The Impact of Ugandas Colonial Past on Its Post-Independence Experience - Coursework Example

Uganda: The impact of its colonial past on its post-independence experience Uganda obtained independence from the British in 1962. Though the nation was declared independent it continued the legacy of the colonial British in terms of handling ethnics and associated socio economic and political system that prevailed during the pre independence era. This type colonial impact prevailed in most of the sub-Saharan African nations even after their independence. Though there was immense influence of the colonial period after independence Uganda was prepared to function as an independent nation with high goals and optimism with several agencies and individuals keen to participate in the national development process (Porcaro 2008 p.176). The impact of colonial rule is evident in the British controlled regions of Uganda prominently with people who spoke the Bantu language in the western and southern parts of the country. It is in these regions there were economic development with higher prospects for educations when compared to the northern region because the British had an agreement with the Kingdom of Buganda in reinforcing indirect rule and public administration. Therefore people from northern Uganda were mainly deployed in the military and police services. With such a divided system in place, around eighty percent of Ugandans resided in rural region with farming as the main source of livelihood. The Bugandan Kingdom that enjoyed federal status was one of the main reasons for political disagreement between the various clans. The objective of the prime minister to set a republican government and a single state added to the woes of the clans that fought for its superiority. The competition between various clans and the indifference between the Prime Minister, Obote and Army Chief Idi Amin resulted in some of the most devastative military coup that killed millions of people (Porcaro 2008 p.177). In addition to political instability, independent Uganda had to deal with the stunted economic development that was initiated by the colonial rule. Africa’s mere three percent contributions to world trade and under developed infrastructure gave less opportunity for economic activity and related progress. Though there were several promising projects started by colonialism, all were in the developing stage during independence and the divided states of Uganda posed a threat to the integrated development of the nation. It was stated by Felix Houphouet-Boigny that Uganda gained independence as divided states and not as an integrated nation. Regional inequalities and differences of various multiple ethnic groups increased due to the authoritative attitude of the colonial regimes. The nationalism in Africa during the 1950’s and 1960’s was only aimed to oust the colonial movement rather than their need for a separate nation. The end of colonial movement was required to access equal opportunities for better standard of living with good food, shelter, health, education and employment. But the seeds of communal rivalry sowed during colonialism with better position for certain clans strengthened after the independence and led towards a further division of Uganda. The divisiveness grew stronger due to inadequate supply of resources for the ethnic groups. The partial stand taken by British rulers by considering certain ethnic groups for administrative convenience became the main reason for violence during the post independence era of Uganda for which there was no recommendable solution. Ugandans were aware that the communal mishap has its roots to colonialism. Though colonialism promoted economic growth in a partial manner in Uganda, post independence leadership could not carry it forward and this led to the overall decline in the economy with the onset of civil unrest and mass killings. Economic mismanagement was also rampant as there were corruption and autocracy by the ruling parties during various terms (Porcaro 2008 p.178). The immediate post independence era of Uganda was mainly shaped by the colonial rule. Crucial aspects that served as the cause for post independence impact were the treatment of core ethnic groups, the setting up of local administration that caused further division and autocratic authoritarianism, the role of military, the upheaval of regional inequalities, religious impact, the absence of nationhood and the constitutional arrangement planned for independence (Klugman, Neyapti & Stewart 1999 p.15). In depth analysis into the impact of colonialism on independent Uganda During the colonial period, political parties were influenced by the power of religious factions. This method was mainly followed by the Kingdom of Bugunda to extend their territory. When Uganda obtained independence, the whole nation was comprised of religious alliances under the influence of the church which provided medical support and education (Leggett 2001p.14). The privileged treatment received by the Kingdom of Buganda from the British made them feel superior among the common Ugandans. This resulted in resentment across the nation and ethnicities. When British set up colonialism in Uganda, they opted for indirect rule. The operations of British rule were carried out in cooperation with the Kingdom of Buganda. This is the reason why the Baganda received privileged treatment. The Buganda Agreement of 1900 formally terminated the independent kingdom of Buganda by restoring the authority of the Kabaka under the rules of the protectorate. The British later realized that Buganda would be the single largest force to resist them and hence the chiefs were rewarded generously for complying with British rule (Leggett 2001p.16). During colonial rule, the British promoted rule and common interest with the locals by providing land to all people in the political hierarchy ranging from the parish chief to the king. The British then formed local government by demarcating districts based on ethnic boundaries. Though an organized structure of administration was formed, the British could not develop a sense of oneness or nationhood among the various ethnic clans. Further, the administrative regions lacked the support of government institutions to streamline cooperative function among various regions. For instance, the formation of Legislative Council in 1920 did not result in national policies but were limited to the improvement of independent districts and the council was composed of colonial officials. This kind of biased and selfish interest was evident among the political parties that rivaled each other to take over the political leadership of Uganda after independence. Various initiatives to form a national political party failed to gather the support of the people. The parties that overcame severe competition towards the end of colonial rule later emerged as the President and Prime Minister only to repeat the divided system of colonial rule in the place of forming a united peaceful nation. Towards independence, Uganda was better known as a country than nation due to its divisive nature. The Kingdom of Buganda felt betrayed since they knew that power would be centralized to the newly formed government and that they would lose their special status in terms of power and economic progress. The parliament of Buganda was determined to restore its position as a privileged kingdom and declared their unilateral independence. This was yet another step that reinstated and reinforced the divide and rule policy of Uganda that prevailed in the nation for more than seven decades. This also means that the leaders of independent Uganda had a tough role to unite the nation in order to build a nation state and impose national rule (Leggett 2001p.17). Political catastrophe took its first step in 1962 after independence. The political unrest pushed Uganda to a state of poor economy that resulted from economic mismanagement, human rights abuse and incapable leadership. The poverty and violence resulted in millions of people fleeing Uganda and in the murder of millions of people. The depth of poverty deepened as the political unrest soured high. In the move towards independence Uganda was divided in the lines of religious and tribal groups that were also divided within ruling class. The declaration of unilateral independence by Buganda itself saw the separation of public services from the rest of the country. Since the kingdom of Buganda enjoyed special status, all the developments brought in by the British were solely enjoyed by them (Leggett 2001p.18). They also had a separate economic base and legal and political system to protect them. The Uganda People Congress was formed to oppose the privileges owned by Buganda. However, during independence the UPC associated with Kabaka Yekka (KY) that stood for King Only leadership to share the political scenario post independence. It was just an alliance of convenience to stop the Democratic Party from winning the elections before independence was declared. Once the UPC and KY were elected to power they took over the office of the prime minister and president respectively. The alliance did not last longer and they were set apart with the Prime Minister Milton Obote with Idi Amin forming a group against the Kabaka of Buganda and Army Commander. A new constitution was formed by Obote to deactivate the powers of the Buganda and ended all its political, economic and financial autonomy. Though the Buganda Parliament served an ultimatum to oust the newly formed government from the Kingdom of Buganda, the Kabaka was unable to implement it but gave an opportunity for Obote to overthrow the Kabaka by storming into his palace resulting in the Battle of Mengo. The Kabaka fled to Britain and the kingdom was divided into four administrative districts. The Kabaka’s palace was then used as the Ministry of Defense head office. Within four years of independence, parliamentary democracy and government came to an end though the rule was officially valid till 1971. The victory of Obote was due to the loyalty of the military (Leggett 2001p.19). After 1971, national politics was practiced only with military support (Leggett 2001 p.20). The Democratic Party was formed in 1956 and constitutes Catholics with a major hold in the South while the Uganda People’s Congress was formed in 1958 and comprises protestants with major hold in the North despite having alliances with the Kingdom of Buganda. The Bugandan Kingdom had major authority in the public administration of the country but has not been able to rise to power. The Conservative Party is the continuance of the Kebakka Yekka. Several cultural groups work in the political set at local and national level to preserve the interest of minorities. These groups are divided into four categories: groups with a separatist attitude, groups engaged in the redistribution of advantages in a single state setting, groups engaged in the civil liberties of indigenous communities and groups engaged in safeguarding the rights of minorities. For instance, these groups are Bugandans political, cultural and nationalist groups that work towards the restoration of the Bugandan Kingdom with a separate entity. Local level groups like this work towards the betterment of their community with their own newspapers and radio (Civil society in Uganda). The political disorder in Uganda affected the development of the nation in the 1960’s. Public service