Over the years President Tibuhaburwa Museveni has emerged as the greatest advocate and defender of the politics of interest and adversary of the politics of identity in Africa south of the Sahara. According to him the politics of identity benefits opportunists. The question is: Are the politics of Identity and the Politics of Interest mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive?

Let me start this article by distinguishing between politics of identity and politics of interest.

Politics of Identity

A dictionary definition of politics of identity is “tendency for people of a particular religion, ethnic group, social background, etc, to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics”.  Politics of Identity may also be looked at as politics based on a particular identity, such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste and social class”.

Theoretically speaking, politics of identity is a form of social identity marking membership of certain groups that share a common struggle for a certain form of power. This can include identification with a political party, but also positions on specific political issues, nationalism, inter-ethnic relations or more abstract ideological themes.

In the political and leadership history of Uganda, politics of identity has been central to leadership and governance of the country, which evolved from the colonial weaving 15 traditional national identities to form the British Protectorate of Uganda, the Commonwealth Realm of Uganda and then Uganda. These were: Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, Bugisu, Bukedi, Bunyoro, Busoga, Karamoja, Kigezi, Lango, Moyo, Sebei, Teso, Toro and West Nile. Although the colonialists reduced these to tribal entities, which was unnatural in Uganda, they were allowed some self-governance, either as districts or kingdoms.

The Kingdoms were Ankole, Buganda, Bunyoro and Toro. Busoga was, by the time the colonialists arrived, a kingdom with chiefdoms, but by 1935, it was reduced to a district, with a resident, Semei Kakungulu, imposed on the area by the colonialists. This title was eventually replaced by the title kyabazinga, which during the existence of a Kingdom of Busoga, was the title given to the prime minister of the kingdom, which in Buganda was called katikiiro. At independence, Busoga was named in the Uganda Constitution 1962 The Territory of Busoga with semi-kingdom status.

Although later the Prime Minister of Uganda Apollo Milton Obote abolished the Kingdoms and the semi-federal status of Busoga, he did not destroy the identities of the various indigenous groups specific to the different national states.

Apart from the Uganda National Congress (UNC), which had a nationalistic outlook, the early political parties – Uganda people’s Congress (UPC), Kabaka Yekka (KY) and the Democratic Party (DP) tended to be religion-politically oriented, with the protestants (called Anglicans then) tending to predominantly associate with the UPC and KY and the Catholics tending to associate with the DP. However, there was evidence to suggest that UPC was more nationalistic than the DP. For example, the DP was slower than the UPC to join the independence struggle for Uganda. Most Muslims tended to associate politically with the UPC. We can say with confidence that this was politics of identity along religious lines.

Politics of Interest – theory

Theoretical efforts in political science are dominated by a particular idea of politics, which may be called “the politics of interest.” It is the vision of politics as an arena into which individual or group interests enter in some fashion to be dealt with by certain processes and transformed into outcomes, policies, or outputs.

Interest groups

Accordingly, interest groups exist to influence policy. According to Britanica an interest group is any association of individuals or organisations, usually formally organised, that, on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favour (Cochran, 1973). All interest groups share a desire to affect government policy to benefit themselves or their causes. Their goal could be a policy that exclusively benefits group members or one segment of society. Interest groups are a natural outgrowth of the communities of interest that exist in all societies.

Each group, even individuals, have their political interests, which shape their politics. Emily Burn (2018) states that holding an interest in politics is often seen to be a precursor to political engagement, but it is a little understood concept. This blog considers the confusion that surrounds political interest while making a case that we can’t understand an individual’s interest in politics unless we consider what politics means to them.

Burns,  citing Luskin (1990), Prior (2010) and Robison (2017) also notes that political interest has been defined in a variety of ways. It is seen to be motivational in that interest is the foundation that spurs engagement with politics. Interest is therefore something of a catalyst that leads to political action. On the surface, this seems to make sense – in order to do ‘something’ there needs to be a reason to do it. However, not all political engagement is fostered through interest, it’s possible that political participation may be spurred through a sense of citizenship duty instead.

Types of interest groups

Therefore, in politics of interest, there are many types of interest groups, including the one in which the members identify themselves as being interested in politics but don not engage in politics. The latter must be including many people. Each interest group has its own identity.

Otherwise, the basic interest groups that may or do actively engage in politics in pursuit of their particular interests include: academic groups, intellectual groups, membership groups, public interest groups, environmental groups, corporate interest groups, agricultural or farmers groups, and professional groups. Each group advocates for its interests or concerns. Once they are politically active, they become integral to the political spectrum of a country. Each interest group pursues its interests within the system of things.

