ThesisPDF Available

Spaces for Pluralism in Ethnically Sensitive Communities in Uganda - The Case of Kibaale District

Authors:
ii
SPACES FOR PLURALISM IN ‘ETHNICALLY SENSITIVE’
COMMUNITIES IN UGANDA
The Case of Kibaale District
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
Jimmy Spire Ssentongo
University of Humanistic Studies
iii
SPACES FOR PLURALISM IN ‘ETHNICALLY SENSITIVE’
COMMUNITIES IN UGANDA. The Case of Kibaale District
Utrecht: University for Humanistic Studies
2015 – Doctoral dissertation / Proefschrift
Cover art: Veri Apriyatno (Indonesia)
© Jimmy Spire Ssentongo
iv
SPACES FOR PLURALISM IN ‘ETHNICALLY SENSITIVE’
COMMUNITIES IN UGANDA: The Case of Kibaale District
RUIMTE VOOR PLURALISME IN ‘ETNISCH-GEVOELIGE’
GEMEENSCHAPPEN IN OEGANDA: Kibaale District als casus
(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit voor Humanistiek te Utrecht
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus
prof. dr. G.J.L.M. Lensvelt-Mulders
ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties
in het openbaar te verdedigen
op 26 oktober 2015 om 10:30 uur
door
Jimmy Spire Ssentongo
geboren op 14 augustus 1979 te Nsambya, Oeganda
v
Promotoren
prof. dr. G.J.L.M. Lensvelt-Mulders, University of Humanistic Studies
prof. dr. P. Kanyandago, Uganda Martyrs University
dr. C. Suransky, University of Humanistic Studies
Review Committee / Beoordelingscommissie
prof. dr. S. Kakarala, Azim Premji University
prof. dr. M. Salih, International Institute of Social
Studies, Erasmus University
prof. dr. F. van de Vijver, Tilburg University
prof. dr. H.A.M. Manschot, University of Humanistic Studies
dr. J. van der Aa, Center for Studies of the
Multicultural Society, Tilburg
University
This doctoral research has been made partly possible with the financial support of the
Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (HIVOS)
i
Contents
Glossary of ethnic groups referred to in the thesis; their languages; and titles of their cultural
leaders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii
Prologue and Acknowledgements -----------------------------------------------------------------------viii
CHAPTER ONE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1.1 Outline of the Dissertation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
1.2 Context of the Study -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.2.1 The Genesis of Ethnic Tension in the Kibaale Context -------------------------------------- 6
1.3 Primordialism and Constructivism as Theoretical Perspectives on Ethnic Conflict ------- 13
1.3.1 Primordialism--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
1.3.2 Constructivism ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
1.4 Clarification of Concepts -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
1.5 Justification of the Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31
1.6 Statement of the Research Problem ----------------------------------------------------------------- 32
1.7 Key Research Question -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
1.7.1 Subsidiary Research Questions------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
CHAPTER TWO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY --------------------------------------------------------------------35
2.1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
2.1.1 Ontological and Epistemological Grounds ---------------------------------------------------- 35
2.2 Research Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
2.3 Research Site -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
2.4 Study Population --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
2.5 Sample Size and Sample Selection ------------------------------------------------------------------ 42
2.6 Field Entry and Data Collection Strategies -------------------------------------------------------- 45
ii
2.7 Ethical Considerations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47
2.8 Data Collection Methods and Tools ---------------------------------------------------------------- 48
2.8.1 One-to-One Indepth Interviews ----------------------------------------------------------------- 49
2.8.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) -------------------------------------------------------------- 50
2.8.3 Life Histories --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53
2.8.4 Observation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
2.8.5 Audio and Documentary Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------- 57
2.9 Methods of Data Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
CHAPTER THREE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------60
HOW THE RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE HISTORY OF ETHNIC RELATIONS IN KIBAALE DISTRICT INFLUENCE
CURRENT POSSIBILITIES FOR PLURALISM ----------------------------------------------60
3.1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60
3.2 Ethnic Tension as a Colonial Legacy in Uganda ------------------------------------------------- 61
3.3. The Banyoro and the Baganda: A Tale of Subjugation and Resistance --------------------- 67
3.3.1 Banyoro Resistance to Subjugation and the Emergence of Mubende Banyoro
Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72
3.4 Banyoro Relations with Immigrants after the 1964 Referendum ------------------------------ 76
3.5 Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85
CHAPTER FOUR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------87
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS ON ETHNIC CONFLICT IN
KIBAALE DISTRICT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------87
4.1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87
4.2 The Politics of Kibaale District’s Creation and its Implications to Subsequent Local
Politics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88
4.3 Politics and the Emergence of Conflict in Kibaale District ------------------------------------- 91
4.3.1 Population Dynamics, Politics and Conflict in Kibaale District -------------------------- 93
4.4 Banyoro Reactions to Perceived and Real Changes among the Non-Banyoro -------------- 97
iii
4.4.1 From Non-Banyoro to Bafuruki: The ‘Othering’ of Non-Banyoro --------------------- 102
4.5 The Re-emergence of Mubende Banyoro Committee and the Acceleration of Ethnic
Tension ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 107
4.6 The Formation of Bafuruki Committee and its Significance to Ethnic Relations -------- 114
4.7 The Elections of 2002 and Conflict in Kibaale District --------------------------------------- 116
4.8 Concluding Thoughts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120
CHAPTER FIVE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 124
PLURALISM INITIAVES IN KIBAALE ------------------------------------------------------- 124
5.1 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 124
5.2 Initiatives for Pluralism in Kibaale District------------------------------------------------------ 124
5.2.1 Community Initiatives for Co-existence ----------------------------------------------------- 126
5.2.1.1 Intermarriage----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 126
5.2.1.2 Association and Friendship with the ‘Others’ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133
5.2.1.3 Political Community Initiatives for Pluralism --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138
5.2.2 Civil Society Initiatives for Co-existence --------------------------------------------------- 141
5.2.2.1 Peace Dialogues ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 142
5.2.2.2 Influence of Religion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144
5.2.2.3 The influence of Bunyoro Kingdom as a Cultural institution ------------------------------------------------------------ 146
5.2.2.4 Initiatives to address Poverty as a source of Conflict --------------------------------------------------------------------- 146
5.2.3 Uganda Government Initiatives for Pluralist Co-existence and People’s Perceptions of
these initiatives --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148
5.3.3.1 Ethnic Distribution of District positions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148
5.2.3.2 Ring-fencing top District positions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150
5.2.3.3 Creating more Constituencies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 152
5.2.3.4 Splitting the District into Smaller Districts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 155
5.2.3.5 On Land Ownership ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 156
5.2.3.6 Affirmative Action ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 158
5.3 Concluding Theoretical Inferences ---------------------------------------------------------------- 159
iv
CHAPTER SIX ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 161
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------- 161
6.1 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 161
6.2 History and Memory as Fuel for Ethnic Mobilisation ----------------------------------------- 161
6.3 Pluralism in Kibaale and Theory ------------------------------------------------------------------ 169
6.4 Suggestions for further Research ------------------------------------------------------------------ 180
Curriculum Vitae ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182
Samenvatting (Summary) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183
REFERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 189
APPENDICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 208
Appendix 1: Location of Uganda in Africa -------------------------------------------------------- 208
Appendix 2: Location of Kibaale District in Uganda -------------------------------------------- 209
Appendix 3: Kibaale District by Sub-counties ---------------------------------------------------- 210
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Glossary of ethnic groups referred to in the thesis; their languages; and titles of their
cultural leaders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii
Table 2: Distribution of Ethnic Groups in Kibaale District - 2002 ---------------------------------- 5
Table 3: Sample Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Table 4: Schematic overview of data gathering strategies per sample category ----------------- 48
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Summary timeline of significant developments in the history of ethnic relations in
Kibaale District ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85
Figure 2: Kibaale District Population Growth Trends between 1969-2009 ---------------------- 96
vii
Table 1: Glossary of ethnic groups referred to in the thesis; their languages; and titles of
their cultural leaders
Ethnic group
Language
Title of top cultural
leader/ King
Plural Singular
Banyoro Munyoro Runyoro Omukama
Baganda Muganda Luganda Kabaka
Bakiga Mukiga Rukiga (No king)
Bafumbira Mufumbira Kifumbira (No king)
Banyankore Munyankore Runyankore Omugabe
Bakonjo/ Bakonzo Mkonjo Rukonjo Omusinga
Alur Alur Alur (No king)
Bamba Mwamba Rwamba Omusinga
viii
Prologue and Acknowledgements
This work is a study on ‘spaces for pluralism in ethnically sensitive communities’ with a
particular focus on the case of Kibaale District in Uganda. In this prologue, I explain how I
came to research pluralism (a very rare concept in Uganda) within an ethnic context, and with
a particular focus on Kibaale District. I also highlight and express gratitude to some of the
individuals and institutions that have been instrumental towards the completion of this work.
‘Getting into’ Pluralism
Sometime in 2010, I became involved in a study initiated by the Pluralism Knowledge
Programme (PKP) in Uganda. The PKP was part of the Humanistic Institute for Cooperation
with Developing Countries (HIVOS) Knowledge Programmes network which involved an
international collaboration of academics and development practitioners in Indonesia, India,
Uganda and the Netherlands. It was internationally coordinated by the Kosmopolis Institute
of the University of Humanistic Studies and, in Uganda, by the Cross Cultural Foundation of
Uganda (CCFU).
My involvement in the study came about as Uganda Martyrs University, where I work, was
one of collaborating academic institutions. Our task (with colleagues: Maximiano Ngabirano,
Alice Wabule and Esibo Omaada) was to carry out an exploratory study on perceptions of
diversity, marginalisation, and pluralism in selected sites in Mpigi and Kibaale districts of
Uganda. I found this study interesting but cumbersome. I should say that, if greater, the
research team’s understanding of the research theme was only slightly above that of the
respondents. In private, we often ‘laughed’ about our weird situation of researching on
something that we ourselves hardly understood. In May 2009, I had attended a Conference on
Pluralism and Secularism at the University of Humanistic Studies in Holland. But, since the
presenters took the participants’ understanding of the basics of pluralism for granted, I had
gathered very little insight to be of any more help to the research team. For even at the
conference I was more of a spectator! Thus, as a team, we spent much time arguing over the
meaning of pluralism and about the correct translation of the concept into the local languages
that we used in the study. And often we ended up with a consensus that was only slightly
clearer than where we had started from.
At one point we agreed to find an alternative concept to pluralism – after many occasions of
realising that there was so much explanation to give every time we used the word pluralism.
For many people, pluralism was conceived as synonymous with plurality/ diversity. After
listening to our foreign literature-based explanations, some peers suggested that the concept
of ‘unity in diversity’ which was more familiar in Ugandan discourse on diversity would be
more helpful. Although some of us were not really convinced that the suggested concept was
a suitable alternative, we nevertheless found it more meaningful for the Ugandan audience.
Despite our lack of conceptual clarity, we were all agreed that the theme (pluralism) was very
important for the Ugandan context. At both personal and group levels we all had challenging
experiences in the face of diversity that helped us to appreciate the idea of pluralism. The
ix
concept itself progressively became clearer to us in the course of the study and we further
appreciated the research theme basing on the accounts from the field. This was more vivid in
Kibaale District. I found some of the historical narratives of inter-ethnic relations in Kibaale
particularly horrifying.
Focusing on Ethnicity and on Kibaale District in Particular
I belong to the Baganda ethnic group which, with 17% of the total population of the country,
is the largest ethnic group in Uganda (Republic of Uganda 2002). Growing up in Buganda
(Central region - where Baganda come from), I had noticed in earlier interactions with people
that most Baganda proverbs and labels about the Banyoro people (‘indigenous’ to Kibaale)
and what came from them were negative. For example, among the Baganda, akabuzi
akanyoro (literally translated as ‘a small goat from Bunyoro’) means a poor quality goat! The
same applies to poor quality chicken and blankets. However, I had never been keen to find
out the roots of such animosity. I was later to find out in Kibaale (Western Uganda) as we
tried to understand the conflicts between the Banyoro and the immigrants!
After a focus group discussion with youths in Kibaale, which was conducted in both English
and Luganda (the language of the Baganda), we tried to distribute CCFU brochures as
requested by the organisation. We distributed the Luganda version, which we were left with.
The Banyoro youths sternly rejected them saying although they could read and understand
Luganda they would only accept either English or Runyoro versions because they were not
about to accept to be subdued again by the Baganda. Such observations not only made me
more curious about the history of Baganda-Banyoro relations but also about how the people
in Kibaale were living with ethnic difference with the backdrop of their painful history.
Around the same time, a PhD position in the PKP was advertised by CCFU. When I
considered applying for it, the general theme I wanted to research about in the context of
Uganda was clearly that of ethnicity – living together in ethnic difference. But I had
competing ideas on what to specifically focus on. In Buganda region (central Uganda) we had
just gone through a disastrous clash between the Central Government and the Kingdom of
Buganda – one of the several cultural institutions in Uganda. The King of Buganda wanted to
visit an area constitutionally stipulated as part of his kingdom but Central Government
resisted the idea arguing that the sub-ethnic group in the area he wanted to visit had not
endorsed the visit. This led to a huge three-day demonstration in various parts of Buganda
and, in the ensuing chaos, over thirty people died while some others from western Uganda
(where the President comes from) were tortured and bullied (Juvonen 2014). It was such an
ugly scene. Sentiments of inter-ethnic hatred and claims of ethnic marginalisation were quite
widespread and sometimes openly expressed.
After much personal reflection, discussion with my promoters (Prof. Gerty Mulders Lensvelt,
Prof. Peter Kanyandago, and Dr Caroline Suransky), and interaction with other PhD students,
I settled for studying Kibaale. I found the Kibaale case more interesting as it raised critical
questions about pluralism. Looking at the brief history of the Banyoro, Baganda and the
British colonialists that I had learnt about in the PKP research and the narratives of
x
subsequent tension between the Banyoro and non-Banyoro in the area, the case came across
as curious with regard to how the people of the area imagine and negotiate living together
with their ethnic differences. The study was envisaged to contribute to the discourse on
pluralism in contexts of conflictual ethnic differences and to understanding the dynamics of
inter-ethnic conflict and trajectories for co-existence.
Using constructivist ontology, this qualitative study is mainly based on the perceptions of the
residents of the district since it is here contended that ethnicity and ethnic relations are
socially constructed through meaning-making processes of people in particular contexts. It is
thus important to understand ethnic realities like history, conflict, and co-existence starting
from the meanings of the studied community. From these meanings we proceed to make
theoretical interpretations and inferences. The study is theoretically grounded on a synthesis
of primordialism and constructivism where it is argued with the illustration of findings that
although social realities like ethnic relations are socially constructed, in some regards they are
also shaped by primordial emotional attachments. However, the emotional ethnic attachments
are here argued to be born and shaped by people’s meaning-making processes, not givens.
Through analysing people’s perceptions of their history the study established that the
perceptions inform inter-ethnic relations in the area through perpetuating a sense of
victimhood among the Banyoro that leads to xenophobic tendencies. The problematic history
was found to be further complicated by an array of multilayered factors including the politics
in the creation of Kibaale District paving way for the intensification of identity politics, the
rapid increase in the number of non-Banyoro, the rise (re-birth) and activism of ethnic
pressure groups, the emergence of radio transmission in the area, and cultural contestations.
It is this interplay that facilitated ethnic identity transformation in the area and, subsequently,
leading to the outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in the district.
It was established that a number of pluralism initiatives have been applied to curb inter-ethnic
conflict in the area. The initiatives are at individual, community, and government levels.
There is indication that the initiatives point in two directions: assimilation and pluralism.
Assimilative tendencies were especially noted in intermarriage. Other initiatives include
inter-ethnic friendships, learning each other’s languages (especially the predominant ethnic
groups), community peace dialogues facilitated by religious bodies and other CSOs,
sensitisation by CSOs and Government through mass media, political cooperation across
ethnic lines, representation of both Banyoro and non-Banyoro in appointment for district
positions, splitting of political constituencies to cater for both Banyoro and non-Banyoro, and
creating a ministry in charge of Bunyoro (region) affairs. It was found out that the different
initiatives synergistically reinforce each other in improving inter-ethnic relations. However,
the sustainability of initiatives like splitting constituencies remains unclear since there is a
possibility that, contrary to the intended goal, it could instead serve to aggravate identity
politics by providing incentive for ethno-territorial claims and contestations of belonging.
xi
Debts of Gratitude
By the time one gets to the end of such a project they have certainly incurred several debts of
gratitude. At some points the research journey can seem overwhelmingly lonely, but the
accompaniment I had from various people lightened the weight. I certainly cannot exhaust the
list, but I will only mention a few while equally thanking all that are not named.
