Reverence and Love
Through different interpretations of “The King Is a Lion,” the song becomes a collective dialogue concerning the contemporary Ugandan government, the relationships between leaders and their people, and a wealth of other subjects. These and related topics are the focus of this section, which uses themes of reverence and love to examine the song’s lyrics. Steven Mukasa Kabugo’s interpretation of “The King Is a Lion” evokes the unity that shapes the masses’ relations with the king and relations with one another. He suggests that leaders such as kings are not simply figures vying for whatever value they can extract from those they rule but that they are intimately invested in their people’s happiness and success:
“The King Is a Lion” reminds leaders to fulfill what they have promised the masses. Similarly, the song speaks to married couples or anyone in some form of partnership, encouraging them to not betray one another’s trust. The song and Kiganda society in general place emphasis on the need to respect the kingship and acknowledge the esteem of the king, whom many Baganda regard as truthful and reliable. As such, he lives in harmony with his people and counts them among his friends.
1Kabugo interview, December 19, 2019.Kabugo highlights the parallels between personal relationships and political ones. He shows that one cannot limit reciprocity to a particular field, as one of its defining qualities is its application to all spheres of life. The reciprocal exchange of the king with his people does not reflect an exception to such categorization but demonstrates the insufficiency of such a rule outright. It shows that one must embrace the personal in politics, not as a subordinate or extraneous quality but as a crucial part of what constitutes politics outright. This philosophy reimagines “The King Is a Lion” by revealing how reciprocity, a fundamental element of social life, applies to the political sphere, to the Kiganda kingship. The song simultaneously expresses and comments on these two supposedly separate lenses, encountering and engaging with them in tandem.
Building on Kabugo’s explanation of the king’s good leadership qualities, Harriet Kisuule describes the way the leader handles precarious political situations. As with the king and his people, one should recognize that any mutual relationship extends beyond the sum of its parts, strengthening both parties beyond the mere combination of their already existing abilities. According to Kisuule,
The king demonstrates the extent of a good leader’s determination to face challenges. He kneels for no one, not even the national government, which may try to deny him the security it is supposed to provide. This is not something that bothers him because he can stand on his own, regardless of the resources the national government makes available to him. He has the support of his people, and they give him the strength to stand tall regardless of the situation. The Baganda are generally unified in their respect and love for the king and as a result of their support, he does not concern himself with the petty behaviors of the national government. Denying him funding barely changes his attitude. For example, when the government took the kingdom’s radio, Central Broadcasting Services, off the air in 2009, the king, rather than panicking, remained calm and waited patiently until the government initiated the talks to reinstate the radio station. However, the king might protest to the national government his need for a state car and monthly salary, as is his established right due to his status as a cultural leader. But again, that is not what he truly values. His determination enables him to not compromise the value of his kingdom for personal gains, and in doing so he sets an example for his people.
2Kisuule interview, December 21, 2019.Kisuule’s reading of “The King Is a Lion” demonstrates how the source of the king’s strength is not the king alone but also the mutuality between him and his people. Through their support he achieves a determination and stalwartness that far exceeds what would have been possible otherwise. The king is “never played with” (lines 6 and 22) in part because he has the support of his people. This view demonstrates his strength in the face of adversary while also illuminating his popularity among his supporters.
Edward Ssebunnya Kironde expands on the explanation of the king’s leadership by focusing not on his tactical ability, as Kisuule does, but on his inherent sovereignty. Kironde also applies this explanation to the power the government affords to modern elected officials, explaining the differences in power under the more recent form of constitutional monarchy:
The image the lion figure evokes is representative of the king of Buganda in that he is renowned for his power. Thus, many Baganda accord him the same amount of power they accord a lion and give him names such as a man like charcoal that breaks an axe (
ssemandaagamenyembazzi), signal grass (
ccuucu), and snake (
musota). These titles are indicative of the times when the Baganda people were supposed to fear a king rather than revere him; they were supposed to invoke an aura of power and danger, associating them with a leader who has supreme authority. Thus, the people awarded him titles such as the supreme man (
ssaabasajja); our husband (
bbaffe), the patriarch of the entire kingdom; and the supreme landowner (
ssaabataka), for all the land in Buganda is technically his. Therefore, “The King Is a Lion” thoroughly explores the sovereignty of the king.
