Exorcising the inexorcible Buganda Ghost

Abstract

Buganda just like the Zulu kingdom was abuetiful, organized centralized state, infact so orgnised was it that it had the best naval army around the Lake Victoria, it had acentral head figre in form of the Kabaka, a person who wielded a lot of authority in this kingdom that has been exixtent for over 700(Seven Hundred years) In his interview1 with prof. Afuna Adhula, seasoned scholar Mahiri Balunywa argues that Prof Mukandala (2003) described Kings as stationary bandits. He argued that Kings were individual actors who usurped people power, property and all the factors of production. They suppressed the weak, dominated them and forced them into submission. The subjects became providers of wealth and all the basic necessities to the Kings. Thus, Kings became stationary bandits to grab whatever they wished. Mukandala said the other category of bandits are the roaming bandits. These once in a while raid the wealth and properties of the weak, which they amass and then start boasting that they are rich. That is what Marx and Angels describe as "Primitive accumulation of wealth". Today we call them kleptocrats. in scholarship we respect all shades of thoughts, whether this is true or not perphaps the better question is how did Kings acquire wealth and acquire properties, including land, since they don't work? Where do they get power to dominate the weak? These people historically have imposed themselves onto the subjects and coined theories to justify their hegemony. There seems to be some grain of truth in what he says. However, we need to distinguish between divine Kings and Earthly Kings, One would argue that “Divine Kings” If there is any thing like it were crowned by God with a special message to humanity. They never ruled but managed society on behalf of God. The few moments they attempted to go contrary to God's mission, God dethroned and punished them. Earthly Kings fabricated theories of indispensability, royalty and heredity. Our current Kings to the centrally are more of business entrepreneurs and the chiefs they appoint are more of agents of primitive accumulation of wealth. On this note Vaughan (1980) argues that in some societies king’s ascent to Kingdoms through slaying previous kings. He says there two accepted ways in which Kings are made or replaced. First, through institutional regicide. Second, through ritual regicide. Institutional regicide is when members of society accept the leader as King. Ritualistic regicide is where the King accepts his fate and descends from the throne.