Obote’s attempt at nationalism and the rise of Idi Amin
L-R. Apollo Milton Obote and Idi Amin Dada. The two were allies but fell out later in the political game.
What you need to know:
He set out with an aim of uniting Uganda but the methods Apollo Milton Obote used to attain that unity, would undo his agenda and prop Idi Amin to the fore.
Kampala
When the Union Jack was lowered over Uganda for the last time on Independence Day, one key message rose above the new nation ---national unity.
Apollo Milton Obote, who had, as Prime Minister, steered Uganda to that day of self-rule, would introduce his independence speech with the call for unity. “One of our first needs must be national unity. The narrow ambitions of a tribe, a sect, or a party must be subordinated to the greater needs of one complete Uganda,” he said.
And in summarising his speech, Obote, would again re-emphasise his key agenda. “I conclude by emphasising that there is a place in the Uganda of today for all who have her interests at heart, whatever their tribe, race or creed. Let all of us, who wish to see Uganda prosper, join together today in resolving to build a great and united nation,” he added.
Even before independence, Obote, had, in an attempt at nationalism, (some would argue opportunistically get into office) tied a political knot with KY to form a coalition government.
In the early days of the republic, Obote’s supporters upheld him as a nationalist politician with the most national outlook and agenda for Uganda.
As late as 1968, two years after the attack on Mengo, various guests who attended a 10-hour all-nighter barbeque to celebrate Obote’s 10 years in Parliament were gushing in their praise for the leader.
The applause
The praise also came from other contemporary leaders. Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere reportedly said: “Dr. Apolo Milton Obote…slowly emerges as one of the giants on the African political stage. Others may be just as powerful and popular, but a few have shown themselves as such consummate masters of the political game. Like a great chess player, playing on many boards at the same time, he has outwitted his various opponents but all at the cause of national unity.”
Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda, on the other hand said: “…We know him as a man with a long and realistic vision, a man with a mission to make Uganda one country, one prosperous nation.”
Meanwhile, various publications and newspapers, we also dotted with commentaries on Obote’s effort at national unity. “The sole power behind Obote which has won him the respect of the people and admiration of his political opponents is his dedication to the promotion of the interest of Uganda,” noted The People, in Dr Obote’s Decade; Ten Years in Parliament, a booklet that, it must be noted, was published by the Milton Obote Foundation.
The Prime Minister’s various speeches, published in his chapbook, also aptly captured his unbending resolve at national unity. “If the Government is going to develop this country on a unitary basis, how on earth can a government develop another state within a state?” he asked, in a speech in the legislative council on May, 6, 1958, in a direct reference to Buganda’s desire for self-autonomy within the greater Uganda.
Again, on March 8, 1960, Obote said: “What binds men together is not facts or legal rights or guarantees, but ties of blood and country, of joys and sorrows commonly shared, of the invisible memories that time weaves into the fabric of a people’s lives.”
The praise from the Obote Foundation and his key allies was expected but even literary journals were not far from the bandwagon of praise.
The East African Journal on July 1966, quoting Emory Bundy, noted; “The performance of Dr. Obote on 15th April, 1966 in introducing a new constitution was a masterful political stroke. He transformed the fundamental focus of attention from questions and concerns about dictatorship to the question for a more democratic and united Uganda. The effect was electric; widespread criticism gave way to an influx of support.”
How did the nation-building experiment, which offered tentative hope and promise at independence quickly degenerate into violence and a breakdown in constitutionalism in less than five years?
Most Ugandans appeared in support of national unity at independence. Even Buganda, which had attempted to remain a ‘state within a state’, sent a message of its support for national unity when it entered an alliance with Obote’s UPC party for national governance.
That coalition government saw Kabaka Muteesa II become President of Uganda and Obote, the executive Prime Minister. However, if Obote was genuinely interested in forging national unity, the means he sought to achieve it undermined the end.
First, national unity, in a country that had for centuries not existed but had been a collection of tribes and ethnic groups was not going to be a simple affair, even for the best-intentioned politician.
The various social groupings were still trying to find footing in the container called Uganda, and forbearance and time for adjustment, would have been ideal. And when the nation-building project was challenged, Obote’s response was to attempt to force the issue, by sending troops to march on Mengo in 1966.
The 1966 Buganda Crisis, preceded Buganda’s demand for central government to vacate its soil, Obote’s dismissal of Kabaka Muteesa as President and the kingdom’s alleged coup plot on Obote’s government.
In an effort to ‘trim’ Buganda’s secessionist tendencies, Obote would, make the first of two major mistakes that would undermine the very project he was seeking to build: the military became a tool for political manipulation and an instrument of coercion, rather than national defence.
Secondly, the suspension and abrogation of the Independence Constitution in 1964 and an adoption of a ‘unitary’ one in 1967, would set a dangerous precedent by undermining the rule of law and replacing it with rule by law.
Although Obote justifies his move as an act “in the interest of national unity and public tranquility”, Prof. Tarsis Kabwegyere in his book – The Politics of State formation and Destruction in Uganda; argues differently.
“That the head of state could abrogate the constitution and replace it with one of his own choice was the severest blow at the working of the state. It showed that the Constitution was not a sacred and respected document, and that the power of the President was in a sense limitless,” Prof. Kabwegyere says.
The ‘pigeon hole’ constitution, adopted on April 14, 1966, without debate or perusal by Members of Parliament, would also cast the legislature as toothless but above all, show the disregard of the arm of government by Obote’s government.
Historian Samwiri Karugire in his book The Roots of Instability in Uganda, summarises the events surrounding the adoption of the ‘pigeon hole’ constitution thus; “From this point onwards, Parliament was finally confirmed to be a meaningless circus.”
Amin emerges
If power had belonged to the people of Uganda, its usurpation through the pigeon hole constitution then paved the way for power to be taken over by a specific part of the state: the military.
The military had been allowed out of the barracks to break down Buganda’s resistance and the independence of Parliament but like an angry lion finally let out of its cage, the army now developed an appetite for power, a blood lust for control.
In the long term, it would create a precedent, alive to this day, in which the army casts a larger than life shadow over the civilian leadership of the country. In the immediate, however, the door had been opened for the rise of a one Idi Amin Dada.
