Power and Selfishness

This perspective alludes to difficult situations that many musicians face today. They can no longer rely on their skill as musicians but must also pursue the goodwill of those who wield greater influence than they do. Without doing so, they cannot achieve the recognition they need in order to grow; their popularity might thus stagnate or they might disappear entirely. These contexts reframe the intentions behind the lion’s friendships. Rather than being friends “to all” (lines 2 and 4) for the sake of it, this analysis explains that lions make friends for the purpose of being fed, to move up and survive in the difficult world that they live in. This point alludes to the importance of mutuality in surviving the unpredictability of life. When one’s friends support one, it becomes far easier to manage the unexpected, as that person will be able to pool resources to maximize everyone’s ability to overcome obstacles. Returning to the lion, the life of a predator is often tenuous and stressful. Starvation is always closer than one might like. Situations always force one to fight for one’s prey, without any guarantee of success. Just a few failed hunts could result in death, as the lion might no longer have the strength for the chase. However, if the lion is under the care of the court, such worries disappear. The king will feed the lion as needed, and thus the stress of life will decrease.

Focusing on the more popular understanding that the little lion is the king, Harriet Kisuule’s interpretation explains the ways a leader should attempt to emulate and, on occasion, avoid the behaviors of a lion. While she identifies the qualities that are crucial to effective leadership, she emphasizes that excessive harshness, although necessary at times, is ineffective in regularity because it drives subjects away, making them too intimidated to view a leader as one of their own. Thus, expanding such a rift between a leader and their people will injure both sides, as the leader will be unaware of the people’s qualms and will thus lead blindly. Instead, Kisuule notes, a leader should aim to be friendly and loyal, dedicating himself to his people in the same way that they dedicate themselves to him:

This point of view articulates a philosophy of leadership where the leader and the led are one. The philosophy was common during the years of King Muteesa II (r. 1939–1966), who, according to some of his musicians, always aimed to treat his people well and listen to their issues. Accordingly, they stood by him faithfully after the fall of his kingdom in 1966. By drawing on the little lion’s parallels with a leader and by describing the lion’s friendships, Kisuule frames “The Little Lion” as an affirmation of a particularly mutual kind of leadership, one that views the leader as an extension of the people. Contrasting with other commentaries presented in this chapter, she reimagines the lyric detailing the lion’s many friends, using it as evidence of the lion’s or king’s willingness to connect with the people on a personal and reciprocal level.

In his analysis of “The Little Lion,” Edward Ssebunnya Kironde sees little lions as members of the leadership. He expands on Kisuule’s comments by providing several specific examples of greedy lions at work in the current Uganda government:

Kironde’s reading of “The Little Lion” as a reflection of current leaders allows him to describe the conflict that authority figures face. They must choose between serving their own interests and serving the interests of the people. The little lion figure illustrates the behavior of leaders who have fallen to their more selfish desires. Much like the little lion, they eat their fill with little consideration for others, sometimes even eating those who feed them. In other words, these leaders betray the trust of the people and of their peers by pursuing personal success above all, even sacrificing the well-being of their comrades to do so. A voracious greed much like the lion’s own powerful appetite drives this behavior; both can lead to ruin when left unchecked.

Kironde also compares selfishness with a lion’s appetite and thus recognizes that greed may be an unavoidable vice. Even if one disciplines oneself to not be so impulsive, selfishness is always something to keep at bay. For most of their lives, people tend to perceive themselves as distinct entities from those around them. They see the self as a discrete form that wins and loses independently from everyone else, and in this logic, living becomes a process of mediating between the solitary “I” and the plural “we.” It is not necessarily a matter of whether greed is evil, since it is already embedded within all people; rather, it depends on whether one can recognize oneself in others, form a mutual relationship with them, and thus dedicate one’s livelihood to them. This conflict is evident in leaders like Idi Amin and others, who assisted and supported Baganda court musicians even as he was cruelly violating many other people. He saw himself in the musicians but could not see himself elsewhere.

As Kironde further explains, selfishness injures those who embody it as much as those who encounter it. Such is the case with the lion, for when he bit the hand that fed him, he lost a crucial source of food and support. As we saw in the historical background of “The Little Lion,” when King Muteesa I’s lion ate a child, he swiftly killed him. This decision was only natural, as the lion had proved himself dangerous to the court and the people in it. In much the same way, leaders who reveal their unfettered greed become dangerous to the collective. Although they may maintain their posts for some time through violence and manipulation, they will eventually fall. Here, Kironde wields the figure of the lion to expand on an imaginative discourse of leadership. By rereading the song, he uses the lion to mirror modern leaders, framing their greed and selfishness through the lion’s own ferocious hunger.