I deeply thank Hivos for generously funding this programme for over three years. Your
support for knowledge generation and other development-related work is greatly appreciated.
I also greatly thank the Cross-Cultrural Foundation of Uganda through which the funds were
channelled, and for always involving me in their inspirational pluralism activities. In the
same way, I wholeheartedly thank the University of Humanistic Studies and my promoters
for generously carrying on with me for one more year after Hivos’ funding.
I cannot thank my promoters enough for their dedication to guiding me and for their constant
encouragement. Prof. Gerty Mulders Lensvelt, Prof. Peter Kanyandago, and Dr Caroline
Suransky, I have learnt a lot from you and I am so grateful. Sometimes I would share your
comments on my work with other PhD students and many often envied me for having
promoters that were ‘deeply involved’ in my work. Prof. Peter, I cannot forget the care
expressed in your constant reminders for me to apply for the PhD, neither can I forget how
you encouraged me to ‘get it out of the way’ every time we met. Dr Caroline, I can see your
fingerprints all over this work. For all those thorough comments, summer school
engagements, literature, compliments and spirit-raising, I sincerely appreciate. We used to
talk behind your back with other PhD students on the programme that you were ‘more of a
mother than a promoter’. Prof. Gerty, my lead promoter, I have always admired your balance
of critical comments and compliments. You would always make things seem fine and never
stopped encouraging me to write on. For providing me with all that support despite your busy
schedules I sincerely appreciate.
Many times when I met Dr Caroline, she was in the company of Prof. Henk Manschot, Prof.
Sitharamam Kakarala, and Dr Zainal Abidin Bagir whose helpful insights and references I
deeply appreciate. I also thank Anne Helms for guiding me on how to use Atlas-ti, a skill
without which data analysis would have been very challenging.
We were four PhD students in PKP: Khalid Anis Ansari from India, Elizabeth Thomas from
India, Mustaghfiroh Rahayu from Indonesia and me. We often shared our challenges and
anxieties amongst ourselves, advised, and encouraged each other. Your occasional company
made this journey less lonely. I also thank all friends that took time off to read my work and
provide critical comments, especially Dr Hans Schoemaker from Groningen and Henni Alava
from the University of Helsinki.
One of the exercises I was so uncertain about in this study was data collection. The task of
accessing my targeted respondents, especially as a Muganda researching in a place some of
whose historical woes my ethnic group is collectively held responsible for, seemed
potentially daunting. I therefore must thank Anthony Lwanga for being such a good
xii
gatekeeper. Through your rich network it became easy for me to reach virtually everyone I
wished to talk to. I should as well express my appreciation here to all my respondents for
willingly offering your time to share your knowledge with me without expecting anything in
return. In the same vein, I am extremely grateful for the committed support of my research
assistant, Tom Aliinde.
I also wish to thank Uganda Martyrs University, my employer, for unconditionally allowing
me some time off to write my thesis at a time when my services were really needed at the
university. At the university, I also particularly thank my colleague Brother Aloysius
Byaruhanga for generously allowing me to use his rich collection of literature on Kibaale
District. I do not think I would be able to find a better one-stop resource center on the subject
of my research. And to all my colleagues and friends, thanks for the constant encouragement
and good wishes.
Because I had to dedicate much of my time to accomplishing this study, over time I became
less and less available to my young family. I often had to return home very late but my wife
(Dianah Nampijja) and two little girls (Bakhita Mirembe Nassali and Rosa Parks Nantongo)
had to bear with it. When I tried to work from home, Nassali would often grudgingly ask
what it was that I was writing endlessly instead of playing with her. I hope she grows up to
read and appreciate the product of my ‘endless’ writing.
1
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Considering that living with ethnic difference is one of the major challenges to pluralism in a
number of African countries (Omotola 2008; Annan 2013) and in Uganda in particular, this
study interrogates spaces for pluralism within ‘ethnically sensitive’ contexts with specific
reference to the case of Kibaale District – which is one of the communities in Uganda with
complex ethnic relations. By ‘ethnically sensitive’ I mean communities that, for reasons such
as history, elite manipulation, divisive administrative structures, are prone to ethnically
aligned conflict – especially of a violent nature. Based on constructivist ontology, this
qualitative study is mainly grounded on the perceptions of the residents of the district since it
is here that ethnicity and ethnic relations are socially constructed through meaning-making
processes of people in particular contexts. It is thus important to understand the meanings that
the studied community itself gives to ethnic realities like history, conflict, and co-existence.
From these meanings the study proceeds to make theoretical interpretations and inferences.
1.1.1 Outline of the Dissertation
Chapter One entails the context of this study and explains the observations and reflections
that make this study relevant both at the local level of Kibaale and beyond. The chapter also
defines and situates two of the main concepts in the study, namely: pluralism and ethnic
sensitivity. The definitions are situated within a theoretical framework where I explain
primordialism and social constructivism, the two most dominant theoretical frameworks
which social scientists have used to understand and explain the existence and dynamics in
and between ethnic groups (Hale 2008). In a synthetic approach, I will illustrate that the two
theories are not necessarily opposed to each other but rather can speak to and reinforce each
other’s explanatory power in some aspects. I also explain how these theories help to highlight
important matters in the case of Kibaale and how they can help us to make sense of its
complexity. This chapter also discusses the research problem and introduces its main and
subsidiary research questions. A version of this chapter has been published as a book chapter
in Managing Diversity: Uganda’s Experience (CCFU 2014).
Chapter Two particularly discusses the research methodology and data gathering methods of
the study. The chapter indicates how I approached the research questions in a scientific way
enabling the reader to appreciate the subsequent findings and analysis. Here, I explain the
philosophical foundations (social constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology) of
the study and, on the basis of the above, the qualitative methods that were used to gain entry,
sampling, collecting data, and data analysis. The chapter also provides a comprehensive
account of how I went about the ethical issues raised by the study. After Chapter Two,
chapters three, four, and five each address a particular subsidiary research question. This is
done to ensure that each of the questions (which together constitute the key research
question) is given sufficient analytical attention.
2
Chapter Three addresses the first subsidiary research question of the study, that is: ‘How are
the significant developments in the history of ethnic relations in Kibaale District perceived by
the residents?’ It is acknowledged in this chapter that collective memory is crucial in shaping
social relations. By tracing the significant historical developments, I contextualise and
discuss the realities within the narratives as told by respondents of different ethnicities and in
secondary sources. On the basis of the explanatory linkages revealed by the findings, I
indicate how a number of historical events, and how they are remembered in the community,
serve to explain consequent ethnic relations. This chapter is not a complete historical
narrative per se, rather it is a process-tracing focused account of ethnic relations which are
generally considered to be important when making sense of ethnic relations and mediation
initiatives in the history of Kibaale. The analysis is also a vital starting point for appreciating
the possibilities for pluralism imagined by the people of Kibaale.
Chapter Four discusses the findings in answer to the second subsidiary research question,
that is: How do different local ethnic groups in Kibaale currently perceive ethnic conflict in
their district? I sought to understand this because I believe that people’s imaginations about
the possibilities for pluralism in the area are largely rooted in their feelings about the causes
and dynamics of ethnic conflict among them. Based on the constructivist consideration that
the ‘content’ of any particular ethnicity tends to be historically contingent (Lentz 2006;
Geschiere and Jackson 2006), Chapter Four continues from where Chapter Three ends to
explain and interrogate a subsequent period, starting from the 1990s, that saw the emergence
of tension and later violence between the Banyoro and non-Banyoro. By departing from the
local people’s own views, the chapter explains what led to the changes in relations and what
dynamics were involved. By mainly using theoretical insights from Geschiere’s The Perils of
Belonging (2009), the chapter provides a detailed discussion of shifts in the politics of
identity and belonging in Kibaale District. The analysis helps us understand how and why
relations between people of different ethnic groups came to be exclusive and violent, and
how the causes of the conflict are multilayered and interlocked. It also lays the ground for
appreciating the pluralism initiatives in the area, which are explained in Chapter Five.
Chapter Five addresses the third subsidiary question of the study, namely: How are the
different scientific theories on pluralism brought into action by the various initiatives for
pluralism in Kibaale and how do the people of the district value these initiatives? The above
question is addressed through focussing on: i) the most important features of the different
initiatives in Kibaale in light of the discussed pluralism theories; ii) the longterm implications
of these initiatives; and iii) the relation between people’s appreciation of initiatives and the
validity of the different theories.
The chapter proceeds through a systematic presentation and explanation of the initiatives for
pluralism in Kibaale District at individual/community, civil society, and government levels
and the interactions between the initiatives at different levels. By discussing the pluralism
initiatives in Kibaale, I both try to show what is being done and its theoretical implications –
thus demonstrating the explanatory relevance/power of available theories and how this study
enhances theoretical insights.
3
Chapter Six entails conclusive reflections on the study. Specifically, the reflections are on: i)
general conclusions from the empirical findings in the case of Kibaale; ii) the broader
theoretical implications of these empirical findings and, iii) suggestions for further study.
1.2 Context of the Study
Humanity is grappling with many social issues that have seemed to elude solutions up to
today. One of these key problems facing contemporary society is that of co-existing with the
various forms of difference that characterise it. “Difference animates key conflicts of our
time. Claims about difference breathe life into cultural, ethnic, religious, and values conflict”
(Brigg 2008, p.6). Among the key developments on account of which such tensions and
conflicts are becoming more pronounced today, are the increased global and national contacts
and interactions, and in particular extensive migrations, which have placed diverse practices
of different cultures next to each other (Smith 2001; Sen 2006; Boas and Dunn 2013).
“Increased mobility and migration have increased the number of multicultural societies, and
thus the number of individuals with multiple categories of social identity” (Smith 2001, p.36).
Coming together with these developments are increasing questions and anxiety about
belonging – involving the transformation of boundaries to determine who belongs where,
who belongs less, and who does not belong (Dunn 2009; Geschiere 2009; Geschiere 2010).
Indeed, as observed by Kofi Annan in a lecture at the Global Centre for Pluralism (May 23,
2013), pluralism is one of the key challenges of the 21st Century. The above developments
raise serious concerns on how to live together with differences, how to negotiate the
emerging contestations of belonging so as to foreclose social exclusion and violent conflict.
The diversity which gives rise to tension emerges in different societies would certainly be
admitted as a permanent feature of all human societies, manifested in different forms and
dynamics over time. According to An-na‘im (2008), this is what makes diversity a very
important aspect for consideration in human relations, especially in view of how people
negotiate their differences for sustainable pluralism. As An-na‘im connotes, pluralism is “...
an ideology and system that accepts diversity as a positive value and facilitates constant
negotiations and adjustments among varieties of difference without seeking or expecting to
terminate any or all of them permanently” (2008, p.225). The way and extent to which this
ideal is practically possible within a context of ethnic diversity with strained relations in an
ethnically sensitive society is the main focus of this investigation.
Among the most notably sensitive differences in the African context is ethnicity, which has
led to social tension, conflict, and exclusion of some groups from their full rights as citizens
(Tusabe 2002; Ratcliffe 2004; Omotola 2008). In most African countries, there has developed
a tendency towards closure in social formations that in the past tended to be open and intent
on including ‘strangers’ (Boas and Dunn 2013). The 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where about
a tenth of the population were exterminated, was largely a result of ethnic strife and suspicion
between the Hutu and Tutsi (Mamdani 2001; Rukooko 2002; Guest 2004). According to
Guest, “ethnic or religious differences have been the pretext for violence in Sudan, Nigeria,
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Uganda, Somalia, Ethiopia,
4
Eritrea, both Congos the list goes on” (Guest 2004, p.110). One of the most recent large-
scale ethnic clashes in Africa happened in Kenya in December 2007 and in South Sudan in
2013-2014. In Kenya, after disputed presidential elections, forty eight ethnic groups
coalesced into pro-Kikuyu1 and anti-Kikuyu alliances leading to the death of about one
thousand five hundred people (Collier 2009; Yieke 2010). In South Sudan, the civil war that
was mainly between the Nuer and Dinka led to loss of thousands of lives and many people
were displaced (Human Rights Watch 2014). What we should read into the various cases of
ethnic conflict is that when engagement with ethnic difference goes wrong, the implications
could be severe and, therefore, that it is important to understand how conditions under which
pluralism can flourish could be developed.
However, the many cases of ethnic conflict that feature in the African story should not be
interpreted to indicate that ethnic diversity in itself is problematic and/or bound by necessity
to result into conflict and violence. When relations ensue in multiethnic encounters, this
should be viewed as a function of the nature of engagement between communities. As
Varshney (2002) observes, it is worthwhile to remember that ethnic conflicts are not always
violent. “And despite having strong ethnic identities, groups can coexist peacefully with
others by negotiating and resolving differences in a nonviolent or institutionalized way. To
move from ethnic identities to ethnic conflict or to ethnic violence [as a necessary
consequence] is to make an inadmissible analytic leap” (Varshney 2002, p.25). What is
important is to understand the circumstances under which ethnic conflict may ensue or may
lead to pluralism.
To illustrate the significance of this study in the context of Uganda, let us now turn to the
ethnic landscape in the country in general and then Kibaale, the site of study, in particular.
In its Vision 20252, where it commits itself to the task of carefully managing ethnic diversity
in the country, the Uganda Government acknowledges that though very beautiful in almost all
ways, “Uganda has been, regrettably, really rotten from within in terms of ethnic conflicts”
(Republic of Uganda 1998, p.303). To substantiate the above strong statement, among others,
it highlights the following violent ethnic confrontations in Uganda’s history:
The uprising of the Bamba and Bakonzo against the Batooro and the Central
Government in 1962; the 1966 confrontation between the Baganda ethnic group
and the Central Government [in which the latter deposed the former’s king by
military force] which was deemed to be Northern [in inclination]; the wanton and
brutal massacres of members of the Acholi and Langi ethnic groups during the
Amin regime; the equally wanton and brutal retribution by these latter groups
against ethnic groups from the West Nile region – Idi Amin’s home region – after
the fall of Idi Amin; the war in the Luwero Triangle; and ... the ... civil war in the
north – 1986-2006 (Republic of Uganda 1998, p.303).
1 The Kikuyu are the biggest ethnic group in Kenya. Although the violent conflict was sparked by the disputed presidential
elections, the tension between the Kikuyu and some other Kenyan ethnic groups (such as the Luo) had been building over
time.
2 With the theme ‘Prosperous people, harmonious nation and beautiful country’, Vision 2025 is Government of Uganda
strategic document that reflects the country’s history, core values and aspirations in terms of objectives and goals.
5
Though based on broader ideological reasons, the war that brought President Museveni into
power in 1986 was to an extent perceived as a war of the Southerners against the
Northerners who were known by the derogatory term ‘Anyanya’. The twenty-year Northern
war that followed Museveni’s ascent to power also bore an ethnic twist as a response of the
Northerners to perceived deliberate marginalisation by the ‘Southerner Government’.
With over sixty five ethnic groups (Kabananukye and Kwagala 2007), Uganda is one of the
ethnically very diverse African countries. Most of the people are Bantu3-speaking and the
majority of the population lives in the south of the country. Bantu-speaking people constitute
about 70 per cent of Uganda’s population while Nilotic groups make up about 25 per cent.
The Nilotics are mainly composed of the Acholi, the Langi and the Alur ethnic groups (about
15 per cent) from the north; and the Iteso and Karamojong (about 10 per cent) from the north-
eastern part of the country (Mwakikagile 2009). Of these, the Baganda in Buganda Kingdom
are the largest with 17 per cent of the country’s population.
