Background

In the article below my aim is to look, in detail, at the traditions, culture, spirituality and political development of the Soga (Basoga) and how the Chwezi may have/may be affecting these dimensions of the group in the 21st century. The thesis statement is:

“The Chwezi have exacted and continue to exact influence on the traditions, culture, spirituality and political development of the Basoga of Uganda.”

This treatise specifically focuses on the Basoga as a distinct community of people in Uganda and the Great Lakes egion. Much of what is written is based on an article that I wrote some time back and which published by Researchgate.net “Bujagali as ethnocide: cultural and spiritual death of the indigenous community of Basoga, Uganda”, which sought to popularise cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity in the conservation and management of the environment. However, several sources of information have been evoked and are listed in the section “Further Reading”.

In particular, I want to highlight the influence of the Chwezi on the traditions, culture, spirituality and political development of the Basoga. In one of my articles, which is listed in “Further Reading” in this treatise, I submit that while Busoga is mineral-rich it is politically poor in addition to being financially poor. I wanted to record that Busoga is so politically poor that it cannot demand to benefit from what naturally belongs to it such as land and minerals nor protect itself from intruders from elsewhere, including the Central Government. The ultimate is to understand Uganda of the 21st century, through the lens of Busoga from the point of view of the region’s traditions, culture, spirituality and political development in the past, present and future with or without Chwezi-Cushite influence – ecologically, environmentally, economically, politically, socially, culturally, morally, ethically and spiritually. Everywhere in Uganda in general and Busoga in particular there has been enormous and extensive erosion of society in environmental, economic, political, social, cultural, moral, ethical and spiritual dimensions, through the agency of corruption of everything conceivable over the last 38 years of direct Chwezi-Cushite rule in Uganda.

The treatise will seek to explain what is happening today in Busoga in particular and Uganda in general by exploring the credibility of three theories about the Chwezi:

Theory 1:         The Chwezi mysteriously disappeared in thin air.

Theory 2.         The Chwezi were assimilated by the indigenous groups of people genetically and linguistically.

Theory 3.         The Chwezi migrated into Ankole where they became Hima and into Rwanda and Burundi where they became Tutsi. A back migration brought Tutsis in present day Kigezi

When not long ago I asked my thousands of facebook friends, which of the three theories above best explains what happened to the Chwezi when the Nilotic Luo Babiito overrun their Kitara Kingdom in the 16th century, different responds chose a different theory. However, the best response came from a friend of mine, and a former Member of the Parliament of Uganda, Hon Simon Mulongo.

For the purposes of this article, let me reproduce his response, which he posted on my Facebook Wall, as a prelude to what I am going to write in this treatise:

“I have been grappling with this challenge by the Professor Afunaduula for some days. Unfortunately, I had limited access to adequate scholarship, well aware that the Prof is an authority in the subject area. Very intriguing question indeed. The professor presents three theories regarding the fate of the Chwezi Dynasty, whose establishment of the Kitara Kingdom marked a significant cultural era in the Great Lakes Region. To evaluate these theories, it is crucial to invoke and summon the spirit of the fore-readers for additional perspectives, like Kiwanuka, Reid and Wrigley, who have contributed significantly to our understanding of this historical period.

Theory One: The mysterious disappearance

This theory suggests that the Chwezi disappeared into thin air (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2024, p. 24). It aligns with the mystical narratives that describe the Chwezi as semi-divine beings. That’s why I got to invoke the African fore spirits to help explain the ‘paradox of the heap’, so to say. Kiwanuka (1971) and Reid (2002) explain that such myths are common in African oral traditions, often serving to glorify past dynasties rather than provide factual accounts (Kiwanuka, 1971, p. 35; Reid, 2002, p. 67). This theory, while culturally rich, lacks empirical evidence. It represents a symbolic narrative rather than a historical explanation, reflecting the awe and reverence inspired by the Chwezi.

