|
|
I submitted this article to the
Monitor in August 2001. Unfortunately it was not run. The background
was land wrangles between tribes in Uganda as was being exhibited
at the time among the Iteso and Bahima, and among the Banyoro
and Bakiga.
When the Son Throws the Father out of the Paternal House
And the Lord said, “one day, when your son comes of age,
he will take over your house and graciously confine you to the
guest wing”. Don’t remember seeing this in the Bible,
but even it were written in the Holy book it would still be preposterous
– why? - Because it contravenes simple principles of common
courtesy and territory. Some psychologists posit that, apart from
food, territory is one of the primordial drives of man (the others
being sex and status). And courtesy? – well, the son is
simply not expected to throw the father out, if anything he is
expected to contribute to maintenance of the father’s abode
and maybe even build him a new house.
The colonialists came to Africa and occupied land using a combination
of evangelism, force and shrewd legislation. ‘As we closed
our eyes to pray they stole our land’ and then made laws
to protect their new acquisitions. In (in)famous examples such
as Kenya, Zimbabwe and South Africa, protracted battles were waged
by the black Africans to repossess their ancestral land. And yet
in all cases the pertinent constitution must have given the white
settlers a legal right over the land. Did the black Africans have
the right to try to throw the whites off the land? One could answer
yes, because our fathers and their forefathers’ fathers
lived here while the whites’ ancestors were in Europe. But
a cursory knowledge of history indicates that many Africans’
forefathers were also actually immigrants in their so-called ancestral
lands. So just at what point in time did the Africans acquire
the inalienable ancestral right to the land? And just what differentiates
a young ‘white African’ (if there is any such term),
whose great grandfather was borne and raised in Africa, from a
young black African?
The answer, one could
be tempted to say, is simple: divided by huge oceans, Europe belongs to
whites and Africa belongs to the Africans. In the African continent itself,
different groupings gained control over land and their sense of ownership
was reinforced by distance, impenetratable forests and other natural
barriers, and low travel technology. But there came a time when technology
made the barriers of ocean, distance and natural obstacle insignificant so
that continents and the territories within them began to merge. The
barriers that defined ancestral territory vanished and so somebody living
miles away had as much physical access to your land as the clanmate/
neighbour. When the white man got the technology to transverse oceans he,
in a way, got a claim to overseas lands in the same manner as the Mularo
who manages to cross to and settle in Teso, albeit with less sophisticated
technology. And so if black Africans are justified to throw out the whites,
the Iteso should also be allowed to throw out the Hima – what is for
the Zungu is good for the Ganda. Otherwise blacks will rightly be accused
of double standards.
In this wide universe
there is planet earth, which contains the continents, which contain the
nations. In the nations are the districts, the villages, the households and
finally the individual room. Constitutions provide for killing, if need be,
to secure territorial integrity for example at national level. Defense of
territory is vis-à-vis the outer world. Thus, ideally, if aliens attacked
planet earth all humans would unite in defense, and if whites evaded Africa
en masse, Africans would stand united. When Sudan evades Uganda, Ugandans
ought to stand united against the intruder. And when one tribe in the
country invades the other, the aggrieved tribe is entitled to being united
in anguish.
But there is a flip
side to the coin. Suppose one welcomes a guest and even encourages him to
own and develop land. But as the guest develops and becomes wealthy,
through honest hard work, the host becomes green with envy and turns around
to claim forceful invasion with the aim of destroying the guest and perhaps
also taking over his (the guest’s) property. Still what if, the guest
(probably now turned homeboy) becomes wealthy or politically powerful and
subsequently becomes arrogant and treacherous, is the host still entitled
to indignantly asking the guest to leave (is the guest still a guest
anyway?) What if the guest uses his new wealth or political power to
marginalize the original landowner – to reverse history, to make the
host into guest?
Socio-economic forces
coupled with the ease of movement within the country mean that people will
continue migrate. Buganda is a perfect example of a melting pot where
Ugandans of all shades are living in relative harmony. But even in Buganda
squatters on private land are not welcome (despite the obvious fact that
this land is also part of Uganda). Thus, even in such liberal territory as
Buganda, just because it is located in Uganda, a piece of land cannot
simply be occupied by any Ugandan. And when a Muganda hosts a non-Muganda
on his land using whatever arrangement, he cannot simply throw him out at
his whims. Somebody who starts staying on a piece of land inevitably gains
a stake in it and therefore certain rights over that land.
What then defines the
rights of the guest vis-à-vis the host and vice versa? If the Kibaale and
Teso situations are anything to go by, the existing Ugandan laws on land
issues are completely inadequate and if the status quo is maintained,
another, perhaps more explosive land situation is bound to arise. If the
relationship between host and guest is not made clear, conflicts are bound
to arise with each party probably feeling justified in their indignation.
However much the spin-doctors warp the logic in favour of one group and
preach the gospel of freedom of movement within Uganda, the basic problem
remains that of fuzzy laws. We cannot close our eyes and hope that the
hallowed constitution (which must be augmented by appropriate local laws
anyway) will mould all Ugandans into one unity. We need to make the right
laws. Otherwise guest or host will at certain point, in misconceived
justification or pure malice, try to take advantage of the other.
Going back to the
colonialist, they took land, many times with the unsuspecting consent of
the Africans, and made very clear laws to protect themselves. But there still
came a time when Africans felt aggrieved, the laws notwithstanding. This
raises the question of the justness of the laws. For the laws to become
generally accepted and therefore useful, the system that enacts those laws
also ought to be just one; that is an acceptable political system with laws
that reflect the aspirations and sentiments of all citizens concerned, and
that are implemented without partiality. This points to the need for a
genuine democratic system to provide the right framework within which all
Ugandans can move freely and live together in harmony.
|
