Ankole, also referred to as Nkore, is a traditional kingdom in Uganda. The kingdom is located in southwestern Uganda, east of Lake Edward. It was ruled by a monarch known as the Mugabe or Omugabe. The kingdom was formally abolished in 1967 by the government of President Obote Militon, and is still not officially restored.The people of Ankole are called Banyankole (singular: Munyankole) in Runyankole Language.
By the time of signing the 1901 agreement, Ankole included 11 administrative units under different chiefs. They were, Buchunku (Mitooma), Matsiko (Nyabushozi), Rutasharara (Isingiro), Ruhara (Rwampara), Nduru (Buzimba), Enganzi Mbaguta (Ngarama, Sheema, Kashaari), Mukotani (Igara), Rubarema (Buhweju) and Kaihura (Bunyaruguru)
Why I support Obugabe
Whatever their weaknesses, societies with monarchical institutions such as Banyankore had a modicum of order and organization. In Runyankore, the term Obugabe means ‘freedom’ and thus the Omugabe was the ‘giver’ of this freedom. What this implies is that the Obugabe represented sovereign authority and was the embodiment of the state in Ankole.
As a matter of fact, the responsibilities of the Omugabe were wide-ranging – from maintaining the natural beauty of the environment to ensuring law and order, justice, stability, security, unity, and equitable development in his kingdom. The Omugabe was a cultural leader, a sole planner, a military commander, a custodian of democracy, and a source of unity. He carried out all these duties with the support of a dedicated team of officials carefully chosen from all sections of his subjects.
After independence, the Omugabe became the constitutional head of an elected local government. Constitutionally, the Omugabe was above party politics and he was required to invite the leader of whatever political party won the elections to form the government. Between 1962 and 1967, Sir Charles Gasyonga reigned constitutionally. When Obote abolished the kingdoms in 1967 he could not accuse Sir Charles Gasyonga of threatening the stability or unity of Uganda.
The claim that the kingdoms were dividing the people and causing chaos was completely baseless at least as far as Ankole kingdom was concerned. In any case, Obote abolished the kingdoms not because they threatened the unity and stability of the country but he did so to monopolize power by eliminating real or imaginary enemies.
Thus, the kingdoms were convenient punch bags in the grand game of power politics that marked the beginning of recurrent upheavals in our country at any rate until NRM came to power in 1986. Unfortunately, Obote’s anti-kingdom manoeuvres were embraced by some gullible Banyankore who welcomed the abolition of Ankole kingdom, and have opposed its restoration since 1993.
Some of the opponents of the restoration of Ankole kingdom have either deliberately distorted our history or based their arguments on sheer ignorance. For example, these people have claimed that the Omugabe used to spit in the mouth of his subjects. Even if this was a traditional practice and if it was to be revived, it is impossible to interpret it out of its historical context.
Traditionally, what is called okucwera omu kanwa (spitting in the mouth) did not affect every Munyankore subject. Rather it was a ritual symbolising the special relationship between the Omugabe and the Basingo clan. The Basingo were historically confidants and messengers of the Omugabe. That is why they were called Abashongore (meaning that they were sharp, reliable and straightforward).
They used to light the Omugabe’s pipe and he used to send them on this or that errand. Whenever a Musingo messenger delivered the Omugabe’s message or directive he would say: “Omugabe yaancwera omu kanwa” [the Omugabe has spat in my mouth], meaning that the message was transmitted in full without distortion or deviation.
At a time when messages were delivered by word of mouth, “spitting in the mouth” was simply a way of saying that the Omugabe’s message was accurately conveyed to the intended recipient. Unfortunately, this figurative meaning was later on distorted to achieve cheap political ends and has been unquestioningly swallowed by the younger generation.
Equally baseless is the argument that the Obugabe favored the Bahima at the expense of the Bairu. The history of Nkore and Ankole is full of examples of prominent Bairu, who held the highest offices in the kingdom. Indeed, all the last four Prime Ministers (Enganzi) in Ankole – Zakaria Mungonya, Kesi Nganwa, John Kabeireho and James Kahigiriza were Bairu.
