Kampala, Uganda – Makerere University is abuzz with anticipation ahead of a public doctoral defense questioning the non-restoration of the thorny Ankole Kingdom.
Ms. Patience Akampurira, a Ph.D. student at the School of Liberal and Performing Arts (SLPA), is slated to defend her thesis this morning at 9:00 EAT.
Titled: “Politics of Non-Restoration of Ankole Kingdom in Uganda, 1962-2018,” she will defend her thesis from at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences’ Smart Room. Her supervisors are Prof. Sabiti Makara and Dr. Simon Peter Rutajuuka.
The dean of the school has invited all interested parties to the public defense of Ms. Akampurira, a dedicated scholar who embarked on this journey of exploration and discovery, a few years ago.
According to her abstract which ResearchFinds News has accessed via the College’s website, Ms. Akampurira’s groundbreaking research delves into the intricate politics surrounding the non-restoration of Ankole Kingdom in Uganda during the pivotal period from 1962 to 2018.
Her defence which will precede a possible award of a doctorate, promises to offer fresh insights into a historical chapter that has long intrigued scholars, historians, and Ugandans, particularly the Banyankore of Western Uganda.
Ms. Jane Anyango, the College’s Principal Communication Officer, announced yesterday that for those who are unable to attend in person, the event will be accessible virtually via Zoom Meeting Link: https://zoom.us/j/99993042478?pwd=Vm9MNWI3YlVxNTZockVXT1ByWGxLUT09
The meeting ID and Passcode are 999 9304 2478 and 953572 respectively.
The study:
Ms. Akampurira reveals in her abstract that while for decades, Uganda has witnessed the restoration of kingdoms and the recognition of traditional institutions, a question looms:
“Why has the Ankole Kingdom remained unrestored since 1993?” she asks.
Her groundbreaking study delving into the politics of non-restoration of the Ankole Kingdom has unveiled a tapestry of historical intrigue.
Using a qualitative approach anchored on the Great Man’s Theory, her research argues that the non-restoration of the Ankole Kingdom can be attributed to issues of legitimacy and leadership.
“It also invokes the concept of “Two Republics” to illuminate the intricate relationship between colonialism and traditionalism,” she writes.
In a comprehensive examination, the study explores the factors that compelled British colonialists to incorporate kingdoms during their rule and the tumultuous forces behind the abolition of kingdoms in Uganda.
It then takes a sharp focus on the post-colonial era, shedding light on why kingdoms were restored in Uganda, except for Ankole.
The Findings:
The findings of the study, which draws on archival records and oral sources, point to a complex web of historical dynamics.
One of the study’s key revelations is the profound impact of this historical mix on the politics and economy of Ankole, which exacerbated divisions between the Bairu and the Bahima communities.
“Social and economic disparities played a pivotal role in shaping cultural hegemony, rendering the restoration of Ankole Kingdom a formidable challenge,” her findings further show.
In a thought-provoking conclusion, her study contends that the non-restoration of the Ankole Kingdom is deeply rooted in the historical dynamics between the Bairu and Bahima, offering a unique perspective on the intricate interplay between traditional institutions and modern political systems in Uganda and beyond.
Why Ankole Kingdom Restoration remains a sticky issue
The non-restoration of the Ankole Kingdom in Uganda remains controversial for several complex and interconnected reasons
First, the Kingdom, like many other traditional kingdoms in Uganda, has a rich and deeply rooted historical significance. It played a crucial role in the pre-colonial and colonial eras, shaping the culture, governance, and identity of the Ankole people.
The kingdom’s history is intertwined with that of Uganda, making its restoration, or lack thereof a matter of historical and cultural complexity and importance.
Second, the traditional kingdoms in Uganda are often seen as symbols of cultural identity and heritage. The Ankole Kingdom represents a distinct cultural identity for the Banyankole people of western Uganda. Its non-restoration has been perceived as a threat to the preservation of this cultural identity, leading to concerns about the cultural erosion of the sub-ethnic group.
Third, the decision not to restore the Ankole Kingdom is viewed through a political lens. The politics surrounding the restoration of traditional kingdoms in Uganda are complex, and the Ankole Kingdom’s exclusion from this process keeps raising questions about the political motives and power dynamics at play.
Of particular importance has been the fact that the country’s ruling president is from the same region where is not expected to subordinate national authority before a cultural leader.
Fourth, the history of Ankole is marked by tensions and divisions between different ethnic groups, particularly the Bairu (farmers) and Bahima (cattle keepers). These historical divisions have influenced the dynamics of kingdom restoration, with some arguing against restoration due to concerns about exacerbating historical inequalities.
These reasons explain why during the constitutional-making exercise in 1993, the majority of Banyankore opposed its restoration, unlike other areas where the restoration of kingdoms received fervent support from their populations.
Thus, the legal status of the Ankole Kingdom and any potential constitutional barriers to its restoration, still contribute to the controversy.
Fifth, the restoration of a kingdom such as Ankole, can have social and economic implications, including questions about land ownership, resource allocation, and local governance. These issues have been contentious for decades and contribute to the controversy surrounding kingdom restoration.
Study Contribution
As the debate over the fate of the Ankole Kingdom continues, this study adds a valuable layer to the ongoing discourse, offering fresh insights into a chapter of Uganda’s history that remains a subject of deep fascination and scrutiny.
About The Author
There is something you are missing in this thesis, Ankole in the first place was not a kingdom! Even the word “ankore” is a british made word anyway the fact is that there were very many discentralized states like Igara, Kajara, Shenyi, Buhweju,Rujumbura and so on these small states had chiefs as their leaders and few of them were complete small kingdoms. Ruhinda Rwanjunaki son of Ishaza and grandson of wamala of Bunyoro Kitara conquered some of these states and declared himself a ruler by uniting them into a central system of leadership however some few remained independent for a good time but Ankole comes in 1902 Ankore agreement between Nuwa Mnaguta a prime minister from Banyankore and the British representatives. The British for their need to apply indirect rule these small states who spoke one language but with different dilects had to be united under one kingdom which was named Ankore by the British because following Runyankore language as a unifying factor and to easily apply their rule on the Africans. Therefore if Ankore must be restored you must not forget the fact about its existence and how it existed because this is something which was not there in the first place we have social stratification as a factor but father in that Ankore as a whole never had Hima and Iru as the social class these are names acording to the economic activity done by these groups of people, coz there were bahororo people, batagwenda people and all these were in Ankore why are they left out in your research lastly Ankore after the Ruhinda intervation became a nation and when the British came they realised this and still it remained a nation, Buganda and Bunyoro were also nations not kingdoms! Why? Because they all had National anthem, they all had people of different ethnicities ie in ankore there are batagwenda, baganda in kabura county, bahororo, banyaruguru, batoro and in Buganda there are bakoki, banyankore, basoga, bangerere and so on and so forth. They had national embrames and national language these were nations not kingdoms