The 2002 Uganda National Population and Housing Census report (the most recent Census)
places other ethnic groups as follows: Banyankore (9.8 per cent), Basoga (8.6 per cent),
Bakiga (7.0 per cent), Iteso (6.6 per cent), Langi (6.2 per cent), Acholi (4.8 per cent), Bagisu
(4.7 per cent), Lugbara (4.3 per cent), and other Ugandans from smaller ethnic groups are put
at 30.7 per cent. In Kibaale District, the Banyoro are the ‘indigenous’ ethnic community. The
2002 Census Report indicates that there are 24 main ‘tribes’4 living in Kibaale. They are
distributed as indicated in Table 1 below:
Table 2: Distribution of Ethnic Groups in Kibaale District - 2002
Tribe
Banyoro
Bakiga
Bagungu
Acholi
Lugbara
Bafumbira
Chope
Population
193,555
126,312
3,240
373
326
574
32,241
3,240
Tribe Baruli Bakhonzo Batoro Banyankore Banyarwanda Kebu Bagisu Langi
Population 78 11,742 8,352 9,256 3,331 62 422 119
Tribe Iteso Lendu Baamba Basoga Bahororo Banyore Baganda Bagwere
Population 192 85 2,261 637 634 223 4,475 252
Source: Republic of Uganda (2005)
3 The Bantu-speaking people are a group of people who speak related languages and have relatively similar social
characteristics. They occupy a large part of Zaire and southern as well as eastern Africa and are said to have originated from
somewhere in the Congo region of central Africa and spread rapidly to the Southern and eastern Africa. Today, more than
one half of the population of Uganda are Bantu-speaking (http://www.ugandatravelguide.com/bantu-people.html accessed on
24th July 2012).
4 Although the word tribe is being abandoned today in anthropological and sociological circles, largely due to its demeaning
colonial roots, in several parts of Africa, and in Uganda in particular, it has been sanitised and is still widely used to denote
‘ethnic group’ in a non-derogatory sense. However, for this study to fit into wider discourse on ethnicity, the word tribe is
avoided except where cited from elsewhere.
6
The total population of immigrants (including what the Census labels as ‘small tribes’) is at
212,327 while the Banyoro are 193,555. It thus indicates the immigrants group to be larger
than the native group, which phenomenon, as will be later discussed, also informs the tension
in the district. However, as shall be shown in this study, the numeric factor is only one among
others.
According to an Inquiry into Bunyoro Issues Report (Republic of Uganda 2006), Kibaale also
accommodates 3,900 people from other small tribes including: the Babukusu, Bagwe,
Bahehe, Bakenyi, Banyara, Basamia, Jopadhola, Kumam, Sabiny, Dodoth, Ethur, Teuso, Jie,
Jonam, Kakwa, Karimojong, Kuku, Madi, Mening, Mvumba, Napore, Nubi, Nyangia, Pokot,
Tepeth, Vonoma, Babwisi, Banyabindi, Basongora, Batagwenda, Batuku, and Batwa. The
report indicates that, as of 2002, Kibaale’s total population was 405,882, with a high growth
rate of 5.2 compared to the national rate of 3.3. The next sub-section, I explain the genesis of
the above demographic phenomenon and its implications to pluralism in Kibaale District.
1.2.1 The Genesis of Ethnic Tension in the Kibaale Context
Kibaale District, which is part of Bunyoro Kingdom5, located in western Uganda, has been
one of the vivid hotspots of ethnic tension at the start of the 21st century in Uganda. However,
like with most forms of socio-political organisation and relations in Africa (Mamdani 2001a,
Mamdani 2004), the roots of this tension can be traced back to colonial times, and this helps
us to both contextualise its complexity and meaningfully interrogate the possibilities of
pluralism in light of all dimensions of the case.
In the 1890s, the British colonialists faced much resistance in establishing their rule in
Bunyoro Kingdom. Hence, they resorted to collaborating with Buganda Kingdom (which had
pre-colonial rivalry with the Banyoro over territory and might) to fight the Banyoro. This
move marked the defeat of Bunyoro towards the end of the 19th Century and, in appreciation
for the support from Buganda and/or for strategic reasons, the British ‘donated’ a big and
very culturally significant6 fraction of Bunyoro land (six counties7 – later to be known as the
‘lost counties’) to Buganda (Schelnberger 2005; Espeland 2006). Kiwanuka (1968) contends
that it was more for strategic reasons than for appreciating Buganda’s wartime alliance that
the counties were annexed to the latter. He argues that, the British appreciated the
administrative structure of Buganda. They wanted to take advantage of it in Bunyoro as well
through indirect rule, thereby helping to curb further resistance to their rule and reducing
administrative costs.
5 Bunyoro kingdom is one among many ‘kingdoms’ in Uganda. These kingdoms are constitutionally viewed as cultural
institutions and are not allowed to participate in political affairs.
6 The cultural significance of the counties extended to Buganda are discussed further in Chapter Three.
7 The number of counties actually given by the British to Buganda is still contested. Contrary to the popular account of six
(or seven) counties, Kiwanuka (1968) and (Lwanga 2007) argue that only two counties (Buyaga and Bugangaizi) were
extended to Buganda, the rest had already been conquered by Buganda. This study does not intend as part of its scope to
verify what the true account is, but what is important to draw from this is that there was significant territorial lost by
Bunyoro.
7
It should be observed that the territory curved off from Bunyoro was geographically larger
than the original size of Buganda, too large to be ignored by Bunyoro. In humiliation of the
Banyoro, through the authority of the British colonisers, Buganda effectively sent her chiefs
to administrate and embark on ‘Bugandanising’ Bunyoro through entrenching Kiganda8
language and culture and thereby deculturating the Banyoro (Kihumuro 1994). By force of
law, Runyoro (the language of the Banyoro) was effectively banned from official
communication and all the Banyoro had to adopt Baganda names. Up to today many Banyoro
elders bear Baganda names. This psychological trauma still plays into the dynamics of
current ethnic relations with the effect of triggering sporadic moments of xenophobia in fear
of being dominated again. In some cases, it is simply used as a mobilisation scapegoat by
opportunistic politicians to win favour on grounds of ethnicity and autochthony (Geschiere
2009).
In 1964 (after Uganda’s independence from British rule in 1962), as had been recommended
by the colonialists at their departure, a referendum was held in two of the six ‘lost counties’ –
Buyaga and Bugangaizi - that had been given to Buganda and the vote was in favour of
returning the territories to Bunyoro. Consequently, Schelnberger (2005) reports that the
Baganda chiefs and their agents were chased from Bunyoro with spears and machetes. But
they left without giving up their legal ownership of the land and kept their official land titles
for over 2,995 square miles (Republic of Uganda 2006). These land owners are locally known
as ‘absentee landlords’. This situation left the Banyoro effectively as ‘squatters in their native
land’ (Mirima 1999), who had to pay feudal dues to the absentee Baganda landlords. This
caused bitterness fueling negative memories of domination.
Even though a Land Fund was established by force of the Land Act (1998) to, among other
functions, buy out the absentee landlords from the area, much land still remains in the latter’s
hands. The implementation of the Land Fund is complicated by the requirement of the same
Act that “… any compulsory acquisition of land ... shall be at a fair market valuation assessed
on a willing seller willing buyer basis”. Some absentee landlords are just not willing to sell
their land.
In addition to the above described historic presence of the Baganda and the Banyoro people
in Kibaale District, a number of other ethnic groups have been settling in this area over time.
Some have settled through official state resettlement schemes. Most of these settlers are from
western Uganda (mainly the Bakiga). The Government of Uganda Inquiry into Bunyoro
Issues report (2006) indicates that about 300 Bakiga families were resettled in Ruteete
Kagadi in 1965 by the Government under an arrangement initiated by Kigezi region leaders
in consultation with the Omukama9 (King) of Bunyoro (Sir Tito Winyi). Another official
resettlement scheme was the Bugangaizi resettlement scheme of 3,600 families in Nalweyo
Kisiita in 1993. The resettled group was of Bakiga who were previously evicted from
Mpokya Forest Reserve in a bid to protect it from destruction.
8 Adjective in reference to something ‘of the Baganda culture’.
9 Refer to the Glossary of terms and referents before this chapter.
8
Due to the above resettlement schemes and other factors, such as voluntary immigration and
high fertility rates, the largest population of the Bakiga (126,312) in Bunyoro Kingdom is
found in Kibaale District (Republic of Uganda 2006, p.38). The resettlements together with
other voluntary migrations into the area effectively tipped the demographic figures with the
migrants out-numbering the indigenous group. This in itself may not have sparked off tension
between the Banyoro and the migrants, as shall be later explained here. Rather it took the
‘ethnicisation’ of local politics amidst a numerical disadvantage on the side of the Banyoro to
set the scene for conflict.
In observation of these series of resettlements, the Mubende Banyoro Committee, an ethnic
pressure group formed in 1918 to ‘fight’ for Banyoro rights, felt that, by resettling groups of
people there, Government turned their region into “a dumping ground of refugees and
migrants” (Mubende Banyoro Committee Memorandum – MBC - 2005, in Republic of
Uganda 2006, p.213). The MBC’s Memorandum also indicates that this feeling is not helped
by the claim that the Banyoro did not consent to Government’s resettlement schemes.
Some of these new settlers were invited by the native Banyoro and were given land along
forests in order to shield the Banyoro’s gardens against vermin and wild animals (Nsamba-
Gayiiya 2003). Some were given land by local chiefs for token payments while others bought
it from the native Banyoro. Many more people have migrated to the area in search for land
or/and following their relatives. Bunyoro has been a convenient place to resettle other
Ugandans who were overpopulated in specific areas (especially Kabale and Kisoro districts)
because the war between the British government and the kingdom from 1893 to 1899 and the
diseases that broke out thereafter left the area severely depopulated (Kihumuro 1994;
Republic of Uganda 2006).
Initially, the settlers were quite well received in the then sparsely populated area and they
mainly served as labourers for the indigenous Banyoro. But with the increase in numbers of
settlers, financial strength, and the attendant cut-throat competition for resources and power,
inter-ethnic conflicts started to emerge in the wake of the 21st century (Green 2006). It
should be noted that the migrants are not mere temporary residents. They are permanent
resident citizens and, as such, have clear stakes in the political process. This complicates the
ensuing ethnic bargains through ethno-political competition.
Large scale open violence took place between February and May 2002 when a Mukiga was
elected as the District Chairman10. The sitting Munyoro refused to hand over power to
someone they considered to be a ‘foreigner’ and clashes ensued between Banyoro and settlers
in some places. The Banyoro started to claim back land from non-Banyoro. Violence again
emerged in April 2003 when news spread that land that belonged to Bakiga was being
10 This is the highest position at District level within Uganda’s decentralised framework. It is also refered to as Local
Council Five (LC 5) as the highest of the five local government councils. LC 4 is the County, LC 3 the Sub-county, LC 2 the
Parish while LC 1 is the village.
9
allocated to the Banyoro by the District Land Board (Espeland 2007). The violence that
followed left three people dead, several others injured, huts burnt, and livestock killed
(Schelnberger 2005). In 2005, Schelnberger observed that the situation was calm but the
conflict remained at a stage of high intensity where it could easily break out into open
violence again. And the violence surely emerged before the elections of 2006 (Mugerwa May
30, 2015).
With a tendency of peaking during elections, the tension remains up to today. In the analysis
of the Inquiry into Bunyoro Issues Committee, “the Banyoro think that they are being re-
colonised while the other tribes think that their survival in the region will be guaranteed only
if they are in charge” (2006, p.45). Such feelings seem to put the two sides on oppositional
directions. To further complicate the case, sometimes Government intervention has only
served to aggravate the tension. This is partly because it is viewed in terms of the side it
would be taking in the Banyoro – Bafuruki11 polar equation. After the Mufuruki (immigrant)
LC 5 Chairman had been forced by Government to step down for a compromise replacement
in 2002, Government felt that there was need to come up with a policy to prevent such a
scenario from re-occuring. In a letter titled Guidance on the Banyoro/Bafuruki Question (July
2009), the President12 - suggestively justifying the Banyoro’s rejection of non-indigenous
leaders - asks:
i) If the Bafuruki dominate political space in the area to which they migrated, where
do the indigenous people of the area find another political space?
ii) If the Bafuruki were more nationalistic, why could they not find some persons
among the indigenous people and vote for them?
iii) Can some people from indigenous groups successfully compete, politically in
the areas of origin of the Bafuruki? If not, is this not an unequal relationship?
iv) Suppose we were to infuse 100,000 Bafuruki into Acholi or Karamoja [other
Ugandan ethnic communities], what would be the reaction? If the Acholis and
Karamajongs were to react violently, would it mean that they are not Ugandan
enough or would it be that the policy was wrong?
In an apparent condemnation of the migration of the Bakiga [the dominant immigrant group]
into Kibaale, ‘an already enfeebled population [of the indigenous Banyoro] on account of
history’, he argued that “horizontal rural migration by peasants after they have exhausted land
in one area is not a progressive way of creating national integration. The more correct way is
vertical migration, from the farm to the factory”. On account of the above contentions, as one
of the possible solutions, in the same letter, the President proposed a 20-year affirmative
action:
1. Ring-fencing the LC V [5] positions in the whole of Bunyoro region for the
indigenous people; and also ring-fencing the sub-county leadership except for the
sub-counties around the Kisiita and Luteete areas [the resettlement schemes].
11 A local label for non-Banyoro that came into widespread use when the Banyoro – non-Banyoro conflict began. It literally
means ‘immigrant’. The circumstances and implications of its origin and instrumentalisation are discussed in Chapter Four.
12 Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
10
2. Ring-fencing the positions of Members of Parliament in the whole of Bunyoro
region for the indigenous people, except for the special constituencies created
around Lutete [sic] and Kisiita resettlement schemes.
The President’s suggestion was considerably lauded by the Banyoro. In a response written by
Ford Mirima (September 3, 2009) on behalf of the Banyoro elders, they say:
“The Banyoro, understandably, fully support the president’s position. They say
that they have been victims of colonial suppression for generations, a
marginalized minority, purposely kept backward to satisfy colonialists’ policies,
which polices [sic, policies] were unfortunately inherited by independent Uganda
successive Governments even after the country attained independence. ...
Banyoro’s prayer is that these proposals reach cabinet, then go to parliament and
are given the force of law so that they can be implemented.”
However, some Banyoro, represented by the LC 5 Chairman of Masindi District (also within
Bunyoro), felt that the suggested affirmative action was an insufficient concession. Instead,
they suggested that: "For anybody to contest for any leadership position from Parish level to
Member of Parliament, that person's paternal grandparent should have lived in Bunyoro by
1926" (Gyezaho 2009) 13. This requirement would certainly disqualify most of the Bafuruki.
On the other hand, the President’s suggestion was met with resistance and contempt from a
wide section of the non-Banyoro within and outside Bunyoro. At the center of the reactions
was a fundamental concern that such a measure was inconsistent with the procedural rules
that constitute democracy. Commenting on the President’s proposal in the Abu Mayanja
Memorial Lecture – August 7, 2009, Mamdani felt that in such a suggestion:
The real shift is in the definition of citizenship. Nationalists defined citizenship as
Ugandan, regardless of origin; Amin defined it as black Ugandan. But, today, it is
proposed that the core rights of citizenship - the right to political representation - be
defined on a tribal basis. The NRM14 is the first government in the history of
independent Uganda to propose a dilution of national citizenship in favor of a tribal
citizenship. My argument is that if we adopt this proposal, we shall be returning to
an arrangement resembling colonial rule15.
In a re-emphasis of his view of the relationship between contemporary African politics and
colonial legacy (Mamdani 2004), Mamdani interprets the President’s proposal as the usual
reference to the colonial book in ‘times of crisis’. Mamdani’s view should be appreciated
from the implication of the President’s suggestion that indigenous groups are entitled to a
wider set of rights than legitimate migrant groups/ individuals. Such a view goes contrary to a
fundamental tenet of the Ugandan constitutional provision that “... all persons are equal
before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in
every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law” (Section 21, Art. 1).
13 http://allafrica.com/stories/200909180968.html Viewed on August 25, 2011
14 National Resistance Movement, which is the ruling party.
15 http://abumayanja.org/news.php?prog_id=13 Viewed on August 25, 2011.
11
But on the other hand, the President’s suggestion ought to also be assessed from the angle of
a response to ethnic bargains based on historical marginalization despite ‘indigenousness’.
Viewed as affirmative action, if it is indeed true that the Banyoro are marginalised, the
President’s suggestion passes as just/ fair in a remedial sense. But this measure calls for
delicate handling, not to give the impression that rights and privileges are extended to some
sections of society by the state on the sheer basis of ethnicity.
