COMPENSACIÓN EN CASCADA

The occupation of Uganda by the British colonial government started with the coming of two Britons, John Speke and James Grant, in 1862 on a mission to trace the origin of the river Nile (Mamdani, 1976; Mutibwa, 1992). These were followed by three missionary groups. First, the Church Missionary Society (CMS) led by Alexander Mackey (British protestant) in 1877, second, the Mill Hill Fathers in 1877, and third, the White Fathers (French Catholics) in 1879 (Twaddle, 1974; Brierley and Spear, 1988; Karugire, 2010). Although the exact period when Moslem Arabs arrived in Uganda is not known, Kabwegyere (1974) indicates that by the 1840s they were already in contact with the Buganda kingdom during the processes of long distance trade.

Between 1887 and 1894 conflicts broke out among the Christians, Catholics and Moslems in the area which later became Uganda. Although the exact cause of the conflicts is not very clear, sources indicate that some were kindled by struggles for converts between the different religious sects, while others were attributed to resistance of external influence by the local population (Mamdani, 1976). Four wars and a number of disturbances took place in Buganda between 1884 and 1900 (Mukwaya, 1953). Initially, the conflicts were between the competing religious factions but in due course they drew in the local peoples and their leadership, particularly kings, chiefs and other notables (Mair, 1933; Hansen, 1986). To overcome the conflicts, accelerate the colonization process and break local resistance, the missionaries sought local alliances (Mamdani, 1976). The formation of alliances between the missionaries and the local communities was realised through the use of ‘divide and rule ‘as well as ‘indirect rule’ (Roberts, 1962).

Divide and rule refers to multiple processes which the colonial administration exploited and capitalised on to strengthen their position among the local populace. The colonial government often did this by offering military support to one ethnic group against another and in so doing they constructed and compounded ethnic identity differences. For instance, the Church Missionary Society forged an alliance with the Kabaka (King) of Buganda Kingdom in central Uganda in order to overcome and extend colonialism to the Bunyoro kingdom in mid-western Uganda (Mamdani, 1976). Meanwhile, indirect rule was a system of administration that entailed the use of individual collaborators and at times the entire tribe, for instance the Baganda in

34 central Uganda, as “sub-imperialists” (Mutibwa, 1992:3). The sub-imperialists — Baganda — not only extended colonial rule but also governed the unconquered parts of the country on behalf of the colonial government (Roberts, 1962). The use of collaborators was cheaper in terms of resources and less cumbersome as opposed to direct confrontation. As a result of these processes, Uganda was declared a British protectorate in 1894 (Mafeje, 1973; Mamdani, 1976; Tamale, 1999).

The first point of contact for the colonial representatives in Uganda was Buganda kingdom, and because of this, most collaborators were recruited from Buganda Kingdom (see Map 1 on page 36 for the location of Buganda Kingdom in Uganda). The Baganda people from Buganda Kingdom worked as intermediaries between the colonialists and the local people and also took up administrative assignments within the colonial establishment. The Ugandan historian, Karugire (2010), argues that the Baganda were recruited for the collaborative role and other assignments because they lived under the centralized system of government similar to that in Britain. Meanwhile, the representatives of the colonial government supervised the collaborators (Kasfir, 1976; Gartrell, 1983). The local peoples — the king, chiefs and other notables from Buganda Kingdom — who collaborated with the missionaries benefited from their collaborative roles. They were given freehold land and employment as interpreters, guides and clerks (Berg-Schlosser and Siegler, 1990).

In 1900, the Buganda Land Agreement was signed between Buganda Kingdom and representatives of the British colonial government (Kabwegyere, 1974; Jackson, 1974). “Few documents can be said to have shaped Ugandan politics and the economy as this singular document, signed on March 10, 1900 did” (Daily Monitor, 2012a). The agreement recognised the authority of the British colonial government over Buganda. As a kickback for acceptance of colonial administration and in appreciation for extending colonial rule to other kingdoms that had rejected colonial rule, Buganda kingdom was rewarded with land. The alienation of freehold land to the ruling class and private individuals from Buganda kingdom based on the 1900 Buganda Land Agreement restructured the social relations around land not only in Buganda but the entire country (Mamdani, 1976; Berg-Schlosser and Siegler, 1990; Twaddle, 1969).

