Love and Respect

By pointing out how subjects love the king despite his faults, Kironde implies a far more tolerant kingdom where even though the masses’ love depends on the king’s merits, subjects exercise patience when evaluating royal performance and are willing to endure adversity to maintain the social contract of the kingdom. This style of relationship recalls how some court musicians responded to the adversity of King Muteesa II’s 1953–1955 exile. Rather than abandoning their duties to prioritize their own safety, they risked defending the royal court instruments, which some brought to their homes for safekeeping. When the king finally returned from exile, they revealed their loyalty by returning the musical instruments and rededicating themselves to the kingship. This choice demonstrates how court musicians maintained a deep love for the king despite whatever risks their dedication presented.

Mirroring Kironde’s comments, Peter Kinene’s reading of “We Love the Supreme Man Exceedingly” describes another angle of the relationship between the king and his subjects by focusing on how he demonstrates his love for them. He articulates the importance of reciprocity, detailing that while subjects must evaluate the king critically, he must also perform his duties earnestly to gain their positive evaluation. The lyrics of the song explain that the people do not simply praise the king for his political prestige; they also recognize his ability to make sacrifices to ensure the well-being of his kingdom. According to Kinene, this includes traveling throughout the region to see for himself what his people experience or feel:

Here, Kinene identifies political responsibilities as acts of “genuine care,” as the king’s tours are not just bureaucratic boxes to check but expressions of affection for those who depend on his just leadership. In other words, he does not pose these tours as pleasant vacations; rather, he invests in them as opportunities to generate a broader sense of wellness in the kingdom.

Jimmy Ssenfuka Kibirige continues Kinene’s explanation of the king’s valor, stressing the necessity of upholding common values in fulfilling the position of king. However, he reframes this discussion, noting that valor does not have to do with power or individual strength but with one’s willingness to perform one’s duties. This viewpoint reveals how Kinene’s reading of “We Love the Supreme Man Exceedingly” might deconstruct preconceived notions about what constitutes leadership, namely:

Kibirige suggests that the kingship is an inherently cooperative position that draws on the actions of past and present figures. The king can collaborate with the heads of the kingdom’s various sectors to uphold its well-being all the same. Kibirige’s affirmation that any good king must prioritize upholding the kingdom before his own pride further suggests that weaknesses or shortcomings will be acceptable, endearing even, if the king has good intentions.

Stepping aside from the relationship between ruler and subject for a moment, Jessy Ssendawula’s interpretation reminds us of what happens when a third party tries to hinder such a deep and abiding social fabric. He comments on the consequences that occur when the central government restricts or violates the relationship between the king and his people, showing us how power might fall into different hands than one might expect due to diverging loyalties. Ssendawula adds that despite the central government’s material domination of Uganda, their attempts to control the king still end in failure and chaos because they cannot fathom the love the people have for the king:

Ssendawula flips a more traditional understanding of power. He shows us how the king’s might does not lie in military strength or political-legal legitimacy; instead, it lies in the trust and loyalty of his people, something that will seem especially dangerous to a government that knows it might have abused the people’s trust.

This 2009 incident is just one event in the ongoing ideological conflict between the kingship and the national government. As David Pier observes, there is a significant royalist contingent in Buganda that continues to push for the restoration of the kingdom’s semi-autonomous status that it held through the colonial period. Opponents of this position argue that the kingship’s success would be counterproductive to Uganda’s mission to develop into a diverse democratic nation-state.5Pier 2017, 6. In fact, much of the ongoing political tension between the national government and Buganda is centered on the issue of Buganda’s importance in the national democratic context. Ali Mazrui asserts that without the cooperation and representation of the Baganda, it will be impossible for Uganda to reach fully structured electoral democracy.6Mazrui 1974, 9. Knowing the power that Buganda holds over the rest of the country may be why President Museveni has allegedly remained so unyielding on this issue. Court performers and musicians are inextricably involved in this debate. According to Pier, some performers use court regalia and music as cultural justification for the return to the kingship.7Pier 2017, 7. Indeed, as Kelly Askew reminds us, culture is what defines the spirit of a nation; as such proponents and conveyers of culture, musicians are inherently involved in the process of state-building.8Askew 2002, 272.

Returning to the depiction of the relationship between the Baganda and their king, Ssendawula notes some of the ways they express appreciation for their ruler. He demonstrates how the king might mobilize the love for his people to achieve support for various projects, including the renovation of the Kasubi royal tombs. In March 2010, a fire that broke out near one of the structures of the tombs partially destroyed them. The project to reconstruct them, which the Japanese government partially funded, began in 2014 and still continues as of 2025.9See “Reconstruction of the Tombs of the Buganda Kings Begins,” UNESCO World Heritage Convention, May 13, 2014, https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1124/. According to Ssendawula,

By using his influence to accomplish his goals, the king provides a counternarrative to the assumption that he is merely a cultural figurehead, a title imposed on him by the central government. He is a leader in a more profound sense than many elected leaders could ever be. However, this is not due to his material or political strength but because he models the qualities of an exemplary leader, to lead thoughtfully and with interpersonal care.

Kinene’s analysis of “We Love the Supreme Man Exceedingly” further justifies why people appreciate the institution of the kingship. He reimagines the lyrics of the song in terms of the king’s connection to his ancestors. This approach might refer to his place as an extension of a long line of leaders, whose wisdom all emerges in the current king’s reign. Kinene explains that “The kingship suited the supreme man and he got to know it” (line 12) hints at this convergence, as the king’s knowledge of the kingship might refer to his intimate connection to the work of previous rulers:

This commentary suggests that rather than taking the history of a kingdom as a frozen memory, the king conceives of it as a constantly shifting, living form. It is a leadership that cannot end, as it survives in all the leaders who follow. This reading of history benefits the kingdom, as it allows people to infuse the songs of the past with the vitality of the present. Much like what Kinene and his contemporaries are doing with “We Love the Supreme Man Exceedingly,” the king is constantly reimagining the past to create new and rich possibilities for the present. When we understand this ancestral focus, we come to appreciate a spiritual power that runs deeper than that which elected leaders might wield.

Finally, Kinene interprets the song in terms of its relation to international diplomacy. The various lyrics’ description of the king’s diplomatic journeys to Europe suggest this point (lines 41–43). Kinene not only shows us how state-level politics are relevant to politics on an international scale but also speaks to the importance of the kingship as a leader in far-reaching global initiatives:

By demonstrating the virtues of the king through the lens of international engagement, Kinene reminds us how the kingship has adapted to the changes of the international stage beyond Uganda’s political borders. He illuminates that the kingship’s traditions of interpersonal dedication and responsibility are valuable to consider in the current era, yet he also suggests that those same traditions must change and adapt to the modern circumstances that surround them. Kinene does not argue for a complete return to the precolonial Kiganda kingship system but instead points to it as a model that one might draw on and rethink to conceive of a new government entirely.