Kironde expands on his comments about the alleged greed and corruption of modern leaders by providing a specific example in the case of the Buganda government itself:

Other sources challenge Kironde’s allegations, however, arguing that the Buganda government handled Ettoffaali funds appropriately. The sources include an online publication by Denis Jjuuko in which he explains that during the early years of his leadership, Mayiga embarked on the ambitious Ettoffaali fundraising campaign, traveling extensively throughout the kingdom. To ensure transparency, he appointed business leaders to spearhead the initiative and implemented strict financial accountability measures. He never personally handled any donations: whenever funds were presented to him, he immediately transferred them to the committee. Breaking with tradition, he became the first prime minister who neither signed checks at Mmengo (the location of Buganda’s government headquarters) nor had signing authority on the Ettoffaali bank account, leaving contract decisions entirely to the committee. The campaign maintained exceptional financial transparency, publicly declaring all contributions, down to minor expenses such as bank charges. Anyone seeking verification can simply review archives from television stations that documented the Ettoffaali drive. In addition, complete financial records were published by the Daily Monitor on July 8, 2014, and remain accessible online. The campaign successfully raised approximately twelve billion Uganda shillings, which funded the construction of a perimeter wall around the sixty-four-acre Kasubi Royal Tombs, as well as developments at Masengere and BBS (Buganda Broadcasting Service) Terefayina, the Kingdom of Buganda’s official television station. Ironically, some of the most vocal critics demanding accountability for the Ettoffaali funds are the same politicians whose own contribution checks bounced during the campaign.5Jjuuko 2021.

Yet Kironde raises concerns about other Buganda government projects that are overseen by allegedly greedy and corrupt officials:

Kironde articulates the effects of rampant greed on the mindsets of common people. As indicated by the example of the allegations regarding Buganda’s prime minister, even the most respected positions are susceptible to this alleged greed. As such, the subjects find themselves in a state of uncertainty. They do not know whom to trust because any project or campaign, no matter how good it might sound, could actually just be another elaborate scheme for personal gain. From this uncertainty, Kironde further interprets “The Little Lion” through the lens of manipulation. He explains how its small stature may only serve to obscure its hidden aggression and ferocity. By comparing politicians to lions, he demonstrates the importance of maintaining skepticism, as the politician’s “size” provides no true indication of the danger he poses. His “size” could simply be a ruse to distract subjects from his hidden ferocity. This point illuminates the precarious condition that many Ugandans face. The nature of contemporary politics leads some to distrust all individuals in leadership positions, feeling as if at any moment their leaders can abandon or betray them. Given the current mass unemployment issue in Uganda, the already worrisome position of having no available income is only compounded by dishonest and self-interested leaders. Kironde pursues this point even further, taking the precariousness that many Ugandans feel and transforming it into a tool for survival. He reveals that the distrust they feel is crucial to their long-term survival. They must recognize greed’s prevalence, and avoid it whenever possible, using their insight to spot the little lions as the dangerous predators they are.

Jimmy Ssenfuka Kibirige expands on Kironde’s interpretation of “The Little Lion” by describing how “little lions” exist as a plague throughout governmental systems. He elaborates on the various methods that the allegedly self-serving lions in the Uganda government use, as well as the negative impact that their actions have on the people:

This viewpoint presents the little lion as more than an allegory for individuals, as it is a model for a particular philosophy of selfishness that is endemic throughout government. People must be wary of little lions because, despite their lack of obvious power, their nefarious and manipulative strategies can easily result in a country’s downfall. Drawing on this point, it is crucial to recognize that lions might manifest beyond the most visible roles in governments. They may be hiding behind their superiors or disguising themselves as advisers, but those superiors should still not ignore the responsibility of such little lions. Thus, it is important to be skeptical, not just of those who are most immediately in power but of anyone in the system. If one recognizes corruption and greed as a plague, it becomes that much easier to recognize its symptoms.

