{UAH} Monarchs that ignore needs of their people pay a price

History shows that when the interests of the people are ignored by their leaders there is a heavy price in the long term. One of the reasons that feudalism ended in Europe is because peasants were heavily exploited largely through taxation and rents.

Peasants' revolts popularized by the English revolt of 1381 became increasingly common as serfs got exhausted and pushed aside the promise that their afterlife would be rewarding as a result of their suffering on earth as priests had advised them. Peasants and urban workers in many cases led by women toppled monarchies.

In revolutionary France that began in 1789, trouble began with unemployed and hungry workers in Paris that were joined by peasants that suffered the remnants of feudalism. Land ownership in favor of a few noble rich French and the church was a source of grievances. Women played a critical role in Paris and in marching to Versailles, the king's palace, to bring the king and his family to Paris where the revolutionary preparations and eventually the revolution took place first. The king's hesitancy to respond favorably to peoples' needs cost him his life and ended the Bourbon dynasty.

Similarly in Russia peasant demand for land, food and peace during World War I tipped the scales in favor of Lenin and his communist ideology because he promised to deliver peace, land and bread if accepted as their leader.

Food, fuel and employment shortages occurred in bitter cold winter when Russians were being slaughtered in WWI triggered the 1917 Russian Revolution when women in St. Petersburg demonstrated for food, fuel and ending Russian participation in World War I. Czar Nicholas II acted slowly and was forced by his generals to abdicate and his brother turned down the offer to succeed him ending a 300 year Romavov dynasty and paving the way for Lenin and communism in Russia that became the Soviet Union.

The same can be said of Emperor Haile Sellaise of Ethiopia who ignored the suffering of his people in rural and urban areas. The revolution was triggered by food shortages which in 1973 and 1974 developed into a famine. Haile Sellasie and his government ignored the famine to maintain his international reputation hoping time would solve the problem. This time luck wasn't on the emperor's side. The famine was exposed and triggered the revolution of 1974 that ended the Ethiopian empire and the disappearance of the emperor.    

What we are seeing, reading and hearing about Buganda is not far from what happened in Ethiopia, France and Russia that led to the destructive revolutions. Baganda are demanding return of their land and properties that they lost during the guerrilla war of 1981-86. They are demanding quality education and healthcare. Baganda are demanding opportunities for jobs, food, decent homes and clothing. Unemployed, hungry and homeless people have no room for a monarchy that doesn't care for them.

Monarchies that have survived are flexible, listen and respond to the demands of the public.  We therefore suggest that the Mengo administration draws a lesson from this experience.

Some Baganda are going to accuse us of interfering in the internal affairs of Buganda. But before doing so they must understand that what happens in Buganda affects other regions. We are therefore interested in stability and peace and security in Buganda.

Many people are perplexed about the agreement reached between Mengo administration and Central government that the two should not criticize each other when one even when one commits atrocities against the people of Uganda and of Buganda. In the view of many commentators this was the most unfortunate and reckless decision to reach and to proudly report to the public.

Even if the MOU returned all the properties and federo, which it didn't (nothing has been returned except to agree to begin negotiations in which Buganda will provide proof of previous ownership which may be difficult to find given poor record keeping in Uganda), Mengo administration should never have accepted the idea probably initiated by Museveni that the two administrations should not criticize each other whatsoever.

The MOU has implications for all Ugandans. It must therefore be taken seriously by all Ugandans, read it with a fine tooth comb upon its publication which the people of Uganda must demand and make pronouncements on it.

We therefore urge Mengo which appears to have been tricked or forced into taking these drastic steps at a critical moment when Museveni is struggling for his survival as what happened in Luwero during the guerrilla war becomes available to step back, look at what has happened, weigh the short, medium and long term implications of the MOU and decide in consultation with the people what next steps to take.

We do not know what exactly transpired during the three hour meeting between three Mengo officials and Museveni at state house shortly before the MOU was signed by Museveni as originally reported and later corrected that the Kabaka also signed, although we are informed that the Kabaka and his government were represented by the Katikkiro who should have signed the MOU.  

 Eric Kashambuzi