[allAfrica.com] Buganda's Democracy Has Been Forced On It! New Vision (Kampala) OPINION October 8, 2004 Posted to the web October 8, 2004 By Ofwono Opondo Kampala TWO separate but related debates are currently underway marking 42 years of independence but without sign of consensus. And all this is amidst past state failure to guarantee stability, development and national cohesion. First, is the strange posture Mengo, which under Kabaka Mutesa I, signed up with Britain for Uganda's colonisation has taken, agitating and doubting their status within Uganda! Early this week, Senior Counsel Peter Mulira wrote an article in the New Vision last week titled, "Buganda's history reveals democracy". He made an eloquent but false case of how "democratic" Buganda has been all along. Unfortunately, Mulira did not mention that democracy at Mengo was externally forced at every major turn of events. All the grounds Mengo has yielded over time were not through their willingness, logic, plain commonsense or magnanimity. Mulira omitted to explain why Kabaka Mutesa I was called "Mukabya"! The acceptance of Arab merchants in Buganda, the introduction of Western and Arab cultures and religions, the removal of Kabaka Mwanga, the 1894 Protectorate and 1900 agreements were all forced from outside. Secondly, the numerous legal and administrative reforms mentioned by Mulira like the Law for Selecting Unofficial Representatives, 1945, and the 1953 Agreement were tough pre-conditions for returning exiled Sir Edward Mutesa II. Quite frankly, in both the local and Lancaster House debates prior to independence, most of the reforms Mulira mentioned were conditions set for Mengo for which they had no option but to accept, and not commonsense response from Mengo. The second important debate but which has been relegated by politicking is the proposed armed forces law, the UPDF Bill 2004 now in Parliament. While the bill seeks to transform the UPDF, a former guerrilla force, into a professional army, some MPs especially the critics seem to think it is meant to protect the interests of President Yoweri Museveni and a few Bush War heroes. It all began last year when Salaamu Musumba (Bugabula South) took advantage as then chairperson of the Presidential and Foreign Affairs Committee to claim that provisions in the bill to create the Presidential Guard Brigade (PGB) as a specialised unit within the UPDF was un-called for. According to Musumba, a popularly elected president does not need to 'fear' his own people and that presidential protection should have 'few well-trained personnel'. Fortunately, her arguments have not gained strong ground in Parliament and the country, but there are few MPs, who think that because the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, there is no need for a specialised VIP protection unit. They argue that the entire army should be able to protect the President, and they are not at much fault except ignoring some facts and realities. It would appear the objective of the critics is to create a false impression, that PDG, and CMI are separate armies within UPDF, and enjoying special status, above other personnel. Obviously the President and all citizens should have confidence in their armed forces for safety, security, national defence and territorial integrity. National defence is so important that the mainstream army should not be dispersed into VIP protection. It should be underscored that while all citizens should enjoy protection, a nation's security gravitates around that of the chief executive. A case study of the US Secret Service should convince skeptics on the need to have a large, vibrant and specialised VIP protection mechanism, especially under today's terrorist threat and progress in technology. For starters, the Secret Service was established in 1865 as a law enforcement division of the Department of the Treasury to "investigate and prevent" counterfeiting of currency and empowered to enforce laws relating to coins, obligations and securities of the US. However, following the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, the service was charged with protecting US presidents, vice- presidents, their immediate families, presidential candidates and running mates, former presidents and their spouses, widows of former presidents until their death or remarriage, children of a former president until they reach age 16, and visiting heads of state. Today its role has evolved including special security events abroad, as well as combating cyber-crime. Arguments that the PGB must remain tightly under the Ministry of Defence is also not bone by facts available elsewhere. The Secret Service remained under the treasury department, but was only transferred to the new department of Homeland Security in 2003 in response to the events of September 11, 2001! Neither the US president, British Queen nor Premier Tony Blair are protected by their respective armies, but specialised units of the national security forces catered for separately . In the case of the Secret Service it still handles customs services, internal revenue, the Federal Law Enforcement Center, in addition to protecting the White House and Senate buildings. Worries that a strengthened PGB could overshadow other security agencies like the Police, ISO and ESO should not arise. To have an effective security and law enforcement system, modern technology, which criminal elements exploit to remain secretive and profitable, should be crucial. It is for this reason that the concept of task forces like "Operation Wembley" is being used to catch criminals using non-traditional means, knowing well that existing laws are weak or compromised.   =============================================================================   Copyright © 2004 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). =============================================================================