In another move to resolve the tension, in 2010 the president passed a directive to the
Attorney General and Minister of Local Government to create two new
counties/constituencies. He said, “we need to split Buyaga with a new constituency centred
around the former Lutete [Ruteete] refugee camp to cater for the Bafuruki, and also to split
Bugangaizi, to create a county/constituency around Kisiita [resettlement scheme] to cater for
the Bafuruki there” (Lumu 2010). Though the move was rejected by Bunyoro Kingdom, it
was ultimately implemented. The idea seems to have been that of making sure that each
group gets representation by their own at parliamentary and other local government levels16.
Whether this can help to bring about short- and long-term harmony remains a lingering
question. The subsequent 2011 elections were generally peaceful, but ethnic calculations
were not completely out of the picture. There were strategic alliances on ethnic lines and, in
some cases, deliberate moves to share constituency representation in parliament by ethnicity.
The sustainability of such an arrangement is questionable.
Still in a bid to sort out Bunyoro’s issues and in display of their significance, the Ministry for
Bunyoro Affairs was created in 2011. The minister appointed to head the above ministry
(Saleh Kamba) was neither from the area nor a Munyoro. In response to this development,
the Prime Minister of Bunyoro Kingdom (Yabeezi Kiiza) said: “We thank the President for
creating a ministry for us but the appointment of a minister who is not a Munyoro is a big
concern for us. We have several people from Bunyoro who qualify to head it [the
ministry]17”. Eventually a Munyoro was appointed Minister in November 2012.
Even in appreciation of the Banyoro’s history of marginalisation, the above response to the
appointmentment of a non-Munyoro minister for Bunyoro Affairs together with the rejection
of a non-Munyoro LC5 Chairman in Kibaale in 2002 seem to point to a nativist feeling
among the Banyoro that issues of Bunyoro ought to be, first and foremost, their business to
determine. But this is contested by some non-Banyoro and it raises questions about its
implications to wider society if, after official endorsement, it spills into other areas in Uganda
such as Karamoja and Luwero which have special ministries on grounds of affirmative
action. Should they also ask for ministers from their areas? That could play against the spirit
of national integration. It was also particularly curious that shortly after the President’s letter
in which he proposed ring-fencing was published, the Buganda Kingdom announced that they
16 The creation of a constituency goes with creation of other sub-units there under such as LC III. Leadership of these is also
through elections.
17 http://mobile.monitor.co.ug/News/-/691252/1172156/-/format/xhtml/-/mg7veb/-/index.html Viewd on August 11, 2011
12
were planning to count all their people and their origins18. More importantly, these
contestations raised questions about the possibilities of pluralism amidst the ethnic
differences in Kibaale.
An earlier study in the Pluralism Knowledge Program in Kibaale (2010) indicates that the
Banyoro were not happy with what they call the arrogance of the Bakiga and their refusal to
adopt Banyoro culture, respect their king (Omukama) and learn their language (Runyoro).
The MBC also claimed that “due to arrogance the settlers have failed to be assimilated or
learn the ways of the people who hosted them” (Republic of Uganda 2006, p.192). It is not
well-received among a wide section of the Banyoro that a number of Bakiga still practice
their own culture and speak their own languages and that they have even renamed some of
the places in Kibaale giving them Rukiga19 names.
On the other hand, in an open memo to the president from 36 ‘Leaders from the Non-
Banyoro Community living in Kibaale District’, they argue that “We believe that non-
Banyoro living in Bunyoro do not have to deny their culture and identity in order to be
considered respectful. We also believe that respect for one community’s culture cannot be a
one way street” (The Observer, 10 August 2009). In the same communiqué, the immigrants
also express their conviction that it is their constitutional right to stand for any electoral
position in the area, practice their culture, and legally settle where they wish.
The sentiments and line of events highlighted above serve to demonstrate the historically
rooted complexity of the current ethnic sensitivity of Kibaale and call for inquiry into the
possibility of pluralism in the area through the residents’ own perceptions. As the above
account indicates, Kibaale was specifically selected for this study on account of the fact that
it has been one of the predominant spots of ethnic tension/conflict in contemporary Uganda
(Espeland 2007 and Nkurunziza 2011). Boulding’s classical definition of conflict as “a
struggle over values, claims to scarce status, power and resources” (cited in Jeong 2008) is
clearly exemplified by the Kibaale case. It further becomes a case for academic curiosity due
to its complexity and entanglement in ethnic, historic, economic, cultural and political
factors.
One would say that what we see here is a failure to acknowledge and negotiate differences.
However, as argued by An-na‘im (2008), such failure does not have to be final or conclusive.
“Since every failure holds a new possibility of success in the future, the question should
always be what people can do to achieve the transformation of the permanent realities of
difference into sustainable pluralism” (An-na‘im 2008, p.225). This is also in consideration
of a very important observation that the people of Kibaale have co-existed peacefully from
the 1960s to 2000. “Together they built community structures such as health centres, they
sent their children to the same schools, worshipped at the same churches and they also
18 See Gyezaho and Mwanje (05 August 2009). ‘Bafuruki hit back at President Museveni, Mengo to issue IDs to all
Baganda’ From http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg26575.html Viewed on 13th march 2012.
19 Rukiga is the language for the Bakiga.
13
intermarried” (Schelnberger 2005, p.30). Although Schelnberger’s observation does not
necessarily imply that earlier interethnic relations were pluralist in nature, it points to the
possibility that the people of Kibaale could imagine - based on their past and present
experiences – how ethnic pluralism could be framed in their community. The rationale for a
focus on people’s own perceptions in the Kibaale complexity is explained further in this
chapter.
1.3 Primordialism and Constructivism as Theoretical Perspectives on Ethnic Conflict
The two most dominant theoretical frameworks which social scientists have used to
understand and explain the existence and dynamics in and between ethnic groups are
primordialism and constructivism (Hale 2008; Bayar 2009). This study is largely inclined
towards a constructivist approach but, there are aspects of the primordialist theory, which will
be brought into consideration. It is rightly observed by Hale (2004) that neither of the two
theories is fully accurate and that they have great potential for cross-fertilisation. As such, the
conceptual frames of both theories will be explored in this study by taking a synthetic outlook
where, through a critique of each of the two theoretical lenses, a synthesis is developed which
deems to offer a stronger account of how and why some ethnic conflicts persist and the
circumstances under which pluralism is made possible in a multi-ethnic context.
1.3.1 Primordialism
The key argument of the primordialists (Shils 1957; Geertz 1963; Huntington 1996) is that
extended kinship relations are the critical elements that hold ethnic groups together and
provides them with their emotive power (Hale 2004). It is also held under the theory that
ethnic conflicts are renewals of age-old antagonisms and hatreds.
Primordial conceptions of ethnicity focus on shared qualities such as: a common language, a
collective name, a common myth of descent, a shared history and allegedly inherited physical
or/and behavioural characteristics common to members of the group (Narrol cited in Poluha
1998). These are assumed by many primordialists to be ‘givens’. In this line, Geertz
specifically defines primordial attachment as:
One that stems from the ‘givens’ of existence or more precisely, as culture is
inevitably involved in such matters, the assumed givens of social existence;
immediate contiguity and live connection mainly, but beyond them the
givenness that stems from being born into a particular religious community,
speaking a particular language, or even a dialect of a language, and following
particular social practices. These continuities of blood, speech, custom and so on
are seen to have an ineffable, and at times overpowering coerciveness in and of
themselves. One is bound to one’s kinsman, one’s neighbour, one’s fellow
believer ipso facto as the result not merely of personal attraction, tactical
necessity, common interest or incurred moral obligation, but at least in great part
by virtue of some unaccountable absolute import attributed to the very tie itself
(cited in Rex 2002, p.90).
As Hale (2004) observes, primordialists have been generally misunderstood by many scholars
to say that all elements of ethnicity are ‘actual givens’. Hale indicates that this view is
14
misleading as only Van den Berghe (1981) can be cited to have actually posited a biological
basis for primordialism by arguing that humans have evolved a nepotism instinct that bases
on any physical differences between people to produce group formation. But, as indicated in
the Shils’ (1957) seminal work on primordialism and the above widely cited piece from
Geertz, primordialists tend to refer to ‘assumed givens’ rather than ‘actual givens’ of life.
This is meant to highlight the critical element of perception – the idea that ethnic group
members perceive themselves as held together by kinship ties (common blood histories), to
be of common descent, and to hold similar customs. The factual value of these beliefs is
another thing. What is important here for primordialists is that the perceptions inform group
action/behaviour both in relation to each other within the group and to ‘others’.
The other primordial idea related to that of givens is that “ethnic communities are persistent,
resilient, robust, and capable of eliciting deep loyalty, intense attachment and strong
motivation, and, in consequence, are particularly resistant to change” (Harowitz cited in
Coetzee 2009). Contemporary ethnic conflicts are thus viewed as the renewal of age-old
antagonisms (Roe 2005) ones that antedate the formation of nation states. It is argued that
ethnic identity systems take centuries to cristallise, but once they have been formed, they are
difficult to change they tend to strongly endure (Van Evera 2001; Bayar 2009). However,
this is not to summarily deny the porosity of ethnic boundaries and possibility for change. In
‘Primordialism Lives’, Van Evera (2001, p.20), a self-avowed primordialist, enounces that
“ethnic identities are not stamped on our genes” and admits that “ethnic identities are socially
constructed”.
Primordialists do not claim that members of ethnic groups inherit their mother tongue and
other cultural elements genetically; rather they internalise these elements through
socialisation by their families and wider society. “What is learned is so deeply entrenched
within the society that recourse to certain ways of behaviour seems almost automatic: in
otherwords they are seen as being in the group’s nature” (Roe 2005, p.26). But this
socialisation/ nurturing process is primordially determined because individuals may not be
able to choose their parents or reconstruct another language as mother tongue later in their
lives (Bayar 2009). It has been observed by Kasfir (1979), for example, that even where new
ethnic groups were seen to emerge in sub-Saharan Africa, they did not emerge arbitrariry;
they were constructed on the basis of assumed kinship, language, geography and other real
and perceived commonalities. Van den Berghe (1981) and Horowitz (1985) have thus argued
that political entrepreneurs cannot create an instant ethnic group or bring an ethnic identity
into play by creating a myth, since a myth has to be rooted in history (or perceived to be so).
Thus Smith (2000) concludes that symbols unifying ethnic groups can be ancient and
enduring even though groups can invoke them in new ways and for new purposes at different
points in time.
The other important aspect of primordialism to explain here is what brings about strong
emotional attachment to one’s ethnic group/ between members of an ethnic group. This
would also help us understand why political mobilisation along ethnic identity tends to be
15
rather easy and often succesful. It is important for this study to understand why ethnicity is
capable of eliciting such deep loyalty. This is the part of primordialism that this study
integrates with constructivist considerations.
Seminal primordialists like Shils (1957) and Geertz (1963) talk of ‘primordial affinities’and
‘personal attachments’ that are sometimes refered to as ‘intense’ but they do not explain the
root of such ethnic affect and why it tends to be stronger than other forms of social identy
such as class. However, subsequent primordialists and other scholars who do not exclusively
identify with this school of thought have dwelt on the descriptive premises of Shils and
Geertz in particular to explain the phenomenon, especially by drawing from psychological
theory.
To be able to explain ethnic emotional attachment, it is crucial to start by highlighting the
meaning of an ‘ethnic group’. Weber (1978) famously defined an ethnic group as a set of
people who have common points of reference including perceptions of common descent,
history, fate, and culture, which usually indicates some mix of language, physical appearance,
and the ritual regulation of life (cited in Hale 2004). It is argued by primordialists that it is
mainly because of the deep entrenchment of the elements constituting ethnicity in society that
people tend to strongly (Roe 2005). They are attributes that people are socialised into from
early childhood thus making them seem obvious and unchangeagle; things which when
threatened one would feel that an important aspect of their being is touched.
Hale (2004) indicates that, more than many other distinctions among people (identities),
ethnic markers tend to be readily accessible in and to fit well with situations that are directly
relevant to people’s well-being. Sharing language, for example, removes barriers to
communication. Due to the importance of communication in social life, the presence of a
communication barrier with another group makes it relatively easier to relate/bond with
members of one’s own ethnic group. Hale also observes that the communication barrier
makes it easier to believe ‘distorted’ explanations for unexpected behaviour of the ‘other’
group’s members. And thirdly, where a group’s ethnic markers involve visible physical
differences, they also reinforce ethnic attachment/ affect. They tend to be powerfully
situationally accessible, especially where, for historical reasons, they correspond plausibly to
important political, economic, or/and social divides.
Evolutionary psychology has particularly added explanatory significance to the primordialist
idea of perceptions of kinship ties within ethnic groups (Harvey 2000). It has been suggested
by social identity theorists that humans have a tendency to differentiate into groups to provide
order and meaning to situations (Birnir 2007). Taking this deeper, in his ‘ethnic nepotism
theory’, Van den Berghe suggests that, in group dynamics, humans have an evolutionary
predisposition to favour kin over non-kin and closer kin over distant kin (cited in Bayar
2009). In his article ‘Reconsidering Primordialism’, Bayar (2009) contends that the above
psychological inclination is reinforced by social factors in boosting the significance of
assumed kinship because: a) common language, geography, and culture facilitate cooperation
16
among co-ethnics and b) the above similarities (real and assumed) bring additional
advantages for survival because they provide group members with relative certainty about
each other’s behaviour. It is the factors above individually or in various combinations that
explain why people would be so strongly attached to their ethnic groups thus making ethnic
identity relatively easier to mobilise compared to other social identities.
Primordialism could partially serve to analyse ethnic conflict and exclusion in Uganda
especially in relation to emotional ethnic ties and allegiance to perceived common ancestry,
which exists among most ethnic groups in Uganda. Among the Baganda, for example, one
way of expressing one’s Baganda identity is by reciting ancestry (a list of ancestors). It is also
used as a means of identifying (and sometimes excluding) non-Baganda. And, in emphasis of
common ancestry, the Baganda also identify themselves as bazzukulu ba Kintu (grand
children of Kintu the mythical first Muganda). It should however be noted that, just as
many other ethnic groups in Uganda, the Baganda group has over time assimilated several
other peoples into its fold, who are now also identified as Baganda. Therefore, although there
could be some ethnic groups that actually have common ancestry, in some cases the
primordial explanation of ethnicity by common ancestry should be understood as perceived.
Such ancestral accounts often contradict the known biological and social history of an ethnic
community. I would rather argue that although ethnic groups themselves tend to endure,
around some primordial attributes, the boundaries of ethnicity tend to shift, narrowing or
broadening in accordance with specific needs of political mobilisation at different times. It is
for this reason that descent as an ethnic marker is often selectively cited or may matter on
some occasions and sometimes not.
In his famous article and later a book, The Clash of Civilisations (1993, 1996), Huntington,
an influential primordialist, views different ethnic and religious groups as civilisations which
are defined by their cultural differences. He identifies differences in language, ethnicity,
family, nation, religion, common traditions and history, which he says are “not only real; they
are basic (p.22). Conflict between different civilisations is thus mainly based on cultural
differences, which he considers less mutable and therefore less easily compromised and
resolved than political and economic ones. In prediction of the ‘return of traditional rivalries’,
he argues that new waves of conflict across the globe in the 21st century will be a direct result
of competing cultural, as in civilizational, identities.
Without considering the arguably influential factors of economic competition and political
manipulation which are often entangled within ethnic tension, Huntington argues that the
differences of language, ethnicity, culture, and history do not merely exacerbate conflict, but
they are the underlying cause. He predicts that with the world becoming a smaller place,
increased interaction, will “intensify civilization consciousness” and enhance group
“awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.” The
civilisation consciousness in turn invigorates differences and animosities, which (are thought
to) stretch back deep into history. Some of his observations have been analytically important
in making sense of ‘terrorism’ in the 20th and 21st centuries.
17
Huntington seems to have aimed at explaining large-scale conflicts but, in so doing, he comes
up with very big brush strokes that fail to cater for some particular details within his
civilisational categories. The major civilisations that Huntington picks out include Western,
Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and ‘possibly’
African civilization. His explanation of the ‘African civilisation’ is crowded in ambiguity and
false analysis. He puts all attention on religious identity (Christian and Islam) as the actual
and potential cause of conflict on the continent and selectively cites examples (Somalia,
Sudan, Nigeria, etc) that serve his thesis while ignoring conflicts along other identity lines
that have occurred in countries like Rwanda and Uganda.