3Kironde interview, December 19, 2019. Ccuucu, also known as signal or Congo signal grass, is a type of tropical male grass that many Baganda describe as spiny and itchy. Because of its nature, they do not use it to thatch traditional shelters or cover the floors of these shelters. The use of ccuucu as one the king’s titles underscores how he commands a lot of respect and the fact that his subjects never question him. Ccuucu and other descriptors referenced by Kironde underscore the king’s divine sovereignty in comparison to contemporary elected leaders’ more tautological justifications for sovereignty. This reference emphasizes his power, but it does not specify whether the terms for his strength arose independently of his rule or specifically to describe his rule. Thus, we see the fundamental quality of his strength, as even language seems to bend to the impact of his rule. National government leaders, on the other hand, are undeniably subordinate to language, as their position only spawns from language’s premeditated validation of their role (through founding documents, legislation, and so forth). This practice, which further demonstrates the linguistic shifts that have taken hold of the world in recent decades, transforms the commentary of “The King Is a Lion” as a reflection on the unique power that the king has historically held. As such, the king’s universal and atemporal investment in the world begets the reverence that his people feel for him.
Kironde further elaborates on the king’s divine sovereignty in his interpretation. His criticism of contemporary national government leaders responds to the alleged attempts by these officials to arrogate this sovereignty to themselves. However, due to the fundamental differences in their social positions, governmental leaders allegedly place a strain on the general population, demanding wealth and respect for an illusory cause. As a result, says Kironde, many suffer because those in power continuously seek to hoard the power for themselves instead of focusing on benefiting the masses:
The king is the embodiment of sovereignty, and he is without question at the peak of authority. His subjects follow his commands without hesitation. The difference between the kingships of the past and that of the present, though, is that the current kingship is more of a ceremonial monarchy. There is one problem that the monarch still poses, even a ceremonial one. Due to the inheritance of the throne, it is possible to have a bad king or queen simply because the person in line for the crown is not well suited for the position, but the culture or inheritance requires the person to take it. The one upside to this arrangement is that being a good monarch is the same as being any other leader: good leadership is a skill that one can learn. Compared to the king of Buganda and the ceremonial monarchy he heads, the political leaders who work with the current national government of Uganda are not kings. Some people elect them to their positions as a direct result of their opting out of traditional monarchical rule. Consequently, they should not feel entitled to the same treatment as members of the royalty. Nevertheless, many leaders behave like kings. Some even expect huge salaries and unjustifiable benefits for the service they give the people. This means that rather than having a single lion at the top, the government now appears to be infested with a whole pride of lions. Nothing seems to change, and Ugandans seem to be listening to the same old story that their country tells repeatedly.
4Ibid.Kironde seems to be suggesting that the number of politicians who are desperate to replicate the power of the king have given political authority a more damaging effect. This desperation juxtaposes “The King Is a Lion” against the “false kingship” that contemporary national government leaders perform. Descriptors such as “one who is never played with” (lines 6 and 22) and “a husband to all” (lines 2 and 9) take on new meaning, forcing us to wonder how there can be so many replicas of one “husband to all” and one “never played with.” With this lens, the song becomes an almost satirical commentary on the behavior of elected leaders, as it shows us the cycle of failure that they participate in to achieve their own impossible goals. In the same vein as Kironde, Issiaka Ouattara observes that although individual prestige is strongly associated with ancestral legacy, it is also linked to the active social fabric of the community.
5Ouattara 2018, 154. In this sense it is possible for a ruler, despite being a descendant of past rulers, to rupture himself from this fabric of the community and be a poor leader. Thus, while leadership depends on universal forces, it also must constantly produce and renew itself in the present moment.
Considering the king’s position as the patriarch of the Baganda, Peter Kinene provides further elaboration on the ways the monarch cares for the needs of his people. In his explanation of how the leader is mindful of their needs, Kinene adds that the king conveys himself as approachable and amicable to the masses, whereas national government politicians allegedly isolate themselves from them. Kinene states,
The king’s people listen to him, and he listens to them in return, assisting them with shelter, education, and finances, among other needs. His actions reflect the sentiment that “The King Is a Lion” expresses, that a good king should fend for his people and vice versa. A more specific example of the latter occurred in 2009 when national government politicians prohibited the king from attending the Youth Day Celebrations in Bugerere. This is an annual event celebrating the achievements of youth everywhere, originally organized worldwide by the United Nations in 2000. His people protested his exclusion from the event, and eventually Buganda reached an agreement with the central government. Beyond that, the king is simply an approachable figure. If someone is in need, all they must do is go to him and he will attempt to help them however he can. President Museveni, however, believes this approach is too casual and unbecoming of a leader. He remains aloof, separated from the masses rather than interacting with them.
