untrustworthiness. In much the same way, the Baganda’s realization of his alleged hypocrisy made them unreliable in President Museveni’s eyes, and many are unlikely to support him in any circumstance, even in those where his intentions might be benevolent. Kibirige explains, further, that the result is a loss on both sides, as each is compelled to overcome the other to achieve their goals:
To a large extent, they feel the government has jilted them of their promised autonomy. Federalism was really a pursuit of the Baganda people. Buganda was the kingdom that most strongly advocated for its implementation because it wanted the recognition of its status as a sovereign nation that could run its own day-to-day affairs. This was the promise that Museveni made to the Baganda during his rise to power in order to earn their support. He knew that he would be unable to win the presidency without the total support of the Baganda. This event, though of the past, exemplifies how politicians lie for their own gain. Museveni made this promise because he knew that if the Kingdom of Buganda backed out of supporting him, other kingdoms like Busoga and Bunyoro might have done the same. Furthermore, Buganda historically holds a lot of the critical elements that determine Uganda’s prosperity, such as the capital, Kampala, access to Lake Victoria, and the border with Tanzania. Museveni knew he could not afford to lose these components, so he made promises he had no intention of keeping.
6Kibirige interview, December 19, 2019.Kibirige’s observations suggest that the president desperately grabs hold of power, hoping that the masses will allow him to keep it forever. As he does so, he continues to deteriorate the state of Uganda by parasitically absorbing resources, hijacking improvement initiatives, and jeopardizing the country’s chances at any form of nationwide uplift. These two points demonstrate the impact of selfish leaders. Their pursuits come at the expense of a more profound and satisfying form of success. They are alone in an existential sense because they sacrifice reciprocity for security. They allegedly cheat and lie, injuring the masses so they can maintain their positions. Yet they remain in denial of loss, constantly hiding from their inevitable expulsion from power, which could come through death, or revolt, or election. They debase themselves, enslave themselves to power, pursuing a Sisyphean task of redundant maintenance, including a cycle of allegedly rigging elections, silencing opposition leaders, and lying to citizens. They become too caught up in their own world to be able to appreciate the one that is already here.
Deziderio explains that federalism is the “earthly” (universal) agreement, one that implies a natural reciprocity between rulers and subjects. Pushing the argument for greater regional autonomy, Kibirige provides further examples of regional inequality and identifies the factors that cause them, confirming that they are all connected to the abolishment of federalism (thus abolishment of active reciprocity):
Federalism in Uganda has been a long debated, hotly contested subject that is still on the minds of many. Many have died because of it, and others are still dissatisfied with the state of federalism in the nation. Still, many are striving for regional balance, regional management, and regional access to opportunities. For instance, people used to board buses all the way from Kabaale to Kampala for a chance to receive a great education at Makerere University, which is currently in poor condition. In recent years, the population in the area surrounding the university has gotten so dense that the quality of life is beginning to suffer. The population distribution across the country has become so uneven because there is no access to proper higher education in many of the other regions. Indeed, there is a huge disparity between the resources available in poorer regions and a region like Mbarara, where President Museveni hails from and to which he allocates significant funding. Leaders are defying the constitution in order to get benefits and resources exclusively for their region.
7Kibirige interview, December 15, 2019.This perspective demonstrates how Uganda’s modern leaders prioritize one type of reciprocity (leaders giving back to their home regions) at the expense of others (neglecting other regions). With this example Kibirige provides greater nuance to the criticism that the populace is currently leveling at some leaders. The king’s responsibility to his people does not only extend to his mother’s clan but applies to every clan in Buganda’s court; however, the government allegedly does not replicate this same fairness. Furthermore, Kibirige’s views show us that reciprocity is not an inherent benefit to all involved and thus is not always an ideal relationship to aim for. Instead, it is far more comparable to a way of relating with the world, an attitude that can be beneficial or injurious depending on the context of each application. This perspective illustrates how reciprocity is not the be-all and end-all of the song’s message. “Federalism,” Kibirige adds, seeks to mediate such reciprocities so that they might do less to infringe on the relationships of others:
Federalism dictates that regions should receive an equal, appropriate share of funding and resources. However, at the ground level many regions remain impoverished. The privileged people suppress the voices of the underprivileged. Some resource-rich regions are in an unspeakable state because others have exploited the natural abundance of their resources. The independent management solutions that federalism enabled in the past could provide a resolution to some of these problems. However, much of the success of federalism in bringing about these sorts of changes relies on the discretion of individual leaders. Ideally, leaders should be advocating for their people, earning their trust, and finding ways through which those people can learn to find success. The reality remains, however, that once leaders find their own success, they are quick to forget the people who depend on them. They instead focus on gaining power and benefits for themselves and their families. Those that can find assistance from these leaders are able to do so purely because of family connections or personal profits for the leaders. This sort of leadership tears regions apart instead of strengthening them. It robs regions instead of building them.
8Kibirige interview, December 19, 2019.In this commentary Kibirige contrasts the preferable type of leadership, one where the leader seeks to support and reinforce the desires of the people, with the one we have today, where leaders frequently forget the people they lead and only think of themselves. This insight reflects the contrast that “Federalism” describes in its earliest lyrics, which juxtapose the “past agreements” of the king with the “neck twisters” of the post-1900 period, emphasizing the startling manipulation used by those drafting these new agreements. In particular, the song focuses on the fact that the agreements of today no longer reflect the genuine care that the king feels, as they now only fulfill the needs of those who draft them.
Kityo’s reading of “Federalism” further suggests that the true root of regional inequality in Uganda is the national government’s denial of citizens’ rights and benefits. According to him, the national government intentionally wields interregional conflict to exploit everyone involved. In the past, the king would seek to resolve an issue by appeasing all parties, whereas leaders today merely use the conflict as an excuse to take more resources for themselves:
Regions should be able to control the resources found in their areas. The government recently discovered oil in Bundibugyo. Naturally, the Banyoro, who live in that region, are looking to profit from this discovery and are now advocating for increased autonomy in the name of federalism. One could say the same thing of the people of Karamoja, who became strong proponents of federalism after the government discovered gold in their region. However, the current lack of federalism and stronger regional rights means that national government officials can reconcile the various intra-regional quarrels over these valuable resources by taking those resources for themselves. Individual regions are unable to benefit from the minerals and raw materials in their areas; the government collects them all. Going to the president to plead for change in the system is of no use either, because he and his lackeys are the very people who institute and benefit from these predatory policies. The central government is still restricting the rights and benefits that it could afford to the people of Uganda.
9Kityo interview, December 14, 2019.Kityo’s interpretation reframes our understanding of the “agreement” that “Federalism” references by suggesting that government leaders do not necessarily support the “agreement” because they cannot exploit it. Their substantial power and influence allow them to intervene in other “agreements” for their own favor. This means that leaders do not solve the conflicts between regions but merely replace them with new frustrations toward the government. Furthermore, they also fail to identify and resolve root problems, as the government’s alleged “parasitic” attitude only compounds the deprivation that often causes such conflicts.