Ownership of land, one of the most important means of production at the time in a largely smallholder peasant economy, created a small number of powerful people, “landed gentry” in

35 Mamdani’s words, comprised of the Kabaka (king) of Buganda, his chiefs and other notables on the one hand, and a large mass of landless peasants on the other hand (Mamdani, 1976:41). The changes in land tenure transformed the social, economic and political economy of Uganda as the ownership of land came with power and authority. Given that capital controls labour through wages, the people who owned land were able to control the landless. In addition, private land ownership created a land market in central Uganda (Buganda Kingdom), and subsequently the whole country. Although different classes comprised of landed and landless peasants emerged from the ‘land accumulation processes’, the outlying areas including northern Uganda lost from the land alliance as there were no freeholds alienated in such areas at the time. As land was used to facilitate colonization, in the process it polarized the social, economic and political setting of Uganda. These scenarios contributed to the beginning of the division between the northern and southern parts of Uganda.

36 Map 1: Uganda and its peoples in the colonial period

Source: Roberts (1962:436)

2.4. Colonial policies and the polarisation of communities in Uganda

The policies that were employed by the colonial government contributed to the polarisation of Uganda along ethnic, tribal and regional lines. The ensuing divisions and politics among the different peoples marginalised other regions and this propagated the processes that led to the development of conflicts in the country, including the LRA. The specific dynamics examined here are land, employment, distribution of social services and inter-party politics in colonial Uganda.

37 2.4.1. Land

Land allocation was a basis of polarisation between the northern region and southern areas and the origin of the contestations which ensued in the colonial and post-independence periods (Twaddle, 1969; Mutibwa, 1992). The allocation of freehold land to a few privileged leaders and other notables in Buganda Kingdom paved the way for the establishment of a colonial cash crop economy. The agricultural products, coffee, tea and sugar, were exported to the metropolitan centres in Britain (Mafeje, 1973; Smalley, 2013). Given that Buganda kingdom is near Lake Victoria and because it had fertile soils and relatively good infrastructure compared to other areas of Uganda, private land ownership paved the way for the establishment of private plantations (Frank, 1965; O’Connor, 1965; Smith, 1970; Jorgensen, 1981). The established coffee, tea and sugarcane plantations, in turn, created the demand for manual labour. The result was division of the country into specific regions, that is, the economically productive south which needed labourers to work on British and African-owned plantations and the economically unproductive north from where labourers were recruited and thus ‘exported’ to the productive areas in the south. By implication, specialisation was institutionalised in the country whereby the Acholi, Langi, Madi and Kakwa, among others, of northern Uganda were taken to individual and British-owned sugarcane, tea, coffee and banana plantations in the south (Jorgensen, 1981;

Jamal, 1993). The consequence of this systematic demarcation was the formation of class based and ethnic identity struggles in Uganda (Mamdani, 1976; Mutibwa, 1992).

According to Mamdani (1976:52), “what distinguished the south from the north was the role of the south in extracting surplus labour from the north to produce raw materials for the metropolitan economy”. “While commodity production spread in the south, the north … did remain a labour reservoir for southern agriculture” (Mamdani (1976: 133). By 1934, wage-labour was exclusively drawn from alien tribes and it became a norm that a farmer with one or two acres of cotton often employed about 5 labourers (Mafeje, 1973:11-12). The designation of the northern part of Uganda as a labour reserve directly and indirectly contributed to disempowerment and marginal incorporation of this area into the national capitalistic system (Jorgensen, 1981). This is how under-development of the northern region emerged and thus systematically compelled it to assume a totally different economy that was far apart in terms of socio-economic and political development compared to the rest of the country.

38 The south prospered through agricultural production while the north remained marginal as able-bodied people were continuously taken to the economically productive areas in the south (Mutibwa, 1992). Land ownership was thus a basis of social differentiation and creation of class boundaries (Mazrui, 1980). The development of different economies purposely to serve the colonial government and individual interests, left a lasting imprint on Uganda in the sense that long-term social identities were engineered through private land ownership and the power that came with those processes. With reference to employment in the “civil service, the army, the commercial class, the industrial work force [and] plantation labour”, Mamdani (1984:1049) concludes that, “every institution touched by the hand of the colonial state — was given a pronounced nationality or regional character”. In part, land ownership contributed to the incessant internal conflicts in Uganda. The next section examines the employment dynamics in Uganda during and after the colonial period and how these processes contributed to the formation of the LRA.

2.4.2. Employment dynamics and the north-south divide

The alienation of land to private individuals resulted in the construction of long-term social identities which, in turn, gave rise to ethnic-based divisions. Because of the need for manual labourers to work on plantations that were located in southern areas, the colonial administrators

‘constructed’ the people of northern Uganda as ‘martial and warlike with strong physique and stamina’ (Odoi-Tanga, 2009; Mazrui, 1980; Mutibwa; 1992; Jorgensen, 1981). According to Atkinson, the peoples of northern Uganda including the Acholi, Langi, Alur and Kakwa were labelled ‘martial, warlike and inferior’ because they wore animal skins, a practice that colonial administrators considered backward, “bizarre and primitive” (Atkinson, 2010b:5). In contrast, the colonial government labelled the peoples from the agriculturally productive south as superior.