Theory Two: Assimilation into indigenous groups

The second theory posits that the Chwezi were assimilated into indigenous populations (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2024, p. 26). This theory is supported by linguistic and genetic evidence of the Chwezi’s integration. Wrigley (1996) highlights assimilation as a common historical process, wherein smaller groups merge with larger populations, leading to cultural evolution (Wrigley, 1996, p. 89). This theory is bolstered by tangible evidence of cultural and genetic blending in the Bantu, Hima and Tutsi populations. Kiwanuka (1971) notes that assimilation enriches and transforms cultural identities, providing a plausible explanation of the Chwezi’s fate (Kiwanuka, 1971, p. 102).

Theory Three: Migration and transformation

This theory suggests the Chwezi migrated into Ankole, becoming the Hima and into Rwanda and Burundi, becoming the Tutsi (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2024, p. 29). Reid (2002) supports this theory, noting the migration patterns and identity transformations in the region (Reid, 2002, p. 112). The migration theory is backed by historical and anthropological evidence of the Chwezi’s influence on regional socio-political structures. It offers a comprehensive explanation for their integration into new identities.

In my view, the assimilation theory (Theory Two) is the most plausible explanation, supported by linguistic, genetic, and cultural evidence of Chwezi integration into local populations. This theory aligns with historical patterns of cultural assimilation in the Great Lakes Region, as highlighted by Wrigley (1996), offering a balanced and evidence-based understanding of the Chwezi’s fate (Wrigley, 1996, p. 132).

Therefore, one can conclude that Prof Oweyegha Afunaduula’s theories, complemented by insights from Kiwanuka, Reid, and Wrigley, provide a comprehensive understanding of the Chwezi Dynasty’s fate. The assimilation theory stands out as the most evidence-based explanation, acknowledging the complex processes of cultural transformation that have shaped the region’s history.”

According to Simon Mulongo, the Chwezi disappeared through assimilation. He does not entertain the idea that the Chwezi ended up as the Hima of Ankole and the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi as Reid (2002) and Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2024) suggest.  86133

This treatise submits that the Chwezi group is integral the wide group of the linguistically interconnected Cushites scattered in many countries, which President Tibuhaburwa Museveni was politically determined to weave together as East African Community in a manner that suggested a construction of an Empire wider than the Bunyoro-Kitara (excluding Malawi and Zambia, which were part of the Kitara Kingdom created by the Chwezi). This was reminiscent of how the British colonialists wove 15 traditional nations to form the Protectorate of Uganda (1894-1962), The Common Wealth Realm of Uganda (1962-1963) and Uganda (1963 to present). The latter was ruled by President Tibuhaburwa Museveni like a kraal or mega-kingdom from 1986 through nearly four decades.

Museveni was able to do this by reducing abolishing the Obugabe of Ankole and reducing the former kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro and Tororo and the former semi-federal state of Busoga to mere cultural institutions without political power and deviating the minds of people in those areas from thinking about power at the centre. He even created similar institutions where they were not before so that the population diverted most of its political time to those entities. As if that was not enough to disempower and depoliticise the population, he bantustanised the country through creating numerous districts and numerous constituencies out of them to generate politicians that would just say yes to whatever he wants.

For all intent and purposes, President Tibuhaburwa Museveni ruled like a king over a new kingdom called Uganda Kingdom. It was a new Chwezi dynasty in Uganda. He was glorified and worshiped. He promoted hereditary politics to service his new kingdom. The kingdom had laws and a judiciary but many laws were made by his word of mouth and what emanated from the judiciary as judgement often reflected what he wanted.

When he wanted the public enterprises to be sold at peanuts, so it was.

When he wanted 100% economic liberalisation and no political liberalisation, so it was.

When he wanted Universal Primary Education so it was.

When he wanted Universal Secondary Education so it was.

When he wanted his wife to be the Minister of Education so it was.

When he did not want his IGG to use to the lifestyle method to Chief of Defence Forces so it was.

When he did not want alternative political forces to practice politics as long as he ruled so it was.

When he did not want a minimum wage in Uganda so that Ugandan workers would be like the Bairu in ancient Ankole or the Hutu in ancient Rwanda and ancient Burundi, so it was.

When he wanted the sister of fallen Gaddafi to take the Coffee deal and Lubowa Hospital deal at excessive cost to the taxpayers, so it was.

