| dc.description.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. | en_US |