6Kinene interview, December 16, 2019. For additional information on the 2009 event, see “Uganda: Investigate 2009 Kampala Riot Killings; One Year Later, No Prosecutions and Failed Parliamentary Inquiry,” Human Rights Watch, September 10, 2010, https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/09/10/uganda-investigate-2009-kampala-riot-killings.This perspective further illuminates the shifting qualities of power that have been discussed in this chapter. On the one hand, the king interacts with his subjects on an amicable basis because he knows that his rule is not in question. On the other hand, he also knows that an inherent part of that rule is his willingness to represent and embody the people, as it is precisely his ability to combine and reinforce their interests that makes him such an undeniably powerful king. Thus, he is kind, helpful, and approachable, qualities that might make elected leaders jealous and undermine their authority. This difference might be a result of these leaders’ power being constantly in question, not only for the way some gained their office (through war, then through election, and then through voter repression and manipulation) but due to their inability to access the divine sovereignty that justifies the king’s rule. As a result, elected leaders must always perform their leadership and power to justify their hold on it. Without doing so, their influence may evaporate as quickly as water in the hot sun. This could also explain why, even today, the king allegedly poses a danger to these temporary officials. Despite the king’s total lack of political control, the support he carries and the remnants of this divine justification still pose a substantial challenge to the elected politicians’ rule. Even as the country moves away from the kingship system, the king himself still holds enough respect to challenge the national government’s control of the country.
Echoing Kinene’s thoughts on the king’s fatherly role, Jimmy Ssenfuka Kibirige confirms that the leader is the householder (nnannyinimu) of Buganda and the one who is never despised (nnantanyoomebwa), among other honorifics. Kibirige advises national government leaders not to attempt to copy the king’s power but to instead attempt to embody the behavior that leads to this power:
Other leaders should take note of his actions and try to emulate him in their own rule. Many respect him for his success in overseeing the kingdom and as a result always obey him. For example, in 2009, the national government denied him the right to tour his counties of Kyaggwe and Bugerere. His people were extremely upset at the lack of respect the national government showed him and forced their way into these areas anyway in hopes of seeing him. Tensions began to escalate. However, the king, upon seeing the violence that was arising from the situation, called for his people to stop their protests. He preserved their lives rather than preserving his pride.
7Kibirige interview, December 19, 2019.This commentary suggests that national leaders’ desperation to replicate the king’s power only serves as further evidence of their insufficiency and inability to achieve it. If they recognized that embodying reciprocity is what enables divine sovereignty, then they may be able to gain the masses’ support and thus gain at least an approximate amount of influence to what the king has historically had. However, doing this would require one to completely rethink one’s relationship to leadership and power outright. The king does not make a deliberate decision to support his people in exchange for power. Instead, the act of reciprocity and his attitude of openness come naturally to him. His position as a monarch embodies these qualities just as Deziderio’s place as a court musician embodies his reciprocity. Such embodiment, through the lens of “The King Is a Lion,” recognizes the importance of the king’s position in conjunction with his behavior. Rather than viewing the two as separate phenomena, this point frames the song to emphasize their unity. The king is not all-powerful at one point and independently reciprocal, caring, and open at another; rather, he is both powerful and reciprocal at the same time, in the same way. Each is an expression of the other, and anyone who seeks to replicate a trait must embody the details and idiosyncrasies that produce it.
Focusing on Uganda’s current problem of Buganda’s pushing for royal autonomy within the existing national governmental structure, Jessy Ssendawula provides a brief overview of the elements that justify royal autonomy in his analysis of “The King Is a Lion.” His commentary returns to the previously discussed notion that elected leaders must embody the king’s actions if the general public is to respect them like they respect him. In this case, Ssendawula relates this idea to how elected leaders approach the king, pointing out their mistake of underappreciating the influence he still holds. He emphasizes the difference in power between the king and modern elected leaders, recognizing the king’s substantial power despite his lack of official political control. He shows us that one should not simply define power by one’s ability to enact policy but instead on one’s right to define policy. Although the king may not have the literal capacity to make these macropolitical decisions, his justification through his people means that he wields more power than one assumes. Ssendawula asserts that these dynamics illuminate a unique conception of power by rejecting the common tendency to equate it with political control:
The king is like a lion in that when people approach him directly, they do it carefully so they do not cause trouble. Many Baganda believe that he is above all men, and before him all subjects submit as if they are children to well-respected parents. However, his power enables him to act not just as a superior but as a friend to the Baganda. His position gives him exclusive rights in Uganda based on the agreements and treaties that Buganda made long ago which provided the foundation for the creation of the country. Therefore, “The King Is a Lion” warns the national government: they should avoid rewriting history and accord the king the respect he deserves. Specifically, they should award him respect by facilitating peaceful negotiations, as Buganda is the origin of most of the agreements that outline Ugandan governance today.
