By Dean Lubowa Saava
The recent controversy surrounding the removal of the Map of Buganda from the Map of Uganda has brought to the fore the long-standing tensions between the Kingdom of Buganda and the Central Government of Uganda.
This seemingly innocuous issue has sparked a firestorm of debate, revealing deep-seated grievances and highlighting the fragile nature of their relationship.
At its core, the dispute revolves around issues of identity, autonomy, and recognition. The Baganda people take immense pride in their cultural heritage and historical significance, with the Map of Buganda serving as a potent symbol of their identity.
By removing it from the national map, the Central Government is perceived as diminishing the kingdom’s importance and disregarding its contributions to Uganda’s rich cultural tapestry.
This perceived slight has rekindled long-standing tensions between Buganda and the Central Government, which date back to the pre-independence era.
The Buganda Agreement of 1900, which established the kingdom as a British protectorate, has been a point of contention, with many Baganda feeling that their autonomy and rights were eroded by the agreement.
In recent years, tensions have simmered over issues such as land ownership, cultural preservation, and political representation.
The Central Government’s decision to remove the Map of Buganda from the national map has been seen as a provocation, reinforcing perceptions that the government is insensitive to the kingdom’s concerns and dismissive of its cultural significance.
To move forward, it is essential that both parties engage in constructive dialogue, acknowledging the historical grievances and cultural sensitivities that underpin this dispute.
The Central Government must recognize the importance of preserving Buganda’s cultural heritage and acknowledge the kingdom’s contributions to Uganda’s national identity.
Government and Buganda’s Response
In response to the backlash, the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, expressed his dissatisfaction with the map, questioning the intent behind its release.
During his birthday celebrations in Masaka, the Kabaka stated, “Lately, there have been maps of Uganda that have been released from government agencies.
As we speak, those maps do not include Buganda. All the other regions of Uganda are on the maps but Buganda is missing. Therefore I wonder, what is the intent of this?”
Ultimately, the relationship between Buganda and the Central Government is a complex, multifaceted one, influenced by history, culture, and politics.
By addressing the underlying tensions and grievances, both parties can work towards a more harmonious and mutually respectful relationship, one that celebrates Uganda’s rich cultural diversity and promotes national unity.
The History of Past regimes:
The relationship between Buganda and the Central Government has been tumultuous, to say the least. In the era of President Yoweri Museveni, several disputes have arisen, contributing to the strained bond between the two entities.
One notable instance was the 2009 Clashes, which erupted over institutional disputes regarding land and decentralization. The violence between state forces and Kingdom supporters resulted in significant unrest [4).
Another point of contention has been the Land Question, which has its roots in the 1900 Buganda Agreement. This agreement has been a persistent source of tension, with many Baganda feeling that their autonomy and rights were eroded [3).
In recent years, the Central Government’s decision to Remove the Map of Buganda from the national map has sparked outrage, with many perceiving it as a slight against the kingdom’s cultural significance.
Historical grievances, such as the Lost Counties Dispute, have also contributed to the strained relationship. This dispute dates back to the 1960s, when Prime Minister Milton Obote warned Tutsi refugees against incursions into Rwanda.
These past disputes have cumulatively contributed to the fragile relationship between Buganda and the Central Government, with each incident reigniting underlying tensions and grievances.
