Challenges of the diversities our countries have to contend with

There was always a distinct, though remote, possibility of having President Awori and President Awori. One in Uganda; one in Kenya. Would that have been the ultimate in brotherly neighbourliness? For Aggrey Awori had sought the Ugandan Presidency in the 2001 elections, while his brother Moody Awori, as Vice President to Mwai Kibaki, was the proverbial heartbeat away from occupying State House Nairobi. That is the conundrum of the diversity that our countries have to contend with – borders distorted by colonial conquest, families split along an artificial geographical divide.

The APRM Uganda Country Review Report http://tinyurl.com/ygx99fp identifies diversity as a challenge, saying “by the very nature of their formation and being, African states have had serious problems with the management of diversity.

Their constituent groups were forcibly and arbitrarily incorporated by colonialism. A consequence has been agitation over the right to self-determination by dominated, oppressed and marginalised groups.” Matters like the Banyala/Baruli’s status in Buganda, and Buganda within Uganda, together with differences in political thought and ideology, and differences within political parties, are contemporary reflections of this question.

A think-tank dialogue, the 3rd Governance Forum on ‘Fostering Unity in Diversity in Uganda’, organised by the Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and the Uganda Human Rights Commission last month, examined how best to manage our heterogeneity. Consider, as Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi cited from history, how Milton Obote tried his best to manage republicans and monarchists, and the north-south divide, with some degree of success between 1962 and 1966, only to mess it all up post-1966. Or how, Nsibambi stated, the fact that none of our ethnic groups constitutes a majority limits the ability of any one group to dominate the others.

Or even the assertion by former External Security Organisation boss David Pulkol that one ethnic group disproportionately dominates the Generals’ ranks in the upper echelons of the military, quickly explained by Army Spokesman Lt Col Felix Kulayigye as being rooted in the UPDF’s resistance history and merit.

A thoughtful presentation by Emily Drani, the Executive Director of the Cross-Cultural Foundation of Uganda, urged that “there should be no fear of losing ethnic identity. Diversity should be seen as a source of strength. A Karimojong should (be able to) represent Bakiga in Parliament if oriented properly.”

The think-tank pondered these questions; how shall we manage diversity

• When we are divided along ethnic lines;
• When some districts resemble tribal entities;
• When religions are not a matter of spiritual faith but centres of division;
• When the Bible and the Koran are used by some to put down women;
• When secondary schools and university groups encourage narrow-mindedness;
• When an otherwise well-intentioned Decentralisation programme exacerbates ethnic differences;
• When we neither have a sense of national identity nor a national language;
• When affirmative action for the marginalised is missing;
• If meritocracy is played down by some?

Tolerance is a virtue in short supply in many areas of governance in Uganda, and the lack of thereof contributes heavily to our failure to manage diversity. Yet, as Drani stated, it should be seen as strength. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, in their seminal work on leadership ‘Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It’ (Jossey-Bass, 2003) concur with Drani, “Aware of the pitfalls of institutional unanimity, leaders (should) resist the urge to hire only those people who look or sound or think just like themselves.

They (should) build dissent and controversy into the decision-making process so that people will be willing to speak openly and offer ideas contrary to their own. So look for good people from many moulds, and then encourage them to speak out, even to disagree.”

They contend: “When members actively promote varied ideas, the group becomes more resilient. With diversity comes balance and protection against polarisation. Effective leaders have been found to encourage dissent precisely because it does force clarification of assumptions and ideas.” The APRM Uganda Country Report also has the Programme of Action, a blueprint that spells out the way forward for resolution of the issues raised in the entire peer review.

The think-tank’s way forward concluded thus:

• Civic Education – the Human Rights Commission should use its constitutional mandate to educate the public. Patriotism and national identity should not be narrow; it needs to be widened and moved away from polarising political parties to national institutions
• Dialogue – politicians must speak honestly in assessing history and current affairs. Commercialisation of politics should be avoided
• Dialogue – faith leaders should take responsibility for the role religion has played in fostering disunity. There is a need for a national conference to focus on this
• Implementation – Uganda has a great constitutional and legal framework for managing diversity, but actual delivery is still short
• Equal Opportunities Commission – the allocation of public resources should be subject to scrutiny; there is need for a fresh strategy to deal with historical inequalities
• Language – expedite the identification and promotion of a national language
• Decentralisation – review the programme to mitigate the tendencies that foster disunity, like arbitrary creation of districts
• Best Practices – study Nigerian and United States models to borrow good practices on managing diversity
• National Integration – this needs a deliberate strategy
• National Symbols – promote symbols like the Uganda anthem and the flag in public forums
  There are many threats to national and civic unity, and these thoughts are just a small contribution to a big test.

dsseppuuya@yahoo.com