Casting doubt on Huntington’s primordial analysis, Roe remarks that while Huntington’s
thesis seeks to propound a systematic explanation for violence and war, his conclusions
appear every bit as deterministic as those who proffer ancient hatred explanations” (2005,
p.27). And its weakness precisely lies in its deterministic reductionism in explaining conflicts
some of which may not be rooted in histories of hatred. Reinforcing Roe’s criticism, Sen adds
that within Huntington’s determinism:
Modern conflicts, which cannot be adequately analysed without going into
contemporary events and machinations, are then interpreted as ancient feuds
which allegedly place today’s players in preordained roles in an allegedly
ancestral play. As a result, the ‘civilisational’ approach to contemporary conflicts
(in grander or lesser versions) serves as a major intellectual barrier to focusing
more fully on prevailing politics and to investigating the processes and dynamics
of contemporary incitements to violence (Sen 2006, p.43).
Moreover, to add to Roe and Sen’s critique, as shall be seen later, whereas the history of
ethnic relations in Kibaale, for example, plays a role in contemporary tension in the area, that
may not lead us to the reductionist conclusion that elevates it at the under-consideration of
contemporary political manoeuvres/manipulations and other relevant explanations.
In The Clash within Civilisations, Senghaas further criticises Huntington’s thesis as being
essentialist. “... he [Huntington] regards civilizations as not adaptable and changeable over
centuries. Deep down, they remain constant, and they tend to process external influences so
as to guarantee continuity” (Sen 2002, p.73). Moreover, in his monistic identification of
cultures as singular civilisations, Huntington does not pay sufficient attention to the plurality
of identities ‘within’ (Sen 2006) and, by extension, the clashes within. He underestimates the
extent of the internal diversities20 within his civilisational categories and the interactional
porosity of the civilisational borders that he presents as though they were rigid boxes frozen
in time.
20 Sen (2006) highlights divisions between the rich and the poor, between members of different classes and occupations,
between people of different politics (political affiliation), and between language groups. Divisions of religion, gender, and
age group could be added to Sen’s list.
18
Senghaas argues that “holistic statements have never been analytically useful and cannot be
justified today in the face of growing cultural conflicts within civilisations” (p.74). In the
same line of critique, in her study entitled The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence
and India’s Future, Nussbaum argues that “thinking in terms of a ‘clash of civilisations’ ...
leads us to ignore both the heterogeneity of all known civilisations and the inter-penetration
and mutual influence among cultures that is a fact of human history” (Nussbaum 2007, p.7).
In studying ethnicity we should not ignore both ‘internal diversity’ and ‘cultural borrowing’.
On the whole, while helpful in explaining ethnic attachment, affect and the endurance of
ethnic groups, primordialist theories would not adequately explain all aspects of Uganda’s
ethnic rivalries. For example, primordialism does not account for the ethnic conflicts in
Uganda that originate from political manipulation of the ‘ethnic card’ (Kigongo 1995;
Muhereza and Otim 1998; Storey 2002; Mamdani 2004; Nsamba et al. 2007). This is in
reference to ethnic conflicts that are fuelled by politicians as they pit ethnic groups against
each other for political scores. Guest observes that:
Most of Africa’s ethnic strife has its roots in the manipulation of tribal loyalties by
the colonial authorities [and some post-independence African leaders]. And most of
today’s conflicts owe their persistence to modern politics, not primordial passions
(Guest 2004, p.111).
Citing the example of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, Guest argues that a primordial ‘ancient
hatreds’ explanation of the violence cannot suffice. Just as Mamdani (2001a), he admits that
it is true the Hutus always hated the Tutsis and vice versa but that:
“Hutus and Tutsis have only thrown themselves at each other’s throats since their
political leaders started urging them to. The genocide was carefully planned by a
small clique of criminals, to maintain their grip on power. They were not forced to
carry it out by passions beyond their control, or by the irresistible tide of history
(Mamdani 2001a pp. 112-113).”
The history of the Hutu-Tutsi relations, especially in light of colonial favouritism for the
Tutsi (Mamdani 2001a), was of course connected to the genocide but not a sufficient reason
for it. Besides, even history is constructed through socio-political dynamics, not a ‘given’.
Primordialism also fails to explain the conflicts emerging from perceived and actual
discrimination, especially in the distribution of power and other resources (Smith 1994).
Moreover, as remarked by Okuku (2002), some primordial conceptions look at ethnicity from
a static and negative stance with a tacit suggestion that ethnic rivalries can never be
addressed, as though ethnic pluralism is an impossibility. But ethnicity is never static since
new forms or characteristics are perpetually created because also what is considered to be
significant changes over time (Bacova 1998, Paloha 1998, and Gunaratman 2003). “This
flexibility makes it possible for members of ethnic groups to communicate their ethnicity in
different ways” (Poluha 1998, p.33). In Gunaratman’s view, ethnicity is not an objective,
stable, homogenous category but is produced and animated by changing, complicated and
uneven interactions between social processes and individual experience, and thus better
19
addressed using constructivist theory. Indeed, as explained earlier, some contemporary
primordialists (Van Evera 2001; Bayar 2002) have outrightly conceded to the constructedness
of some aspects of ethnicity.
More importantly for this study, an exclusive primordialist account also fails to explain why
in some cases there are long periods of peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups, or
why these waves of ethnic consciousness and tension take place at particular times (Coetzee
2009). It also fails to explain why ethnic groups seemingly appear, disappear, and sometimes
re-appear throughout history. A constructivist outlook critically addresses some of
primordialism’s presuppositions. However, as earlier explained, the primordial explanation of
affect/ strong attachment within ethnic groups is considered important in this study. I
synthesise that part of primordialism with constructivism, especially in explaining why
‘elites’ looking for advantage often choose to mobilise masses along ethnic identity.
1.3.2 Constructivism
The constructivist point of departure is in the generic view that social reality is not given to
us and that meaning is always constructed. In an interview with Carpentier and Cammaerts
(2006, p.4), Mouffe argues that “there is no meaning that is just essentially given to us; there
is no essence of the social, it is always constructed. The social is always the result of a
hegemonic articulation; every type of social order is the product of a hegemony as a specific
political articulation”. Because every social order is a hegemonic order, no social order is
final for it can always be challenged by a counter-hegemonic move (Mouffe in an interview
with Hansen and Sonnichsen 2014). The construction of social order is viewed as political
because it is established through the exclusion of other possibilities and as an expression of a
particular structure of power relations (Mouffe 2014).
Constructivists emphasise that, just like ethnicity itself, ethnic conflicts are socially
constructed through the hegemonic agency of those competing for positions of advantage in
the modern state (Mamdani 2004). The competition could be for jobs, political positions, and
economic interests. As such, it is the competitive threats (real or imagined) that bring people
together (Weber 1922, Barth 1969, Smith 1994 and Coetzee 2009). In the social
constructivist thesis, it is the level of threat from the ‘out-group/s’ and nature of political
mobilisation that will determine the emergence or non-emergence of inter-ethnic conflict.
Scholars such as Epstein (1958) and Gluckman (1960) noted that in some situations, such as
in labour relations, appeals to class solidarity dominate appeals to ethnic identity; in other
settings, such as during elections, appeals to ethnic interests dominate those to class
solidarity. These findings were later confirmed in studies by Wolpe (1970) and Melson
(1971) and gave rise to the notion of ‘situational selection’. By this notion is implied the idea
that ethnicity is invoked according to circumstances; it is context-related (Forster et al. 2000;
Smith 2001; Omotola 2008). They provided a point of entry for rational choice theory to
approach the study of cultural and identity politics.
20
Rational choice theories hold that individuals must anticipate the outcomes of alternative
courses of action and calculate that which will be best for them (Scott 2000; Brittain 2006).
Rational individuals choose the alternative that is likely to give them the greatest satisfaction
(Coleman 1973; Heath 1976: 3; Carling 1992: 27). As such, “a particular set of preferences
within a fixed array of possible choices shapes the expectations of actors about the outcome
in a search for the greatest benefits” (Jeong 2008, pp.66-67). In Hempel’s view, “individuals
will consciously self-identify on the basis of ethnicity when ethnic membership to one or
another group is perceived to be instrumental in accessing valued goods” (cited in Coetzee
2009). Choices of ethnic affiliation are based on rational awareness, not closeness, but the
need for protection of common (and sometimes selfish) interests.
As such, it is the competitive threat that brings people together. Such threats could be real or
imagined/perceived. In some cases, “it is not the reality of competition that counts; it is a
perception that the out-group wishes to increase its share of valued resources and statuses at
the expense of the in-group” (Bobo and Hatchings cited in Sniderman and Hagendoorn 2007,
p.80). The competition around which calculations are made could be about jobs, political
positions, and economic interests. It is important to look out for and examine these dynamics
in the context of Kibaale, especially because there is indication that the tension rotates around
political positions, socio-economic status, and land. But it is also important to interrogate the
significance of emotions as people’s actions may not always be guided by clearly thought out
reasons as the rational choice theory suggests.
Through the lenses of rational choice theory, an individual understands the community as an
instrument for achieving his/her goals. These bonds of an individual to a community are
characterized as cool-headed, formal, intentional, purposeful, requiring conscious loyalty and
formed on the basis of choice, but also as vague, temporary, intermittent and routine (Bacova
1998, p.33).
Thus, with regard to ethnicity, ethnic identification could be based on the perceived benefits
and costs. This manifests ethnicity as a resource to be mobilised, or an instrument to be used,
by particular groups and individuals in pursuit of political and economic ends (Smith 1994;
Coetzee 2009). As in the social contract theory, members of an ethnic group tacitly consent to
belong to the group in anticipation of some benefit. These benefits are weighed against life
outside the group. In such an arrangement, allegiance to an ethnic group would be on
condition that the reasons for belonging to the group are respected. Short of that, the
membership loses meaning and a different sort of organisation would have to be sought.
Through ‘situational selection’, people organise their perceptions and choices depending on
how an issue is framed. Ethnic identities are not eroded but rather retained; supplemented
with new identities, such as that of a worker; and, in some settings, activated (Posner 2004).
When class solidarity is valuable, ethnic differences may be set aside; when competing for
the spoils of office, they could be re-affirmed. Viewed from this perspective, ethnicity can be
21
seen as a choice or a strategy (Smith 1994), the instrumental value of which varies with the
situation.
In this situational context of ethnicity, it is important to note the behaviour of leaders/elites
who seek to mobilise collective action or support. As Posner (2004) demonstrates, such
leaders tend to choose purposefully, assessing the relative advantages of ethnic mobilisation
against other means of recruiting political support. Such Machiavellian21 elites sometimes
manipulate otherwise peaceful, cooperative populations into ‘ethnic frenzies’ or less intense
forms of ethnic conflict when they have the desire and the opportunity to do so (Hale 2008).
In such cases, as observed by Mamdani (2001a) and Guest (2004) in the case of the Rwanda
genocide, ethnic tension cannot be said to be caused by ethnic passions per se. Rather,
ethnicity is simply “a discourse that guilty elites invoke to obscure the real, venal causes of
violence that they incite” (Brass cited in Hale 2008, p.25). In studying ethnic tension
therefore, it is important to pay keen attention to the role of elites in shaping ethnic relations,
especially in the political dynamics of the context being studied.
Hale observes that the ‘elite manipulation’ argument begs some very important questions.
The first is: “If ethnicity has no inherent meaning for individuals, why do followers follow the
elites’ calls to ethnic battle?” (Hale 2008, p.25). To this he points out explanations that have
been put forward by various scholars. Citing Snyder’s From Voting to Violence (2000), one
of the possible explanations he gives is that because elites tend to control/dominate mass
media, they would very easily control how people think. It is also possible that, in the event
of inter-ethnic violence, the masses expect to benefit somehow. This could be through
opportunities to loot, revenge on a neighbour who happens to fall in the category of the
enemy, exercise greater power personally or/ and to reap material or political benefits through
massive ethnic patronage networks led by the elite.
The second question is: “Since the ways people can be categorized are nearly infinite, why is
it that elites so often invoke ethnic themes as their way of rallying or coordinating the
masses?” (Ibid. p.27). Why would ethnicity be the ‘master narrative’ amidst several possible
others? This question suggests that there could be something emotive about ethnic identity or
that there could be some sort of utility that people derive from merely belonging to an ethnic
group. However, as argued by Mamdani (2001a), the significance of ethnicity is historically
constructed and, often, legally and institutionally reproduced as opposed to being instantly
available for manipulation. Hale is also not right in insinuating that elites ‘more often’ invoke
ethnic themes as their way of rallying the masses. We note that the identity along which to
mobilise is often situationally selected. In India, for example, it is more along the lines of
religion and caste (Nussbaum 2007), and in other contexts it could be on economic class lines
– depending on the circumstances and what has been historically or at the moment shaped to
be the important social identity.
21 For Machiavellians, the end justifies the means used to achieve it.
22
However, social constructivism, and thus the rational choice approach, bears one important
weakness that this study is keen to isolate from its constructivist foundation. It underrates the
role of the affective element in ethnic ties. As explained under primordialism earlier, some
people identify with and pay strong allegiance to their ethnic groups even when there are no
political or/and economic benefits in sight. Choice cannot be reduced summarily to
maximising utility, but may be influenced by habit, custom, a sense of duty, emotional
attachment, etc” (Brittain 2006, p. 158). It can still be argued that such disinterested ethnic
attachment is socially constructed but not necessarily around calculated interests.
In extension and reinforcement of the social constructivist theory, this study widely draws
from Shoup’s (2008) theory of conflict and cooperation in counterbalanced states which
more specifically engages with the concepts and relations that we focus on. Although his
explanation mainly attempts to explain inter-ethnic power relations at state level, I also find it
instrumental in understanding local levels such as Kibaale. I tailor Shoup’s theory with
Mamdani’s analysis of post-colonial ethnic dynamics in Citizen and Subject (2004) and in
When Victims Become Killers (2001) where he explains ethnic conflict in the context of the
Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Shoup defines a counterbalanced society as one where one ethnic community demands
political priority on the basis of ethnic myths of indigenousness while another ethnic group
that is ‘not indigenous’ controls the majority of the economic assets. Myths signify beliefs
held in common and often regurgitated as truisms (Mamdani 2001a) by a large group of
people that can give action and events a particular meaning. These would therefore also
include real historical events that have capacity to generate a particular effect on the practices
and worldview of individuals. Benvenisti further explains that:
Myths are not illusions, they are a jumble of real and legendary events ... the
minute they are absorbed, they become truer than reality itself . . . to force people
to confront objective truth cannot succeed because it amounts to an attack on the
collective self-identity. It is therefore met with anger (Benvenisti 1995, p.200).
In the context of Kibaale, the Banyoro would constitute the indigenous category while the
immigrants (Bafuruki) represent the economic group that have strongly established
themselves in business and trade. But this is not to claim that all immigrants are expected to
be in an economically stronger position than all the Banyoro. Rather, it is only to generically
indicate the comparative economic salience of the immigrants as a group in relation to the
Banyoro. This categorisation forms the springboard for operationally positioning the two
groups on which the study is centred but without assuming that there is uniformity of
perception, motivation and action within each of the groups. Although conflict with other
groups increases solidarity and unity within the group (Coser cited in Oberschall 2007, p.29),
collective identity tends to essentialise identity and impose on the relevant groups a unity of
views and experiences they do not, and cannot, have (Parekh 2008). The possibility of intra-
group diversity is acknowledged.
23
Shoup argues that the state of counterbalance harbours opportunities for political extremists
and/or opportunists to exploit both the economic gap between the groups and, perhaps more
importantly, possible fears of ethnic domination in order to achieve their political objectives.
As argued by the rational choice theorists above, such political exploitation presents serious
risks of ethnic conflict, even violence. But, is political manipulation always bound to succeed
in clashing ethnic groups for political scores?
I here forward that ethnic conflict is ... a function of both the latent social dissatisfaction
necessary to influence individuals to ethnically mobilise and the institutional incentives that
are sufficient to allow ethnic extremists to exploit such mobilisation” (Shoup 2008, p.15).