One can go on and on to show that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni was ruling like a king.

Everything flowed from him and ended with him just as was the case during the Chwezi dynasty many centuries ago. The negotiate approach to governance did not mean much to him. Although his political party organised regular elections it was not to usher in alternative leadership but to reaffirm that Uganda belonged to him and his family. One school of thought suggest that even when it came to non-Chwezi leader to marrying, he could influence so that such leader ended up witha Chwezi woman as his wife. This however, requires serious scholarly investigation.

Busoga suffered greatly are a result of Chwezi-Cushite effect in many dimensions. This treatise will show how Busoga has suffered the effect on its belonging, identity, traditions, culture, spirituality and political development during the reign of President Tibuhaburwa but even long before. I believe this treatise will show how. I have already mentioned that when it suited or suits them, they take up Kisoga names but also penetrate clans. Hopefully, this treatise will enable most indigenous groups of Uganda to understand the colonially crafted Uganda and who is benefitting from its centralised power and authority.

The land of Basoga and its people: Current extraneous influences

The Basoga people predominantly live in Busoga – a land 38,000 square miles in size surrounded by river Mpologoma to the east of Lake Victoria to the south of River Nile in the west and Lake Kyoga to the north and tinted with numerous swamps. In the 1930s and before the coming of the colonialists, the land was luxuriously occupied by forests and wildlife, including big game and numerous species of birds, reptiles, frogs, toads and insects.

• A Tell report / By By Oweyegha-Afunaduula / Environmental Historian and Conservationist Center for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA), Seeta, Mukono, Uganda.

About the Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA)

The CCTAA was innovated by Hyuha Mukwanason, Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Mahir Balunywa in 2019 to the rising decline in the capacity of graduates in Uganda and beyond to engage in critical thinking and reason coherently besides excellence in academics and academic production. The three scholars were convinced that after academic achievement the world outside the ivory tower needed graduates that can think critically and reason coherently towards making society and the environment better for human gratification. They reasoned between themselves and reached the conclusion that disciplinary education did not only narrow the thinking and reasoning of those exposed to it but restricted the opportunity to excel in critical thinking and reasoning, which are the ultimate aim of education. They were dismayed by the truism that the products of disciplinary education find it difficult to tick outside the boundaries of their disciplines; that when they provide solutions to problems that do not recognise the artificial boundaries between knowledges, their solutions become the new problems. They decided that the answer was a new and different medium of learning and innovating, which they characterised as “The Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis” (CCTAA). They saw their innovation as a new opportunity to demystify disciplinary education and open up academia and society to new, interlinked knowledge and solutions to complex or wicked problems that disciplinary education cannot solve. To this end, the CCTAA promotes linking of knowledge through the knowledge production systems of Interdisciplinarity, Crossdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity and Extradisciplinarity (or non-disciplinarity), which allow for multistakeholder team knowledge production instead of individualised knowledge production, which glorifies individual knowledge production, achievement and glorification.

The issue of alternative analysis towards deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge is taken seriously at the CCTAA. Most recorded knowledge needs deconstruction and reconstruction within the context of new and different knowledge production systems listed here in. Therefore, instead of disciplinary academics, scholars or professionals, we can begin to produce new ones. We can, for example have professors of interdisciplinarity, crossdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and extradisciplinarity or non-disciplinarity. Besides, academics, scholars and/or professionals, civil servants, researchers, etc can choose to reorient themselves via the CCTAA and become enhanced learners via the new and different knowledge systems.

It is attitudinal change to thinking, reasoning and practice in knowledge production and use towards solving simple and complex problems! We are all learning beings, and by virtue of the construction of our brains we are supposed to continuously learn and to be good at thinking correctly and reasoning effectively.  As learners who can engage in critical thinking and alternative analysis, we become more open to change and alternatives to development, transformation and progress of society, embrace change, imagine possibilities, learn through the activity of experience, and rejuvenate ourselves and ourselves continuously. The CCTAA is committed to enabling this to happen. It does not abhor resistance but creates opportunities for meaningful resistance that opens opportunities for all.