Characterisation of the peoples of the north and the south in opposite ways determined the type of work assigned to the different classes of people therein during the colonial period. The peoples from the north were assigned manual labour tasks on agricultural plantations located in the south, while the ‘superior’ races from the south were employed in non-rigorous, less demanding clerical and administrative positions (Jorgensen, 1981; Mazrui, 1980; Atkinson, 2010b). Although the peoples from northern Uganda were labelled as inferior, they were the

39 major contributors to the development and prosperity in the south (Odoi-Tanga, 2009). Towns such as Jinja in Eastern Uganda and Mukono in Central Uganda prospered because of the labourers from northern Uganda who worked on the sugarcane plantations at Kakira and Lugazi respectively (Odoi-Tanga, 2009). The colonial government also recruited police officers and military personnel from the Acholi, Madi and Alur as these people were not only regarded as martial but were also in the labour reserve areas of northern Uganda. By 1950, the composition of peoples from northern Uganda in the police force was 15.5 percent, the highest contribution from a particular region ever registered in the police force at the time (Jorgensen, 1981:119).

The high number of northerners in police and military ranks is attributable to the fact that jobs in the military and police force were reserved for the less educated and war-like tribes. The Acholi, Madi and Kakwa were thus despised and looked down on by southerners who were employed in the civil service or what could be termed as the ‘white collar profession’. As regards to employment, Mamdani concludes that: “It became a colonial truism that a soldier must be a northerner and a civil servant a southerner, and a merchant, an Asian”, revealing the institutionalized nature of ethnicity and the north-south divide (Mamdani, 1984:1049; see also Mazrui, 1980). The north-south divide disparity did not only end with employment; the skewed nature of colonial polices was extended to the social services provision as well.

2.4.3. Uneven distribution of social services

Social services were unevenly distributed in that better roads, water, hospitals and educational facilities were concentrated in the southern region. Formal western education in Uganda was introduced by Protestant and Catholic missionaries under the guidance of the colonial government (Hansen, 1986). But the distribution of education institutions was unbalanced in that there were more facilities concentrated in the south, while the northern part of the country was under-served (Mujaju, 1976; Kabwegyere, 1974). Teaching was also conducted in the languages spoken by the peoples of the south, Luganda (Mutibwa, 1992).

Mamdani (1976) highlights how the distribution of education institutions during the colonial period was unequal by pointing out that enrolment was not open to everyone but limited to children of chiefs and landlords from the south. While the north did not have any schools by 1920 (Mutibwa, 1992), there were 368 schools in Buganda, 44 in western Uganda and 42 in Eastern Uganda (Kabwegyere, 1974). Buganda as a region had more schools than all the other

40 regions of Uganda combined. Schools like Trinity College Nabbingo in Buganda founded by the White Fathers in 1942 and Mwiri College in Busoga in the Eastern region were for the sons of landlords and chiefs. Later on, Buckley High School in Eastern Uganda founded in 1906 by the Church Missionary Society; Gayaza and Namagunga in Buganda admitted the daughters of chiefs (Kabwegyere, 1974).

The skewed distribution of education institutions was based on the idea that provision of education to all citizens was “politically dangerous” for the economy (Jorgensen (1981:165).

Thus, education was provided to a few privileged southerners with the view that education for all would produce a mass of critical voices that would interfere with the colonial setup. Moreover, unequal distribution of educational facilities guaranteed an uninterrupted supply of labourers from the north to the plantations in the south. At the same time, establishment of education institutions in the north was not prioritized because the jobs which the people of the north undertook (labourers on plantations, police and army ranks) did not require any formal qualification (Mujaju, 1976; Kabwegyere, 1974). For this reason, education was provided to the privileged southerners. By establishing schools and admitting children mainly from southern areas, the colonial government groomed the peoples of the south to take-up administrative positions in the colonial government.

Inequality in the provision of education was also reflected in the statistical figures which indicate the number of students that attained higher education between 1926 and 1931. There were 91 Ugandans in institutions of higher learning abroad, of which 75 were from Buganda, 5 were from Busoga (areas in the central region), 3 were from Tooro, 3 came from Bunyoro, 1 Munyankole from western Uganda, 2 Swahili and 2 Nyasa (Kabwegyere, 1974:166). The peoples of northern Uganda were not represented at all thus reflecting their marginal position as regards the attainment of higher education abroad.