Mobilisation along ethnic lines finds fertile grounds in the presence of a shared sense of
anger or indignity brought about by differences in group status. In the tension that might
ensue, individual people rally behind the identity of the group whose interests they identify
with hence increasing ethnic consciousness (Soeters 2005). This reactive cohesion within the
group tends to be in direct relation to the growing sense of animosity between the groups in
tension. However, as Mamdani (2001a) argues, the connection between threats to group
interests/ constraints and conflict is not a necessary one. The choice people make in response
is rather mediated through how they understand and explain these constraints and the
resources they can garner to change them. This therefore calls for a careful analysis in
approaching explanations for conflict based on competition for resources. It is imperative to
dig into the intricate circumstances and dynamics in competition that determine the nature of
outcome in inter-group relations.
The indigenous group will most likely seek political control as a way to maintain both a sense
of group dignity and ethnic survival. In The Perils of Belonging (2009), Geschiere argues that
such dynamics that often play out in a dichotomisation of autochthons (‘sons of the soil’ [and
daughters]) and strangers are propelled by changes in administrative structures22 that in turn
trigger obsession with belonging. Autochthony is often appealed to because it is seen to offer
a self-evident rationale for inclusion (and exclusion) and demand for more citizenship rights.
This is even much more likely in a post-colonial setting characterised by a colonial legacy of
politicising indigeneity as a basis for rights and a mode of citizenship that denies full
citizenship to residents it brands as ethnic strangers (Mamdani 2001a). Shoup (2008) and
Geschiere (2009) indicate that conflict is bound to result when such political control sought
by the indigenous group is either put or perceived by the indigenous community to be at risk
of being usurped by the immigrant group (‘ethnic strangers’). More importantly, whatever the
threat, it does not have to be real or pressing, what is significant is how it is perceived. Thus
the researcher is reminded to pay special attention to perceptions within the local community
in this study.
The immigrants on the other hand are bound to seek to protect their property rights and other
entitlements from being violated by the indigenous group. To this effect, in the event of a
‘threat’ (real or imagined), they will also seek to solve their problems through political
22 In Uganda this is vividly exemplified by the dynamics following the decentralised system of governance in the 1990s.
These dynamics are extensively discussed in Chapter Four.
24
mobilisation so as to acquire sufficient political strength to address the threat. But this will
come with the effect of equipping the indigenous group (or factions of them) with ‘evidence
that their fears of being dominated are justified and, probably, result into conflict. Soeters
(2005), Geschiere (2009, 2010) predict that in such a situation, group binding becomes
stronger on either side and implies an explicit antithesis between ‘us’ and ‘them’, often with
attendant stereotypes being solidified and given more social significance. Autostereotypes
(about a group as seen by themselves) tend to put the group in a self-serving positive light
while heterostereotypes (about the other group) will contain negative connotations, even
when the behaviour is the same.
The foregoing theoretical explanations suggest the need to make keen interrogation of the
history of the ethnic relations in the context of Kibaale. In this, we need to gain more
understanding of the dynamics that in the past have both led to co-existence and to conflict;
the claims and counter-claims in the narratives of both groups; and the different players and
how their agency shapes the ethnic relations. The perceptions of the people themselves in
their actual local context and the instrumentalisation of these perceptions, significantly affect
how these ethnic relations are shaped. Therefore this study will start by accessing these local
perceptions as important building blocks to further analysis.
One important question remains unexplained by the above projections. That is, what then
enhances favourable conditions for inter-ethnic co-existence and cooperation? The case of
Kibaale indicates that there are periods when the different groups have peacefully co-existed
(Schelnberger 2005). What circumstances enable this phenomenon? In this study I frame the
question broadly as an investigation into the circumstances and processes that make pluralism
possible in sensitive multi-ethnic settings akin to what Shoup refers to as counterbalanced
multi-ethnic communities. Shoup uses the concept of cooperation to describe co-existence,
which falls within the understanding of pluralism adopted in this study. That is, the active
[but sometimes spontaneous] seeking of understanding across lines of difference23. It is an
attempt to dialogically come to terms with the angularities of diversity in ways that create
spaces for co-existence. Clearly then, pluralism is based on an admission that social relations
are subject to construction through people’s choices and actions.
In some ways, both the indigenous and the immigrant groups need each other. Shoup argues
that this utilitarian consideration offers some minimal incentives for cooperation. The
indigenous group will claim political dominance, which necessitate the immigrant group to
take a politically subordinate role but with a free rein in the economy. In such a setting, the
immigrant group will count on protection of their property rights and a conducive
environment for prosperity. On their side, the indigenous group will realise an area
development boost, increased tax revenues, and welfare benefits produced by a well-
functioning economy. For such relations to hold, there should be no threats, which would
equip and send either side (especially their extremists) into mobilising along ethnic lines.
23 http://pluralism.org/pluralism/what_is_pluralism.php viewed 3rd March 2010
25
However, the above circumstances for cooperation seem very delicate, especially within a
democratic arrangement where there is commitment to ensuring equal right to political
participation. The assumption that the immigrant group will accept to stay out of politics once
they get assurance for protection of their economic interests is apparently overstretched/
asking too much and requires more investigation. There is also a possibility that the
indigenous group could use its political position to marginalise the immigrants despite the
economic gains they provide. Nevertheless, by investigating the possibilities for pluralism in
Kibaale, I focus on viability of the above suggested arrangement. It is indicated in the context
of the study that immigrants are already active in the politics of Kibaale and that this has
resulted into bouts of tension and violence. It thus seems relevant to study how immigrant
groups motivate their pursuit of political positions. Is it simply out of an urge to participate in
the administration of the area like others, or/and a move to counter perceived and/or real
threats to their well-being as a group? And, whatever their motivation, it is also important to
establish how the immigrants’ entry into politics is perceived by the indigenous group, the
influence of such perceptions on inter-ethnic relations, and, if in any way, how the two
groups engage with such realities for co-existence. These dynamics are discussed in Chapter
Five.
Shoup argues that, to reinforce and sustain cooperation, there should be both state and non-
state mechanisms to prevent problems associated with opportunism. Among the non-state
mechanisms, intergroup cooperation would be enhanced by the expectation/ assumption that
guilty parties will be punished by members of their own ethnicity. Fearon and Laitin (1996)
refer to this as ‘in-group policing’. In such an arrangement, through their social networks,
groups are supposed to monitor and sanction their own members. This suggests that, to
ascertain spaces for pluralism, it would also be essential to investigate the presence or
absence of in-group policing mechanisms, the circumstances under which they arise or not,
and their effectiveness for co-existence.
However, in-group policing ought to go together with inter-group engagement for conflict to
be avoided. Varshney argues that “... if communities are organised only along intra-ethnic
lines and the interconnections with other communities are very weak or even non-existent,
then ethnic violence is quite likely” (Varshney 2001, p.363). There has to be inter-ethnic
civic engagement both in associational forms and everyday forms. Associational forms
include business associations, religious clubs, NGOs, sports clubs, trade unions, professional
organisations, and cadre-based political parties while everyday forms consist of simple,
routine interactions of life such as families of different ethnic groups visiting each other,
eating together, and children being allowed to play together in the neighbourhood.
Varshney views associational forms to be of greater influence that everyday forms (although
the latter are often crucial for the emergence of the former), especially in facing up to
political manipulation of ethnicity. It makes it hard for politicians to polarise ethnicity. Such
forms of organisation are vital in policing neighbourhoods, killing rumours, providing
information to local administration, and facilitating communication between communities in
times of tension. In this study I therefore also focus on the role of civic life (in both
26
associational and everyday forms) in Kibaale in facilitating inter-ethnic engagement for co-
existence. Civic life is investigated in the family, religious, political, business, and education
spheres which are identified as key aspects in the social life of the people of Kibaale.
At state level of conflict prevention, political institutions that insulate the political authority
of the indigenous group without fully alienating the economically dominant group, tend to
produce more stable long term outcomes than institutions that allow the economically
dominant group to ‘encroach’ on the political sphere (Shoup 2008). This would indeed be a
difficult balance to strike, especially because it goes counter to the democratic ideals on
which Uganda’s political system is based. In Shoup’s suggestion there is an implication that
the rules of democracy are insufficient to enforce the norms which underlie inter-ethnic
bargains. Mamdani puts it even more categorically that “by itself, majority rule provides no
guarantee for [numerical] minorities that fear majority domination ... Majority rule can be
turned into a bedrock for the domination over fragile minorities ... – a democratic despotism ”
(Mamdani 2001, p.281). Shoup, as seen above, thus emphasises the need for affirmative
action policies for the indigenous group to minimise the utility of ethnic manipulation by
extremists. Such policies would include: expansion of higher education opportunities,
language policies that favour the language of the indigenous group, economic incentives that
promote economic ventures by indigenous group, openings for government jobs and state
economic enterprises.
Even though Uganda operates under a decentralised political structure, it would be very
challenging to grant differential citizenship rights to different groups in different areas of the
country. Whereas the above suggestions could be of significance to pluralism and this study
aims to establish their value through the case of Kibaale, at face value they raise questions as
to whether they may not spark other imbalances/ injustices with the effect of narrowing
spaces for pluralism. The assumption that the numerically dominant economic/immigrant
group will simply look on as the indigenous group is given unconstitutional favours, seems
unlikely. The immigrant group is bound to feel that they are discriminated, and this will most
likely breed tension and limit negotiation possibilities. One of the suggested ways of going
about the challenges of Shoup’s ‘undemocratic suggestions’ is Lijphart’s (1969) idea of
consociational democracy that emphasises cooperation and coalition in ‘divided societies’.
Admitting that consociational arrangements of sharing power are not necessarily successful,
Lijphart lays down four key requirements for their effectiveness:
i) That the elites have the ability to accommodate the divergent interests and
demands of the subcultures.
ii) This requires that they have the ability to transcend cleavages and to join in a
common effort with the elites of rival subcultures.
iii) This in turn depends on their commitment to the maintenance of the system and to
the improvement of its cohesion and stability.
iv) Finally, all the above requirements are based on the assumption that the elites
understand the perils of political fragmentation (Lijphart 1969, p.216).
27
The practicality and value to pluralism of Lijphart’s consociational democracy in the context
of Kibaale will be discussed in detail in Chapter Five.
In summary, the above accounts and assumptions provide an insightful starting point to
interrogate the dynamics of cooperation/pluralism and conflict in an ethnic context, especially
in view of the players, processes, and possibilities in Kibaale. A number of these claims will
be further examined in this study on the basis of empirical data from Kibaale District.
1.4 Clarification of Concepts
From the theoretical framework emerges that I understand the key concepts in this study –
pluralism and ‘ethnically sensitive’ – to be socially constructed. My orientation towards these
two notions in this study is thus positioned within a constructivist frame. Drawing from Eck’s
definition, pluralism is understood as the active [but sometimes spontaneous] seeking of
understanding across lines of difference”24. She argues that pluralism stands higher than
tolerance with which it is commonly conflated. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but,
unlike pluralism, it does not require people of different ethnic25 groups to know anything
about one another. It is thus seen as too thin a foundation for a world of ethnic difference and
proximity. As Eck argues, tolerance does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another,
and leaves in place the costly stereotype, the half-truth, and the fears that underlie old
patterns of division and violence.
To further contrast pluralism with tolerance, Connolly (2005) and Mouffe (2005) argue that
pluralism is not ‘absolute tolerance’ - which Connolly relates to relativism. Although the two
differ on the level of tolerance that should be allowed in democratic society (Mouffe 2014),
they both argue that pluralism sets limits to tolerance. Connoly contends that pluralists are
not relativists because our image of culture encourages us to embrace certain things in
this particular place, to be indifferent to some, to be wary of others, and fight militantly
against the continuation of yet others” (Connoly 2005 p.42). He grants that pluralism tries not
to set limits to diversity but allows a wide diversity of religious faiths, sensual habits, ethnic
traditions, gender practices, and several other forms of diversity. However, Connolly
observes that a ‘democratic pluralist’ will not allow the state to torture prisoners; parents to
deprive their children of education; society to oppress women; wealthy citizens to evade
taxes; or narrow utilitarians to get into positions of public authority. In further illustration of
the limit of pluralism, Mouffe (in an interview with Hansen and Sonnichsen 2014) contends
that a declared Nazi party or an extreme Muslim party which wants to abolish the liberal
system and establish a theocracy should not be allowed because it is very clear that they are
‘enemies’ who do not tolerate others’ legitimate expressions.
In this sense, a pluralistic culture is one “… in which pluralistic virtues of public
accountability, self-discipline, receptive listening, gritted-teeth tolerance of some things you
hate, and a commitment to justice are widespread” (Connolly 2005, p.43). Connolly therefore
24 http://pluralism.org/pluralism/what_is_pluralism.php viewed 3rd March 2010.
25 The term ethnic is used here as an operational category. The researcher acknowledges that it is contested by some writers
but does not intend to enter into that debate in this study.
28
believes that pluralism ought to operate within the bounds of civic virtues. Among such
values, but not limited to, Parekh (2000) highlights recognition of human worth and dignity,
promotion of human well-being or of fundamental human interests, and equality. Mouffe
(2000; 2005; 2006; 2014) has also emphasised the importance of having a common
allegiance to the ‘ethico-political’ values/principles of liberty and equality. But enlisting and
abiding by these civic virtues does not necessarily resolve issues of value conflict. For
instance, the interpretation of the above principles may differ and conflict will always remain
a permanent feature of human society. It is the tension between consensus on the above
principles and dissensus about their interpretation that constitutes the dynamics of pluralist
democracy (Mouffe 2005). Parekh also admits that such values/ principles deal with the most
basic aspects of human life about which there is generally little serious disagreement and fail
to guide us once we go beyond such aspects. Because conflict is a permanent (and
important26) feature of human society, the task of democratic pluralism is “how to conceive
democracy in a way that allows in its midst a confrontation between conflicting hegemonic
projects” (Mouffe 2014, p.154). In an interview with Carpentier and Cammaerts (2006),
Mouffe admits that we need some kind of pacification but that this should only mean
attempts to impede conflict from taking on an antagonistic form where those with different
imaginations of social order are seen as enemies. In her view, pacification should not be
pursued by repressing conflict but by giving conflict the possibility to take shape in a
legitimate way.
Unlike absolute tolerance27, pluralism invites diverse people to come as they are and be
themselves, with all their differences and angularities, pledged only to the common civic
demands of citizenship highlighted by Parekh and Mouffe above. An-na’im provides a
definition that comprehensively brings together all the above views to conceptualise
pluralism as “... an ideology and [or] system that accepts diversity as a positive value and
facilitates constant negotiations and adjustments among varieties of difference without
seeking or expecting to terminate any or all of them permanently” (An-na‘im 2008, p.225).
Pluralism is therefore essentially a process of constructing ethnic relations through constant
negotiations of power relations towards co-existence and whose direction is largely
determined by the context of the engagement (Global Centre for Pluralism 2012). It is in this
constructivist sense that the concept pluralism is used in this study. Because power is a
constitutive element of the social, Mouffe (1990; 2005; 2006; 2014) contends that pluralism
is a hegemonic exercise that should always involve acknowledging the existence of relations
of power and the need to transform them. In her view, concern should not be on the
elimination of power relations, rather it should be on how to constitute forms of power that
are more compatible with democratic values. But this is not to suggest that there can be a
moment of closure. Considering that the process of establishing any kind of social order
involves a political hegemonic articulation of ‘the people’ through a particular regime of
inclusion-exclusion, the outcome is always contingent and temporary -with the possibility of
26 The importance of conflict in society is explained under the next section on the concept of ethnic sensitivity.
27 This refers to the sort of tolerance where everything passes in the name of ‘appreciating difference’.
29
counter-hegemonic reconstruction (Mouffe 2014). This way room is left for different forms
of political expression.
The researcher’s appreciation for pluralism values originates from two fronts. The first is
participation in workshops, research, and the Pluralism and Development Winter School
which I attended at the University of the Free State (South Africa) in 2012. This school
organised by the Kosmopolis Institute of the University of Humanistic Studies in cooperation
with the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos), the
University of the Free State and several other academic - and NGO partners, as part of the
Pluralism Knowledge Programme. By participating in this event, the researcher got closer
and more concerned about engaging with issues of living with difference, especially in light
of the observation that it is often because of failure to critically think about ways of co-
existing with the other, that we witness the growth of different forms of fundamentalism
(religious, racial, ethnic, ideological, and so on) in the world. My co-promoter Caroline
Suransky’s role in demonstrating the social significance of the values of democratic pluralism
in dealing with identity issues was particularly inspirational. The second origin of my
interest in pluralism is the experience of living in an ethnically diverse country, characterised
with instances of inter-ethnic tension/violence but also goes through times of harmoniously
living with difference that call for rigorous interrogation of the values which drive co-
existence. Both interfaces have led me into critical review the pluralism literature to deepen
my understanding and appreciation of the ideals and their practical viability.