Even before British colonialism, the Bairu were appointed to the highest posts in the kingdom. A good example is Muhigi of the Basingo clan who was Enganzi of Nkore before Nuwa Mbaguta. Moreover, although the Bahima chiefs were more numerous during the early part of the colonial period, they had largely been replaced by Bairu when Uganda attained independence.
So whatever pro- Bahima favouritism had existed in Ankole kingdom administration had been eliminated by the 1950s. In fact, if there was any favoritism in the Ankole kingdom administration in the decade before 1967, the Bahima [and to some extent Roman Catholic Bairu] had more reason to complain than the Bairu elite in general.
It would, therefore, be wrong and inconsistent with our history to politicize the Obugabe issue along the Bahima-Bairu social divide which, in any case, has become increasingly blurred with the passage of time
Test of time
The Banyankore have a long and proud history dating back to the eleventh century. This history revolved around the institution of Obugabe which, until its abolition in 1967, had stood the test of time and served its people well. Over the centuries, the Obugabe had accumulated a lot of wealth in terms of material culture, regalia, institutions and traditions.
Our kingdom had plenty of historical/cultural sites such as Keigoshoora, Bweyorere, Rutoma, Itaba, Ihanje, Nkokonjeru and Kantsyore island, which are intimately linked to Nkore/Ankole kingship such as royal burial grounds, venues for the enthronement of kings, the making of Bagyendanwa and other regalia, etc.
It is the duty of every Munyankore to preserve these sites as well as the Obugabe which they represent for posterity before they are erased from our collective memory. It is this sense of history that has driven me in the twilight of my life to struggle for the restoration of Ankole kingdom before I join my ancestors to rest in eternal peace. I hope my efforts will be rewarded while I am still alive.
The neglect of our historical sites, including Mugabe’s palace at Kamukuzi is a great shame and an indictment of all Banyankore before the court of history and our ancestors. Some cultural sites have never been put to any good use since 1967. They have been vandalized. Unless something is done soon, they will collapse and there collapse will symbolize the collapse of our cultural heritage.
Successive governments have never realized the importance of preserving our historical sites, such as the terribly dilapidated Mugabe’s palace, to remove our sense of shame and ensure our cultural posterity. If we do not act now, history will not absolve us. The first step towards our cultural renewal and the rescue of our heritage is the restoration of the Obugabe.
Final note
Most of the criticisms of monarchy are no longer valid today, if they were ever valid. These criticisms are usually some variations of two ideas. Firstly, the monarch may wield absolute power arbitrarily without any sort of check, thus ruling as a tyrant. However, in present era, most monarchies rule within some sort of constitutional or traditional framework which constrains and institutionalizes their powers. Even prior to this, monarchs faced significant constraints from various groups including religious institutions, aristocracies, the wealthy, and even commoners. Customs, which always shape social interactions, also served to restrain. Even monarchies that were absolute in theory were almost always constrained in practice.
A second criticism is that even a good monarch may have an unworthy successor. However, today’s heirs are educated from birth for their future role and live in the full glare of the media their entire lives. This constrains bad behavior. More importantly, because they have literally been born to rule, they have constant, hands-on training on how to interact with people, politicians, and the media.
In light of the all the advantages of monarchy, it is clear why many citizens of democracies today have an understandable loyalty for monarchy. As in previous centuries, monarchy will continue to show itself to be an important and beneficial political institution wherever it still survives.
The point that needs to be made here is that, in law, the so claimed minority with or without the majority who are happy or prepared to have the Omugabe back, are perfectly entitled to that. Because, as we all know, human rights are not about popularity or numbers. So, just like the pro- obugabe group cannot impose the Omugabe over those opposed to it, the anti-Obugabe camp cannot simply deny the rights of those who enjoy it as part of their culture.
Article 27(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (“UDHR”) says that everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, adopted by the UNESCO is predicated on the consideration of culture as a full-fledged resource for development.
The writer is a political analyst.