At the opening of the first tertiary institution in Uganda and East Africa — Makerere College in 1922 — “all the first students came from the south” and some courses were taught in languages used in the south, namely Luganda (Mutibwa (1992:9) (emphasis original). Teaching in the local languages used in the south meant that only southerners could be admitted because of the language advantage. By 1960, 47% of all students at Makerere College were from Buganda, implying that colonial policies continued to favour the people from the south (Jorgensen,

41 1981:247). The lack of educational opportunities in the north maintained a large pool of uneducated labourers who could work on plantations in the south. The policy not only aroused ethnic consciousness but reinforced social differentiation between the peoples of the north and those from the south, thus contributing to conflicts.

2.4.4. Inter-party politics

The politics within the protectorate contributed to further polarization between the north and the south. In 1945 the Legislative Council (LEGCO) that was charged with the duty of overseeing Uganda’s post-independence period was established. Buganda Kingdom, the Eastern and Western provinces were represented on the council but the northern region was not represented on the setup (Karugire, 2010:141; see also Mutibwa, 1992). The elimination of the Northern Province was based on ‘backwardness’ and the lack on an ‘advanced administrative’ structure (Karugire, 2010). At the same time, political parties founded in the 1950s in preparation for the 1962 general elections reflected the manner in which colonial policies divided the peoples based on ethnic identity and religion. Apart from Uganda People’s Union (UPU) that was founded by Protestants outside of Buganda, all other political parties were established by the elite classes from central Uganda.

The Democratic Party (DP) that was formed in 1956 was comprised of elite Baganda Catholics and the Uganda National Congress (UNC) was also dominated by Protestants from the north and eastern regions of Uganda (Mazrui, 1977). Even when the Uganda National Congress (UNC) merged with the Uganda Peoples Union (UPU) in 1960 to form the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), religion (Protestant), was a major issue. In addition, the Progressive Party (PP) was also Christian based, while Kabaka Yekka (KY) — loosely interpreted as ‘King Alone’ — was also dominated by Protestants from around Baganda kingdom (Mazrui, 1977; Twaddle, 1988).

Kabaka Yekka (KY) was formed for three strategic reasons. First, protect the interests of Buganda kingdom and Baganda landlords and to ensure that Baganda politicians get into power (Babwegyere, 1974).

Second, politicians from Buganda Kingdom predicted a chance for secession from the broader Uganda thus Buganda kingdom had to strategically position itself within the political realm of the country. The discussions that took place at the Lancaster House in the United Kingdom prior to Uganda’s independence thus granted Buganda kingdom full federal autonomy, while other

42 kingdoms were accorded semi-federal status. Based on positionality differences, Mutibwa, (1992:21) asserts that Buganda became a “state within a state”, while Mamdani (1976:229) claimed that two separate states emerged, that is, “Buganda and Uganda - each with separately defined powers”.

Third, the political developments during Uganda’s transition from colonial rule to independence did not entirely assure Buganda of continued autonomy within independent Uganda. But because Buganda as a central political entity in Uganda was better off than the rest of the polities in the country and given that it had better social services and other infrastructure, the well-educated and wealthiest community at the time, it could function independent of the central government. That privileged position was an advantage to Buganda Kingdom but proved dangerous to the unity of the country as a whole. By predicting an ethnically divided country at independence amidst the belief within Buganda kingdom that the monarchy could function independent of other areas of the country, Buganda Kingdom opted to secede from the broader Uganda in 1960 so as to

“escape multi-racialism” (Jorgensen, 1981:196; Edel; 1965). The developments which ensued thereafter were detrimental to the unity of Uganda as a nation.

2.5. Post-independence governance dynamics

At independence on 9^th October 1962, Uganda was born based on a quasi-federal constitution.

The 1962 post-independence quasi-federal constitution upheld the autonomous position of Buganda Kingdom, appointed the King of Buganda — Mutesa II — as the first non-executive head of state (President). Meanwhile, Milton Obote — a Langi from northern Uganda — was the Executive Prime Minister. The political troubles however began two years into independence when the central government planned to hand back the ‘lost counties’⁹ of Buyaga and Bugangaizi from Buganda Kingdom to Bunyoro kingdom (see Map 2 on page 42). The return of the lost counties was to have territorial and financial implications on Buganda kingdom and the

The 1962 post-independence quasi-federal constitution upheld the autonomous position of Buganda Kingdom, appointed the King of Buganda — Mutesa II — as the first non-executive head of state (President). Meanwhile, Milton Obote — a Langi from northern Uganda — was the Executive Prime Minister. The political troubles however began two years into independence when the central government planned to hand back the ‘lost counties’⁹ of Buyaga and Bugangaizi from Buganda Kingdom to Bunyoro kingdom (see Map 2 on page 42). The return of the lost counties was to have territorial and financial implications on Buganda kingdom and the