‘Ethnically sensitive’ appears in inverted commas in the title in order to indicate that the
researcher does not imply a primordialist position that holds that ethnicity in itself is the root
of the sensitivity. Rather it indicates that in the particular forms of sensitivity which are
studied, ethnicity stands out as the main social identity from which seemingly tension,
conflict and violence emerge. It is acknowledged that the actual issues that construct conflict
could be other than ethnicity, but ethnicity is the explicit rallying point in the construction of
social relations in the district. The shape that ethnic relations take is mediated by the way
ethnic differences are engaged with/ constructed in the context in question.
By ‘ethnically sensitive’ communities I mean communities in which ethnic identity is a
susceptible point of exclusive convergence for polarising groups of people into conflict and
violence. It should be noted that there are very many communities in the world that are
ethnically diverse, but their response to the same triggers/events are often different (Varshney
2002). Some may not even look at ethnicity as an issue, some may find it an issue but without
resulting into conflict, others will find ethnicity an issue and respond by tension or/and
conflict.
The last category of communities where, for various reasons, ethnicity is socially,
economically, and politically given much significance with an inter-ethnic conflictual
possibility/reality is in this study referred to as ‘ethnically sensitive’. I acknowledge that
when there are different ethnic groups which are free to organize, there are bound to be
30
conflicts over resources, identity, patronage, and policies (Varshney 2001; 2002), but the kind
of ethnic conflict that is of concern in this study is that which culminates into violent forms.
In the same vein, even when I refer to co-existence as a mark of pluralism, it does not
neccesarily mean the absence of conflict, but rather an absence of violence and the kind of
tension that leads to it. The approach to conflict in pluralism that this study adopts is well
explained by Mouffe’s (2005; 2006; 2014) idea of agonistic pluralism. She argues that there
are always bound to be political and other value differences, some of which may neither be
dealt with by consensus-oriented liberal democracy nor need to be addressed. But such
conflicts do not automatically have to be antagonistic – and that this is not necessarily
achievable through seeking consensus.
While consensus is no doubt necessary, it must be accompanied by dissent.
Consensus is needed on the institutions that are constitutive of liberal democracy
and on the ethico-political values that should inform political association. But
there will always be disagreement concerning the meaning of those values and
the way they should be implemented. This consensus will therefore always be a
‘conflictual consensus’. In a pluralist democracy, disagreements about how to
interpret the shared ethico-political principles are not only legitimate but also
necessary. They allow for different forms of citizenship identification and are the
stuff of democratic politics (Mouffe 2006, p.8).
Mouffe (2014) observes that we live in a world where a multiplicity of perspectives and
values coexist and that it is empirically impossible to either adopt them all or reconcile them.
As explained earlier, although there will be one hegemonic social order at a time, it should
leave room for the expression and possible emergence of counter-hegemonic order. “Every
hegemony can be challenged. I do not think that one should see hegemony as some kind of
fatality” (Mouffe in an interview with Carpentier and Cammaerts 2006, p.5). According to
Mouffe, allowing room for disagreements creates outlets for passions thus foreclosing politics
articulated around essentialist identities such as ethnicity. This way, the various interests that
are indicated by the rational choice theory as the driver of ethnic politics are given room for
expression so long as they are not formulated around essentialist considerations.
An antagonistic dispensation is characterised by a setting where those who hold opinions
which differ from those of other groups are not viewed as enemies who should be destroyed.
As enemies, they are not allowed to articulate their positions and this gives way to the
emergence of antagonistic forms of conflict, which are dangerous to democracy. In contrast,
agonistic democracy envisages a pluralist framework where those with different views are
taken as ‘adversaries’ with whom one shares a common allegiance to the democratic
principles of liberty and equality for all while differing in the interpretation of those
principles. Unlike antagonistic democracy, an agonistic dispensation requires that the
legitimacy of the ‘other’s’ right to defend their interpretation is respected but without
degenerating into violence. Thus, whereas an adversary is still some sort of enemy, they are
now perceived as a legitimate enemy (Jones 2014). Jones illustrates this relationship with an
illuminative analogy of the chess game:
31
… whilst two chess players may possess radically different philosophies on how to
play chess (traditional, modern or hyper-modern openings, for instance), they agree
on the pre-set rules of the game. Despite their differing philosophies, they both
accept how certain pieces can and cannot be moved, and how the game itself is won
or lost. Certain openings or styles of play may be accepted as better than others only
under specific conditions (Jones 2014, p.21).
Accordingly, whereas antagonism would involve a struggle between enemies who wish to
eradicate or silence each other, agonism refers to a struggle between adversaries who accept
pre-set principles of equality and liberty. Such a configuration would help to foreclose violent
conflict. Violence/confrontation emerges when values between different groups are framed as
non-negotiable or as essentialist forms of identification.
1.5 Justification of the Study
Contemporary Uganda is embroiled in a number of inter-ethnic challenges of varying degrees
of intensity and complexity. Kibaale presents a case that is so mired in a complex history of
pre-colonial inter-ethnic rivalry; colonial ethnic manipulation; a colonial legacy of strained
ethnic relations and contemporary trends of immigrant-phobia catalysed by memories of
foreign domination/ humiliation and political manipulation. In 2002, ethnic tensions in the
area peaked with the outright rejection by the Banyoro of an ‘outsider’ (immigrant) who had
been elected to District chairmanship (Espeland 2007). While the Banyoro feel threatened by
the rising number and influence of immigrants in their area, the immigrants are also insecure
about their future in the area without a political power base.
In such a situation, there are questions abound about the possibility of pluralism. Given the
painful memories (history) of the Banyoro in relation to domination by the ethnic other, do
possibilities remain for living with ethnic difference even when the ‘other’ becomes
politically or/and economically influential? Questions such as these make me as researcher
curious about how the different ethnic groups in the area feel and what they make of the
situation.
This curiosity is further raised by the observation in Kibaale that, despite the tension, people
of different ethnic groups intermarry, go to the same schools, places of worship/prayer,
markets and social functions and have harmoniously co-existed at some points of their history
(1960s – 1990s). Whereas, at face value this may not be interpreted as a signifier of
pluralism, it is a domain relevant for pluralism and its value can be understood through an
interrogation based on people’s perceptions and experiences. This study is also motivated by
the need to determine how the complex case of Kibaale can inform theory on ethnic tension
and pluralism on understanding the dynamics of ethnic inclusion and exclusion;
understanding the processes of identity politics and ethnic boundary transformation;
explaining approaches to pluralism and considerations for their effectiveness.
Grounding the empirical part of this study on people’s perceptions is done with the ‘intent to
prevent imposing alien meanings upon the actions of the subjects’ (Vidich cited in Norris and
32
Walker 2005, p. 132). It is a profound respect to the character of the empirical world. Basing
on interpretivist epistemology and constructionist ontology28, the researcher contends that
people’s actions are often guided by their own perceptions and experiences and rarely upon
an outsider’s interpretation. To understand human behaviour, a researcher must first
understand the meanings that people have of the world around them, because these meanings
tend to govern their action (Henn et al. 2006). In the same way, any conflict epistemology
would best start from the people’s perceptions and experiences so as to arrive at a
comprehensive understanding of the related phenomenona. As argued by Becker;
“... to understand an individual’s behaviour, we must know how he [she] perceives
the situation, the obstacles he [she] believed he [she] had to face, the alternatives he
[she] saw opening up to him [her]. We cannot understand the effects of the range of
possibilities ... social norms and other explanations of behaviour which are
commonly invoked, unless we consider them from the actor’s point of view (Cited in
Gerring 2007, p.71).”
It is as well the researcher’s point of departure that, though with some universalisable values
(such as the stand against murder – Plaw 2005), formulations of pluralism are largely
contextual (Global Centre for Pluralism 2012). Experiences of people are context-bound.
They cannot be free from time and location nor the mind of the human agents. Pluralism can
therefore be best approached by focussing on people’s own experiences and
conceptualisations.
1.6 Statement of the Research Problem
The phenomenon of ethnic tension in Kibaale District is an intricate one. It is entangled
within a conglomeration of ethnically polarised histories, the agency of both painful and
victorious collective/individual memories, politicised ethnicity, and ethnicised politics. It is
further complicated by a drastic immigrant population growth plus their rise in economic and
political might amidst a native population still nursing memories and other effects of
subjugation by ‘foreigners’ (the British and the Baganda). The possibility of pluralism within
such an environment remains a big question. It is a question of a complexity which stretches
beyond the possibility of a single study on pluralism. The spirit of the research is based upon
the acknowledgement that pluralism itself, though with some universal benchmarks (Plaw
2005), is contextual in its expressions.
It is important to note that, in previous times, in spite of their differences, the Banyoro and
the immigrants have lived together for over a century in relative peace and harmony. As
stated before: “Together they built community structures such as health centres, they sent
their children to the same schools, worshipped at the same churches and they also
intermarried” (Schelnberger 2005, p.30). What makes it possible to co-exist sometimes and
what causes conflict at other times? Notwithstanding the instances of violence that have
occurred in the last ten years, a small scale pilot study carried out in the Pluralism Knowledge
Program (2010) indicates that local people still see possibilities to establish pluralism in their
28 Explained and justified in detail under the Research Methodology chapter.
33
district. For instance, some people felt that it is the politicians who create/escalate tensions
for selfish scores and that the problem is not ethnicity as such. But it is also worth noting that
the people’s formulations of social cohesion are not without inherent problems. For instance,
assimilation into native culture and intermarriage, which were widely raised in Kibaale as
solutions, could in themselves be marks of intolerance and lack of ‘cultural freedom’ (Sen
2006). It should also be noted that the above observation connects to a bigger problem for
interrogation within the pluralism idea:
If, for example, pluralism encourages the recognition and celebration of the
irreducibly diverse ethical values, political systems, cultural traditions and religious
convictions that characterise the world today, what does it recommend be done when
they clash, and especially when, as it recognises is possible, the conflict proves
irreconcilable or tragic (Plaw 2005, pp.xv-xvi)?
It is however still viable that, because of pluralism’s considerably contextual nature, its
possibilities ought to be first sought from (but not limited to) people’s own experiences; their
self-positioning in history; their impressions (and memories) of living with the ethnic ‘other’;
and from their formulations of value. From that standpoint therefore, through an in-depth
study of local practices and perceptions, this case study seeks to explore the spaces for
pluralism that may exist in Kibaale and thus, with its findings, contribute to the development
of theory on pluralism and engagement with difference and ethnic conflict.
1.7 Key Research Question
The key research question of this study is:
How do the residents of Kibaale District perceive ethnic conflict and the possibilities for
pluralism in their region and how do the findings of this case study contribute to the
development of the different theories on ethnic conflict and pluralism?
1.7.1 Subsidiary Research Questions
To address the key question of this study, I distinguish three subsidiary questions which are
largely drawn from the theoretical framework of this study. The general assumption is that
social realities, including ethnic relations, are socially constructed and that the three questions
seek to understand people’s own perspectives and meanings which are assumed to mediate
the shaping of ethnic relations and engagement therewith in their area. The first question aims
to explore ‘significant developments in the history of ethnic relations in Kibaale’. The data
that emerged from this question aims to discuss the historical context to ethnic relations in the
area and to understand the key aspects of the current situation that could be rooted in the
area’s/people’s past and/or memory as represented in their narratives. As indicated by the
Global Centre for Pluralism (2012) in Defining Pluralism, history always matters in
approaching pluralism. Often a community’s pluralism choices emerge from, among other
34
things, its historical dynamics and how they are perceived by the people living in that
community. Since this study employs an interpretivist epistemological approach by which it
is contended that “people socially interact and respond based as much, if not more, on what
they believe to be real than what is objectively real” (Neuman, 2007 p.43), the second
research question seeks to establish the perceptions of local people of different ethnic groups
about ethnic conflict in the area. The ensuing data informs the analysis of the conflict, its
trends and implications for pluralism.
Building on the data from the first and second subsidiary questions, the third question
interrogates how the different scientific theories on pluralism are brought into action by the
various initiatives for peaceful co-existence in Kibaale and how the people of the district
value these initiatives. The idea is to discern whether, given the historical accounts and the
people’s perception of the tension in the area, they believe that spaces still exist for pluralism
and (if so) how such pluralism is envisioned and/or practiced. King et al. (1994) argue that
the best qualitative research design is where, if we begin our study with a real world problem,
we also ask how that problem can be studied scientifically so that it contributes to the stock
of social science explanations. Accordingly, the fourth and last subsidiary question extends
the academic significance of the study from the generation of factual knowledge to the
furtherance of existing theories on ethnic conflict and pluralism. Such theoretical expansion
is vital for understanding ethnic tension and pluralism beyond the Kibaale case.
The subsidiary research questions are:
i) How are the significant developments in the history of ethnic relations in Kibaale District
perceived by the residents?
ii) How do different local ethnic groups in Kibaale currently perceive ethnic conflict in their
district?
iii) How are the different scientific theories on pluralism brought into action by the various
initiatives for peaceful co-existence in Kibaale and how do the people of the district value
these initiatives?
iv) How do the findings of this research project/compare to existing theories on ethnic
conflict and pluralism?
The second chapter will discuss the methodology, the methods that the study employed to
collect data in response to the research questions and data analysis.
35
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
This chapter explains and provides the necessary justifications for the strategies that were
used by the researcher to obtain the data required to answer the research questions. The
research design, which includes the conceptual framework through which the study is
approached, gives context to its methodological orientation. I also introduce the actual region
in which the study is conducted and provide relevant information about its population. The
chapter as well explains and accounts for the process through which respondents (of different
categories) were identified and how data was generated. Due consideration is given to ethical
issues and how the researcher addressed these issues.
2.1.1 Ontological and Epistemological Grounds
As argued by Jones and Somekh (2005), how the researcher understands ‘being in the world’
(ontology) and ‘the nature of knowledge / knowing’ (epistemology) fundamentally shapes the
methodology that is adopted in the study. Put more broadly, our worldview, “... values, biases
play an important role in determining (1) what questions we ask or do not ask, (2) what type
of data we collect, and (3) the type of method, analysis, and interpretation that shapes our
understanding of the research problem” (Hesse-Biber 2010, p.30). This observation underpins
the need for me as a researcher to indicate and explain the ontological and epistemological
grounds for this study.
This study is placed in the realm of social ontology. Social ontology concerns the nature of
social entities. Bryman indicates that:
... the central point of orientation here is the question of whether social entities can
and should be considered objective entities that have a reality external to social
actors, or whether they can and should be considered social constructions built up
from the perceptions and actions of social actors. These positions are frequently
referred to respectively as objectivism and constructionism (Bryman 2008, p.18).
This study is largely based on constructionist29 ontology where it is asserted that social
phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but that they are
in a constant state of making and revision / construction and reconstruction (Bryman ibid.). In
an interview by Carpentier and Cammaerts (2006), Mouffe indicates that there is no essence
of the social. She argues that the social is always the result of a hegemonic articulation – it is
a construct of power relations since power is constitutive of it. The above assertion is
antithetical to the objectivist position that phenomena and categories are pre-given and
therefore are faced by social actors as external realities that they have no role in shaping. In
this sense then in reference to culture, which often goes together with ethnicity/ ethnic
29 Also known as constructivist (Creswell 2003).
36
relations, I would argue that people create culture continuously in response to realities of the
time.
Ethnicity is not taken as something static, or as frozen but as a phenomenon that is in a state
of flux as it is continuously acted upon (Owolabi 2003; Omotola 2008). The practices and
possibilities for pluralism in Kibaale that are investigated in this study are approached in this
constructivist frame with the idea that people of different ethnicities can and do engage with
their differences and in the process construct and reconstruct their relations. This assumption
serves as the basis for the ethnomethodological qualitative approach used in this study. How
and why people construct and reconstruct their relations is a question of the study, but that
there is an engagement of sorts that leads to framing and/or re-framing reality was pre-
supposed. In that regard therefore, the presupposition “that people actively collaborate in the
construction and maintenance of the cultural meanings which inform their actions; and that
researchers therefore need to find ways of engaging with those meanings and the processes
through which they are constructed” (Goldbart and Hustler 2005, p.16) forms the ontological
basis of this study.