8Ssendawula interview, December 28, 2019.By comparing these periods of agreement-making, Ssendawula emphasizes how “The King Is a Lion” articulates the nature of the king’s rule.
John Magandaazi Kityo concludes this analysis of “The King Is a Lion” by providing a full picture of the historical context that led to the decline of royal political power. He focuses on the role of Western colonialism in dismantling this power as he expands on its exploitation of historical agreements with the kingdom:
The kingship functions as an agreement between the people and the king. The leader demonstrates to the public how to best lead their lives and in return the people expect the king to be an upright leader. Both parties hold each other to the agreement in a way that is similar to other sorts of contracts.
9Kityo interview, December 14, 2019.Kityo adds:
Colonizers and the church frequently used these sorts of binding contracts in Uganda. During the beginning of the colonial period of the 1850s to the 1880s, when the British first arrived, their main interactions were with the Baganda.
10Ibid.Kityo’s remarks recall the tone of Europeans in their accounts about Buganda. From the Christian writer Constance E. Padwick’s (1886–1968) works, one can see that although some European representatives may have seemed friendly, in their reports they ridiculed King Muteesa I (r. ca. 1854–1884), portraying him as lazy and weak and thus insisting that he was an incompetent leader.
11Padwick 1917, 65. Western accounts of Kiganda culture are similarly awash with racist overtones. One narrative from 1863 describes a Kiganda court song as “senseless words, which stand in place of the song to the negroes; for song they have none, being mentally incapacitated for musical composition.”
12Speke 1909 (1863), 31. Kityo’s interpretation of “The King Is a Lion” further problematizes the role of colonialism in deconstructing the power of the king, giving greater context to the sorts of agreements that led to the kingship’s decline. In doing so, he shows us what processes ultimately led to the disseminated power we see today and how those processes relate to the present political situation in Uganda:
Naturally, the rich history of song and composition that has existed in the area for centuries disproves these nonsensical assertions. Despite these untruthful claims, it was these sorts of men who visited the king’s court and eventually formed the initiating agreements that came to outline the relationship between the Baganda and the British. However, the time came when those who had first drawn up the agreements died (including the three regents whom Deziderio mentions in lines 28–30), and soon those who replaced them forgot the amicable spirit of the agreements, replacing them with exploitative practices. Some people hijacked and distorted them to the advantage of the colonizers, from whom they were benefiting. This exploitation wore heavily on the people of Uganda. It was not long before they grew fed up with their treatment at the hands of the British, leading to a struggle that ultimately led to political independence in 1962. This occurred when, acting without much of a plan, Obote and King Muteesa II took power and established a new government. Obote became the first prime minister of Uganda while King Muteesa II became the first president of the country. After overthrowing King Muteesa II and making himself president, Obote established the 1967 constitution that nullified all former agreements. However, a lack of preparation caused a rocky transition, and the country went through a difficult period of anarchy that lasted through the Amin regime. It was through these changes and uncertainties that Uganda struggled, getting to the state it is today under President Museveni.
13Kibirige interview, December 14, 2019.This history contextualizes the process of colonial exploitation as a shift in the way that parties make agreements. Kibirige describes the initial agreements as being one of mutual support between the king and his people. The decline only happened once parties began to violate the new agreements, starting with the colonial powers but continuing through Obote’s regime and finally reaching Museveni. The aforementioned historical context, through the framework of “The King Is a Lion,” reframes its discussion of agreements in terms of the mishaps one can see in the present. Whereas the song appears to only allude to the agreements of the kingship, Kityo’s analysis connects its discussion to the present, contrasting the agreements of the kingship with the exploitative ones of the colonial and postcolonial eras.