Jessy Ssendawula complements Kibirige’s explanation of “The Little Lion.” Rather than framing little lions as nefarious and underhanded actors in the national government of Uganda, he illuminates them as fierce figures who may retaliate when provoked with this warning:

Ssendawula reframes the lion as a sleeping giant: stolid and unmoving but violent and dangerous when irritated. He further expands on this image by providing an example from President Museveni’s rule. If someone bothers a national leader today with his or her words, the leader may lash out and imprison the person. As it was for Dr. Nyanzi, even a reasonable comment can be met with violence and force. These responses pose a stark contrast to the king’s attitude, discussed in other chapters. Whereas national government leaders might be unreceptive and prone to lashing out, the king does his best to listen and acknowledge the people as much as possible. Therefore, Ssendawula’s interpretation of the song illuminates the flaws and shortcomings of national government officials while indirectly contrasting them with the king’s successes, interpreting both instances through the lion. The former represents the lion’s aggression and ferocity, while the latter represents the lion’s nobility and strength in the face of danger. Thus, Ssendawula reframes “The Little Lion” to encompass two seemingly contradictory narratives in one interpretation, demonstrating the power of creativity in expanding the possibilities for meaning.

Ssendawula also looks at how Christian missionaries were “little lions” because they damaged the traditional culture and inhabitants of Uganda. He states that the “little lion” could be used to refer to the missionaries who first came to the king’s court. They feasted there after their long, harrowing journey to East Africa, as described in David Rubadiri’s poem “Stanley Meets Muteesa.”9Ssendawula interview, December 28, 2019. For the full poem, see Rubadiri 2020.

The role of the church and its missionaries in stamping down Kiganda traditions and values requires further discussion. From an artistic perspective, Moses Serwadda documents how the church opposed the continuation of many traditional dances such as the ndongo wedding dance, as church-run educational programs actively prevented girls from learning it. Moreover, they forbade wedding receptions in church halls from performing the dance, and tea and cakes replaced the beer traditionally served at these events. Serwadda further indicates that the preservation of the ndongo wedding dance and many others like it thus fell to Muslim artists and those who did not affiliate with the church.10Serwadda 1971, 20–22. The court composer-performer Evalisto Muyinda notes how in addition to undermining traditional dancing, the church pushed a campaign to divest the Baganda of their traditional music, a campaign that involved replacing the music’s typical pentatonic scale with their own scale, the diatonic scale.11Muyinda 1991, 5.

Beyond devaluing dancing and music, Christian groups in Uganda made concentrated efforts to devalue clanship and kinship, substituting themselves as the primary institution of social structure, as Mikael Karlström shows.12Karlström 2004, 600. These various examples, which occurred at the initial arrival of the missionaries Ssendawula mentions, demonstrate the role of Christian actors as little lions. The situation parallels President Museveni’s rule with the arrival of the Christian missionaries, demonstrating how stories of the past might be reimagined to constitute active and living parts of the present moment. Rather than existing as distant memories, we can reframe them to engage intimately with the present. Accordingly, they become a crucial tool for making sense of the world.

This chapter’s analysis of “The Little Lion” ends with a reminder from Peter Kinene that ultimately it is better to put the needs of the people first:

Kinene highlights the inherent benefits of performing well as a leader. Despite the material benefits of selfishness, he asserts that they pale in comparison to the deep satisfaction one receives when the masses praise and love one. This treatment extends beyond physical conveniences into an unspoken realm of spiritual uplifting and gratification. When leaders’ subjects despise them, they feel it in their bones. It becomes an existential threat, as their life force withers under the isolation of their greed. Thus, despite their material wealth, the alleged greedy leaders are poor in a far more profound sense. Here, we recognize that selfish individuals ultimately suffer greatly from their actions, just as the lion would if he attacked his supporters or masters. However, this perspective does not seek to explain the suffering through cause and effect but instead articulates it as an inherent aspect of their actions. In other words, the pain that cruel leaders feel is one that they inflict directly onto themselves. They come to hate life without even knowing it. Thus, Kinene’s reading of “The Little Lion” emphasizes the importance of mutuality over material gain. He shows us that the food King Muteesa I’s court fed to the lion might not have been as important as the mutual support and care that the lion and the court shared. In much the same way, if the lion were to maul one of the court members, the punishment would not necessarily be the loss of food, but instead it would be the loss of a relationship that far exceeded the value a simple meal would provide.