To define interest only as motivational overlooks people who are interested in politics but who do not act on this interest (Burn, 2018). This identity of being interested in politics suggests some, perhaps many people experience interest in politics but do not identify as being interested. And do not engage politically. However, many scholars acknowledged association between political interest and political engagement

System of things

The phrase “system of things” expresses the sense of the Greek term ‘ai·onʹ in more than 30 of its occurrences in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

There are various systems of things or prevailing states of affairs, that have existed or will exist. Those brought about by God through his Son Jesus Christ, are, obviously, righteous systems of things. The Bible speaks of “the present system of things,” referring to the prevailing state of affairs in the world in general and the worldly way of life.

By means of the Law covenant, God introduced a system of things that some might call the Israelite or Jewish epoch. Satan also has his own system of things in the world, which the Bible says will be replaced by a new system of things. While we have movement system of the human body,

Movement system of things

Museveni introduced his own system of things, which excludes others from the leadership and governance of Uganda. It is more or less a one-party system subserved by a number of obnoxious laws -, including Movement Act, Sectarianism Law, Terrorism Law and Political and Organisations Act. At the core of Movement leadership and governance is corruption, which if eliminated leads to the collapse of the Movement System of Things.

Political spectrum

According to Britanica, political spectrum, a model for classifying political actors, parties, or ideologies along one or more axes that compare them. Another way of looking at a political spectrum is as “a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions”. In Uganda the political spectrum is predominantly dominated and captured by the Movement System of things. The capture is made absolute by the obnoxious laws, which control and contain the political activities of the other associations in the political spectrum of the country

Political dimensions

The political dimension refers to the political aspects and influences within a particular context or subject. It encompasses political will, strategies, decision-making processes and political organisations and institutions. It involves understanding political processes, political systems, public policies and the formation and governance of political activities. The political dimension is crucial in shaping policies, influencing decision-making, and understanding the political dynamics within a specific field or area of study.

We can state with a high degree of confidence that there is no rigid separation between identity politics and interest politics. There are interests in identity politics, and there are identities in interest politics. Pursuing rigid separation of identity politics and interest politics. Therefore, it is opportunistic to suggest that politics of identity benefits opportunists but interest politics does not have its own opportunists. Some of the opportunists in interest politics may be ethnicitists or homosexuals, for example. They have their identities and can pursue their interests at the expense of other identities. The identities the British found in place in Uganda and reduced to tribes generally didn’t practice ethnic segregation and almost universally abhorred homosexuality. Ethnicitists and homosexuals of the 21st century are imposing their choices, interests and values on them.

Active homosexuals pursuing homosexuality as both an ideology and a political tool are based in the West. Ethnicitists are internal and mostly have their origin among the immigrant populations from Rwanda and Mulenge in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It is these people who captured the instruments of power in Uganda in 1986 and have been in power since then.

Interestingly, in his speech at Speke Resort Munyonyo on January 4th 2024 to the Speakers of Parliaments of Commonwealth countries the President of Uganda, Tibuhaburwa Museveni, dismissed politics of identity as a type of politics that benefits opportunists and strongly urged his listener to join him in advancing politics of interest for prosperity.

A dictionary definition of an opportunist is “a person who takes advantage of opportunities as and when they arise, regardless of planning or principle”. According to google, being opportunistic means exploiting immediate opportunities, especially regardless of planning or principle. Grabbing opportunities with both hands is a good thing. But without planning, without any principle, grabbing that opportunity becomes an evil act…Surely opportunists must be both in politics of identity and politics of interest. The president did not see politics of interest as being a conglomeration of identities yet interest groups have their interests and identities. Neither did he see the politics of interest as a hotbed of opportunists.

There is need to reconcile both politics of identity and politics of interest in a democracy or in the process of democratisation. They can coexist. Moellendorf (2007) has written that reconciliation is a political value. Since both identity and interest are integral to politics, the y can and do interact and can be interconnected to achieve meaningful and effective political leadership and governance. Separating them is both opportunistic and evil.

In my view democracy and democratisation in Uganda will only be advanced if we allow the identities in our country to thrive as equal owners of Uganda and if their interests are recognised and not crashed. Further, we should recognise that interests and identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can and do nurture each other. Identity groups can politicise their interests and interest groups can politicise their identities, and pursue their aims and purposes free of oppression, repression, suppression and depression by one or other identities and/or interest groups.

Therefore, destroying identities is not the pathway to development, transformation and progress of a country. That strategy in politics is a strategy of reducing the pluralism of society and its capacity to associate and organise in different identity groups such as political parties. It is the pathway to political monolithism.  And political monolithism can be politically genocidal as it seeks to build a single political association or party and to cause everyone to belong to it by hook or crook.

The preference is monolithic political thinking (i.e., the tendency to view cultures, experiences and people from a single perspective; for example, in the case of Uganda, movement perspective. Over 300 years ago, when European immigrants to New Zealand, Australia and the Americas emphasized only their world view, it led Maoris, Aborigines and Red Indians to near-extinction respectively. They changed those areas completely to their choices at the expense of the natives.

 For God and My Country

• A Tell report / By Prof Oweyegha-Afunaduula, a former professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences of the Makerere University, Uganda