However, it is not totally dismissed within a constructionist ontology that culture (which is at
the heart of ethnicity) has a reality that informs people’s perspectives. The idea is that culture
is not an inert objective reality. It may act as a point of reference but is itself in a constant
process of being formed and reformed. The active role of individuals in the social
construction of social reality is therefore fundamentally emphasised. People make subjective
meanings of their experiences with objects or things. The meanings that they make are varied
and multiple. This implies that as a researcher I acknowledge and accomodate the complexity
of views rather than starting with narrowing ideas into a few categories. As argued by
Creswell (2003), looking into the complexity of views also involves situating them, because
people’s subjective meanings are often negotiated socially and historically. That is, they are
not simply imprinted onto individuals, but are formed through interactions with others (hence
social constructionism) and through historical factors and norms that operate in individuals’
lives. Emphasis on specific contexts in which people live and interact (as is done with the
people of Kibaale) is crucial so as to understand the processes which are involved in
meaning-making and, in this case, in actively engaging with ethnic difference.
Griffiths (1998) insists that any piece of research, however small, cannot help but have an
epistemology that influences its methodology. The biggest reason for the impossibility is
because epistemology is the theory of knowledge, and research is, at least partly, about
getting knowledge. Epistemology poses a couple of questions and issues about knowledge:
“What it is, how we get it, how we recognise it, how it relates to truth, how it is entangled
with power” (Griffiths 1998, p.35). Methodology is precisely an offshoot of this set of
questions since it refers to the theory of getting knowledge in research contexts.
Grounding on the constructionist ontology on which this study is framed, an interpretivist
epistemological stance is adopted. Here the central endeavour is to understand the subjective
37
world of human experiences. We arrive at the meanings of actions only in so far as we are
able to ascertain the intentions of actors to share their experiences (Cohen et al. 2007).
Within the interpretivist paradigm, theory is emergent and must arise from particular
situations. It does not precede research but follow it. This is what Glaser and Strauss (1967)
call being ‘grounded’. The approach helps to avoid the counterproductive temptation of
forcing findings to fit within theoretical explanations that may have preceded a study. It is
through an interpretive inductive process that the fourth subsidiary question of this study -
How do the findings of this research project/compare to existing theories on ethnic conflict
and pluralism? - is to be answered.
One of the key gaps which I identified in the review of related literature is that whereas there
have been a number of suggestions (especially in Government reports) on co-existence within
ethnic difference in Kibaale, there has been no comprehensive study which grounds its
findings on local people’s own experiences and meaning-making. Such comprehensive
account of these experiences would ideally be the starting point for any analysis of the
conflict, pluralism initiatives and projection on the possibilities of pluralism in the area. This
argument adds to the justification of the interpretivist approach and its qualitative extensions
explained under the Research Design.
Emphasising people’s experience as the major point of reference does not mean that the
researcher is only an instrument with no interpretive input. “Given up-close interaction of the
researcher with persons in the field, given a constructionist orientation to knowledge, given
the attention to participant intentionality and sense of self, however descriptive the report, the
researcher ultimately comes to put forward a personal interpretation” (Stake 2010, p.55). This
implies that the study goes beyond mere description to complicate the findings, drawing upon
conceptual relationships. Interpretation not only comes in at the end of the research process,
but throughout the planning, data gathering, analysis, and write-up of the study. At the stage
of planning, interpretation takes the form of reflection on the research questions with the help
of preliminary knowledge to think out relevant methodological strategies. During data
collection, there is continuous reflection on the data gathered in light of the emerging themes
and directions for further data collection. As shall be further explained in the Data Analysis
section in this chapter, analysis is therefore not postponed to the end of the data collection
process but features along the whole process for the sake of progressive focussing and
comprehensiveness.
Interpretivist researchers should also be conscious of the fact that, to some extent, their own
background shapes the interpretation (Creswell 2003; Hesse-Biber 2010) and thus the need to
position oneself in the research and acknowledge how the personal interpretation flows from
their own personal, cultural, and historical experiences. Certainly, however much our efforts
as researchers may be at being ‘neutral’, in a study on identity, we may not “... disguise the
troublesome condition that every statement made about identity is itself conditioned by the
identity of its maker” (Urban 1998, p.120). Reflexivity is therefore very important. Part of
this reflexivity/positionality is accounted for in the above explanation of the researcher’s
38
worldview and is further explained under the Research Site, Field Entry and Data Collection
Strategies sections and in the analysis of findings.
2.2 Research Design
This study adopts a single-site case study approach with specific focus on Kibaale District
(choice justified under section 4.3 – Research Site). The design involved a detailed and
intensive analysis of a single-site case (Bryman 2008; Gerring 2007). The researcher initially
considered use of a multi-case study design where a number of ethnically sensitive
communities would be selected and studied in view of identifying and analysing
convergences and divergences in engaging with ethnic differences. But considering the time
available for the study (four years for the whole process), my own workplace demands, and
the aim to develop an indepth analysis, a single-site case study was found most suitable.
Under such a design, it would be possible to engage with and report the complexity of social
activity in an ethnic setting in order to represent the meanings that individual social actors
bring to the setting and manufacture in it (Stark and Torrance 2005).
The key research question calls for an experiential and explorative study based on the
people’s perceptions of ethnic conflict and the possibilities for pluralism in their region, and
it was felt that these could best be reliably established through focusing on a single site.
Understanding people’s experiences requires taking ample time to observe and interview
them, and this comes with time demands that could not be accommodated in more than a
single case. It is through a single-site study therefore that it is the objective of this study to
achieve a deep account, which opens the way to understand and interpret people’s multiple
lived experiences.
It may be argued that a single-site case design is weak on account of the impossibility to
generalise statistically from one case to other related cases or to the general population.
However, though its sample may not be statistically representative and may therefore not
provide an idiosyncratic account, a single-site case study can be illuminative of general
issues. Good single-site case studies can appeal to the capacity of the reader for ‘naturalistic
generalisation’ where readers recognise aspects of their own experience in the case and
intuitively generalise from it (Stake 2005).
To illustrate the incongruity of generalisation from a case study, if we carry out research on
an organisation, be it a voluntary association or a financial institution, it would clearly be
unwise to assume that all voluntary associations or all financial institutions, or to be even
more extreme all organisations, must exhibit the same characteristics or behave in the same
way (Bechhofer and Paterson, 2000). Although the findings from a single-site case study may
give insights into other related cases, the research was not specifically aimed at generalising
its findings to ethnically sensitive communities elsewhere. In the same way, from the study of
spaces for pluralism within the ethnic tension of Kibaale, it would be unjustified to jump to a
conclusion where the findings are summarily projected to all other cases of ethnic tension
where contextual specifics are different.
39
Overseeing this, there remains a fundamental epistemological question about single-site case
studies, that is: “What can be learned about the single case” (Stake 2005, p.443)? This being
a qualitative study, the aim was at ‘typicality rather than generalisability’ (Henn et al. 2006).
However, as contended by Bechhofer and Paterson (2000) and Henn et al., whereas
representativeness and generalisability may not be key concerns in qualitative studies, the
typicality of the selected cases can allow for some degree of analytic generalization/ wider
resonance. Analytically, the findings from this study may be generalisable to other
communities of ethnic tension, which, theoretically, may behave in a similar way. But where
attempted, such inference should be done in observance of the value of human subjectivity
and keenness to experiences and contexts within which they occur. This is why in chapter 6
an attempt will be made to extend current theories on pluralism on the basis of the Kibaale
case study.
Grounded on my interpretivist epistemology and constructionist ontology, the research
approach is qualitative because of the assumed value of the specific local context and in order
to foreground local people’s own lived experiences (Marshall and Rossman 1995) with
regard to ethnic tension and pluralism. In a study on the human experience, it is essential to
know how people define and explain their situations and give meaning to their daily lives
(Berg, 2001). A qualitative approach is selected because, I consider individuals to be
“‘meaning makers’ of the world they reside in; it is their lived reality that [I] … seek to
understand” (Hesse-Biber 2010, p.63). Accordingly, a situational ethnomethodological
perspective is specifically adopted here. Situational ethnomethodology studies a wide range
of social activity “… to understand the ways in which people negotiate the social contexts in
which they find themselves” (Cohen et al. 2007, p.24), specifically in this case, how they
negotiate a context of ethnic tension. Only such an approach would allow the researcher to
study subjective human perceptions, understanding, and practices in order to arrive at a
contextualised analysis, which forms the basis for a contribution to the development of
theory30 on the subject.
I used a combination of qualitative data collection methods (this triangulation is discussed in
more detail later in this chapter) to be able to crosscheck findings from different sources
enabling me to gain deep cumulative insights.
2.3 Research Site
The task of deciding exactly what the research issues are and arriving at a suitably focused
and sharp set of research questions, is not independent of the task to decide where the study
will be carried out and which groups or individuals will be involved (Bechhofer and
Patterson, 2000).
30 Here ‘theory is used in reference to sets of meanings that yield insight and understanding of people’s behaviour. Though to
some extent contextually limited, the analysis of the Kibaale case can be a basis for comparison with what goes on in other
related places and times.
40
Kibaale was chosen as the site of research for a number of reasons. In identifying a case, the
researcher ought to look for a locale where the phenomena/ processes in which they are
interested are expected to be particularly salient (Bechhofer and Paterson 2000) and where
there are accessible opportunities for learning (Stake 2005). With regard to ethnic tension in
Uganda, there are certainly more cases than Kibaale District (Nabudere 2009). However,
Kibaale bears a number of particularly suiting/interesting characteristics for this study over
and above other cases. First, as highlighted in the Context of the Study in Chapter One, ethnic
tension and conflicts entangled in a mix of factors continue to exist in the area (Schelnberger
2005; Green 2006; Nkurunziza 2011). Given that the study particularly focuses on ethnically
sensitive communities, the above observation about Kibaale is its first suiting factor.
It was also a matter of curiosity that despite the tension experienced from 2000 peaking in
2001 and witnessed today, people co-existed before with their ethnic differences
(Schelnberger 2008). In reinforcement of the above considerations, because of my experience
from an earlier PKP study in the area and the rapport that was created with relevant ‘gate
keepers’31, the prior knowledge and assured strategies for access rendered Kibaale an
accessible case.
Kibaale District is located in western Uganda (extending to the shores of Lake Albert),
approximately 215 Kms from Kampala. It is part of Bunyoro kingdom, which is one of the
traditional monarchies in Uganda. Note needs to be taken here that the researcher is from the
central part of Uganda, specifically from the Baganda ethnic group. This raises questions
about field/ respondent access and reflexivity.
Reflexivity recognises that researchers “… bring their own biographies to the research
situation and participants behave in particular ways in their presence” and that they “should
acknowledge and disclose their own selves in the research, seeking to understand their part
in, or influence on, the research” (Cohen et al. 2007, p.171). The researcher was not blind
about his position not only as an outsider but also as a Muganda32 and the ‘obstructive
identification33’ it could generate. In fact, while recounting the history of ethnic relations in
Kibaale, one Munyoro respondent bluntly said: “When the Baganda came and they were
trying to fight to make sure they rule us, they also did not spare our forefathers [they killed
them]. I know they must be your grandfathers”. While it has been argued that reflexivity can
result into ‘navel-gazing34 (Sultana 2007), proper reflexivity allows researchers to realise
31Explained in more detail later in the Chapter.
32 This is not to singularly limit my identity to being a Muganda (ethnic identity) but to indicate the identity/ position deemed
to have important implications in the context of this study. As seen in the Context of the Study and in the literature review on
the history of Kibaale, the Baganda and Banyoro have a history of rivalry with the former being identified as an oppressor/
sub-coloniser of the latter.
33 ‘Obstructive identification’ is at term used by Dalton (cited in Shenton and Hayton 2004) to explain the likelihood of the
researcher being continually seen as an extension of some identity of theirs within the setting despite their denials to the
contrary. In this case, it signifies the possibility that I would be continually seen as an extension of the Baganda oppressors
and sub-colonialists and, perhaps, sidelined/ rejected.
34 Navel gazing is defined by Kamberelis and Dimitriadis as “the danger of looking inward as a way of avoiding the ethical
responsibility of acting in the world” (2005, p.904). It could also mean excessive self-consciousness at the expense of being
able to accordingly look out to what we are studying.
41
and address the grids of power relations in which they find/place themselves and how that
influences methods, interpretation and knowledge production. And, as Salzman (2002) points
out, reflexivity is crucial in serving the reader of the research report with the necessary
information to assess its validity. A detailed explanation and justification about how access
was negotiated in consideration of the researcher’s positionality is given under the section on
Field Entry and Data Collection Strategies later in this chapter.
In Uganda’s decentralised system of governance, Kibaale constitutes five counties – Buyaga
East, Buyaga West, Bugangaizi East, Bugangaizi West, and Buyanja. For reasons highlighted
in the Context of the Study (Chapter One) and discussed in Chapter Five, Buyaga and
Bugangaizi were each split into East and West in 2010 on a presidential directive. The
District has a total of 29 sub-counties and Two Town Councils namely Kibaale and Kagadi town
council, 124 administrative parishes, and 1230 villages35. In total geographical size, Kibaale
District is approximately 4,400 sq. Km.
The district was curved out of Hoima district in 1991 “… in order to improve service delivery
in the area and because the inhabitants of Kibaale had felt neglected by the local ruling elite
in Hoima District” (Schelnberger 2008, p.195) and because they felt they needed a special
status on account of their unique history as former lost counties (Buyaga36 and Bugangaizi).
The study focused on Buyaga and Bugangaizi since these are the counties about which ethnic
tension has mainly been reported.
2.4 Study Population
The indigenous inhabitants of Kibaale District are the Banyoro “… but [largely due to
immigration] approximately half of the population today are Bakiga, Alur, Banyarwanda,
Lugbara, Basoga, Bagisu and Baganda” (Ibid., p.195). Others also include Bafumbira,
Bakonjo, Banyankore and Barundi.
The sections of the population in Kibaale from which data was collected include ordinary
people37, local leaders, leaders of local ethnic pressure groups, elders who have lived in the
area for over 20 years, religious leaders, students from primary and secondary schools,
managers/leaders of some relevant civil society organisations and youths from various ethnic
groups. The category of ordinary people constitutes middle age men and women not falling in
any of the other categories indicated above. It was deemed that studying a cross-section of all
the above categories would give a comprehensive picture of the perceptions of the people of
Kibaale. The preliminary study in the area and literature review had indicated the above
categories as key players in the ethnic tension and / or pluralism in the area.
35 See the official website for Kibaale District: http://www.kibaale.go.ug/news.php?nid=5 Viewed on 27th January 2012.
36 Buyanja was split from Buyaga in 1975. Thus all the current counties of Kibaale originated from the former Lost Counties
of Buyaga and Bugangaizi.
37 Perhaps I should have found a better name for this category, but I could not find a better expression. Ordinary people here
include Kibaale residents that are neither religious leaders, pressure group leaders, local government leaders, civil society
organisation leaders, elders, youths, nor in any political position.
42
Since this is a qualitative study with an emphasis on people’s experiences, it is acknowledged
that people tend to give different meanings to phenomena (Creswell 2003). “Experiential
research usually does not seek simplicity or the best explanation but a collection of
interpretations” (Stake 2010, p.63). Soliciting for data from a wide range of people categories
(as in this study) therefore captures the multiple realities in the field thereby coming up with a
deeper/ richer account or, part of what is meant by Geertz’s famous concept, ‘thick
description’ (Geertz, cited in Ponterotto 2006). By extension, such a rich account leads to a
rich interpretation. In line with the dictates of the interpretive paradigm, the thick description
emerging from a diversity of people categories includes vivid detailed portrayals of people’s
experiences, perceptions, feelings and meanings of their actions. As explained by Ponterotto
(2006) in his ‘Brief Note on the Origins, Evolution, and Meaning of the Qualitative Research
Concept “Thick Description”’ (2006), thick descriptions ar