Origins of Democracy vs Modern African politics
What exactly are the causes of developed Nations social ills i.e. hopelessness, urban poverty, crime, unemployment etc,.
Is it change, emergence, non-identity?
So is it fundamental change or fundamental difference?
Had Africans ever had anything near democracy? Will democracy ever work in Africa? If you have two or five parties contesting for power and glory where does the interest of society reside or lie? And indeed does the existence of parties imply change and emergency of other forms of society organisation, which in the above instance would imply transform?
The Clan System, Chiefdoms and Kingdoms
The Baganda Clan system was neatly woven with; social governance, transformation, continuity, power dissipation, change fundamentally, emergence, and identity. For example, no group or party had obsolete right to;
- Rule over another
- Over power and glory
- No group competed or out competed another
- Society could hardly be alienated
- Society never lost potentiality for change, as skewed in modern judicial systems and constitutionalism
- There was total freedom unlike freedom of the market and consumerism
The above was possible since the laws of society were as follows:
A leader born i.e. king followed in a clan lineage of his mother unlike many laws in Europe were children born in royal family lineage are partrilineal.
Inbreeding was outlawed – such that, when the King married and in that event had a child or would be heir, the leader in making came from a totally different clan, unlike that of his father.
In the above instance, it meant therefore, the word ‘hereditary’ as it is related to monarchism and articulated in western political science and philosophy is literally wrong and out of step with the Kiganda or Baganda political philosophy. There is absolutely not hereditary for a born leader therefore a King or would be kings come from different clans of their mothers (first law).
The above implies that power was spread across clans through matrilineal lineage and intermarriages.
Power and the Glory
The above implies several things
- Anyone by the natural law of intermarriages could become a king or society leader in Buganda
- Power was not absolute (i.e. maintaining the status quo) therefore was possible
- There were no classes as claimed in European writings – Bakopi!!
- Radical competition for power was ethically muted until another clan produced one leader and time came for the leader to lead.
- Society organically was able to change, emerge, and have a new identity.
- By virtual of all the above all human beings were equal before earth and heaven
- Hence real potential out of cause/change was possible
F implies a Yoruba or Hosa could as well have governed Buganda Kingdom if the king married any of the above!
Now you hear political scientist jumping around with Germanic and Indochina philosophies and ideologies they do not fully grasp.
Buganda should secede.