was hit by the poor infrastructure and economy. Though colonialism is not the only reason for the present issues, the post colonial social and political upheaval has contributed for the unrest in Uganda. Years of human rights abuse came to an end only with a stable leadership in the 1980’s (Kawooya 2003). With the above political set up in place, post colonial operation of nationalists who took over the mantle as leaders continued with the classification of ethnicity instead of putting an end to the practice. It was important to substantiate democracy in Uganda in order to terminate the colonial rule that gave privileges to certain region. Deconstruction of economic and political bases set up in these privileged regions was an important factor. Breaking regionalism and ethnicity should have been the objective of the newly formed democratic government to build up institutions that treated all Ugandans equally. In the case of Uganda, the political leaders did not envision to terminate the special status given to the Kingdom of Buganda and did not envisage reforms to build a centrally controlled nation to rebuild the economy. This added to the wrath of the already furious ethnic groups since major resources was centralized and used by the Baganda (people of Buganda). There was no liberation of the society in terms of resources and economy. Instead, the shadows of colonialism in terms of privileges continued even after the independence of Uganda. Therefore ethnic consciousness increased after the independence that led to further consequences. Hence democracy and political leadership did not have significance to the ethnically divided people (Okuku 2002 p.15). The decision of the British to hand over the Bunyoro Kingdom, a rival of the Buganda Kingdom, to the Buganda is also one of the reasons for political conflict that surged after the independence (Okuku 2002 p.16). The internal clash between political alliances reached a high in the year 1966 due to three major reasons: 1. the collapse of the UPC/KY alliance, 2.the leadership dispute where the UPC planned to move Obote and 3. the suspension of the newly formed constitution. The initiative of Obote to build a nation state by deconstructing ethnicity served as a reason to increase ethnic consciousness by giving more importance to it (Okuku 2002 p.16). Therefore the initiative to build a nation state could not be implemented. Further the deconstruction of ethnics resulted in disagreement between the UPC and Kebaka Yekka (Okuku 2002 p.15). The ill treatment of politicians from the KY and the politicization of ethnicity angered the Kingdom of Buganda (Okuku 2002 p.16). The imposition of authoritarianism on civil society institutions like cooperatives and trade union and opposition parties and the internal conflict in the ruling coalition made the process nation state creation a failure. In addition to this, during 1964-66 there was internal pressure with the party of Obote. After formulating the new constitution in 1967, Obote banned the opposition political parties by labeling them as dangerous societies that pose a threat to peace and order in the nation. The assumption that one party state can only build a nation state abolished pluralist reforms in the society. This was a general practice in Africa to suppress several parties to give importance to a single party leadership. However, this could not solve the problems of democracy and ethnicity but gave rise to a monopolistic power formed of elites selected from religious groups and a number of ethnics. The centralization of authority and power featured by the one party state with no regard for other political institutions and ethnic groups lead to the intense violence and political confliction in post colonial Uganda. This kind of set up in a multi ethnic society is attributed to the failure of democracy (Okuku 2002 p.17). The ethnicity in military also remained the same after the independence of Uganda. The presence of ethnicity in the army had a negative influence on the political evolution of Uganda. This is relevant from the incidents during the regimes of Obote in 1960 and 1980’s, the rule of Idi Amin in the 1970’s and the rule of Museveni from 1986 who used the military to capture and maintain authority resulting in the postponement of establishing democracy(Okuku 2002 p.19). It may be concluded the post independence violence and instability of Uganda was mainly due to the privileged status enjoyed by the Kingdom of Buganda during the colonial period. The divisiveness of ethnicity also had a ruining effect since the Kingdom of Bunyoro was dispersed in favor of the Buganda. The main cause for ethnic clashes was for better resources for livelihood which was accumulated with the Kingdom of Buganda. Hence colonial rule has had a ruining effect of Uganda even after its independence. Reference Civil society in Uganda Available: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/dfidwork/workwithcs/cs-how-to-work-uganda.asp. Accessed on January 20, 2008. Kawooya, D. August 2003. Information and Professional Ethics in Sub-Saharan Africa: the Ugandan experience. Available: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla69/papers/088e-Kawooya.pdf. Accessed on January 20, 2008. Klugman. J., Neyapti, B. & Stewart, F. 1999 Conflict and Growth in Africa Paris: OECD publishing. Leggett, I 2001 Uganda Oxford: Oxfam Okuku, J. 2002. Ethnicity, State Power and the Democratisation Process in Uganda: Discussion Paper No. 17 Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute Porcaro, J.W. 2008 On Uganda and Africa: A Retrospective Essay After Forty Years http://library.tuins.ac.jp/kiyou/2008kokusai-PDF/0803porcaro.pdf . Accessed on January 20, 2008. Read More