Executive Director, Centre for Basic Research, P.O. Box 9863, Kampala

Civil Society and the Struggle for Land Rights for Marginalised Groups: The Contribution of the Uganda Land Alliance to the Land Act 1998.

Nyangabyaki Bazaara (Dr.),

(This paper is part of the International Research project on "Civil Society and Governance " funded by the Ford Foundation. The research was conducted under the auspices of the Centre for Basic Research).

Introduction

There is no concept that occupies a more privileged position in the current discourse on democracy and governance than civil society. It is assumed that civil society is crucial to the prevention of the reemergence of dictatorship that has characterized much of the post-colonial African political landscape. However, whether or not this assumption is true requires an investigation into the character of the actual existing civil society to establish what it can and can not do.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discourse on the role of civil society in buttressing democratic governance. It does so through an examination of the role of a consortium of NGOs - The Uganda Land Alliance, in the enactment of the most important piece of legislation in an agricultural country like Uganda, the 1998 Land Act. The spirit behind the Land Bills and the 1998 Land Act is clearly the encouragement of foreign investors without serious regard for the rights of those who till the land or the vulnerable groups.1 However, although the Land Act had its origins in a World Bank initiative, its final

1 'See the various versions of the Land Bills - 1990, 1993, 1996, 1997 and 1998 - in the following: Republic of Uganda, `The Report of the Technical Committee on the Recommendations Relating to Land Tenure Reform Policy,' Kampala: Agricultural Secretariat (Bank of Uganda), October 1990, P. 111; Republic of Uganda, `Report of the Technical Committee on Land Tenure Law Reform,' Kampala: Agricultural Secretariat (Bank of Uganda) April 1993, p. 83; The Land Bill, 1997 (October 14, 1997) (mimeo); and The Land Bill, 1998, Uganda Gazette No. 12, March, 1998. For the Land Act 1998, see The Uganda Gazette, No. 41 July 2, 1998. ( I am still looking for the 1996 version). Mahmood Mamdani observed correctly that the bill was designed for foreign and not local investors. It gave no rights to those who till the land. Similarly, Liz Wily argues that the bill was meant to make land readily available for foreign investors. See 'Prof. M. Mamdani on the New Land Bill: Will it Marginalise the Poor?' The Net Forum Vol. 1 Special Issue August, 1998; Liz Willy, `New Land Law and the Poor: Implications for the Draft Uganda Land Bill with Comparative Reference to the Tanzanian Bill for the Land Act,' Paper presented to a Land Tenure Seminar Hosted by the Economic Policy Research Centre in Collaboration with the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning, Kampala September 2, 1997.

1 form and content was a compromise position between foreign forces (for example the World Bank), landlords, the NRM2 and fractions of civil society such as the Uganda Land Alliance (ULA).

The issues we address are: 'what were ULA's objectives and what land issues did it tackle'? How original was the ULA?T 'How significant were the issues (and therefore clauses) it addressed to the protection of rights of the marginal groups? 'How did the ULA advance its case and what were the limitations and strengths of its approaches?' What lessons can we draw from the struggle of the ULA to the theory of civil society?'

The analysis in this paper is based on information derived from documents of the Uganda Land Alliance (ULA), the media coverage and interviews. On the basis of the evidence, we argue that the Uganda Land Alliance contributed a lot in mobilizing many individuals and organizations to rally behind it in the effort to ensure that rights of the vulnerable were protected in law. However, the ULA chose to deal with issues (for example, the rights of women, children and the disabled) and areas (for example, Kibaale and Karamoja) that were not politically explosive. By doing this it avoided real issues advanced by numerous land defense organisations or associations or their real needs. Whereas, it abhorred the bad side of market in land, it still remained trapped within its logic. Thus, all the recommendation regarding the rights of the poor could be eroded very easily, despite the provisions to protect the poor.

In section one, we examine the objectives of the ULA and the issues it dealt with. In order to appreciate the role of ULA, we sketch the history of the evolution of land tenure to flesh out the issues that animated the land debate. In addition, we examine the technical background to the land bill and the early critics of the land bill. In section two, we examine methods the ULA used to lobby or advocate for the land rights of the poor. In the third section, we examine the contribution and failures of the ULA and provide reasons why this was so. In the fourth we try to relate the experience of the ULA to the current notions about civil society and democratic governance.

2 For example, consider the social and political forces being referred to in the speech by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, in his address to a pressure group of Baganda Opinion Leaders in an excerpt reproduced in Appendix II.

2 The Uganda Land Alliance: Objectives and Issues it addressed

Uganda Land Alliance is a consortium of foreign and local non-governmental organizations as well as individuals. It is composed of 39 Non-governmental Organizations and 2 individuals listed as Appendix 1. The ULA was registered as a non-governmental organisation in May 1999. However, it began in 1995 as an interest group with a few members. These members used to meet informally in the premises of the following organisations and projects: Oxfam, World Vision International, Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR), Legal Aid Project, Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary Associations (DENIVA), etc.3 The founding members were foreign NGOs that were involved in poverty alleviation programmes for the poor. These include Oxfam (UK), COOPIBO (Belgium), SNV (Netherlands) and World Vision International (US).

The formalized Uganda Land Alliance is composed of the General Assembly, the Management Committee, and the Secretariat. The General Assembly is the supreme policy making organ of the ULA. It meets at least once a year. The Management Committee is the governing body of ULA. Its role is to operationalise the policies of the alliance and is, therefore, answerable to the General Assembly. It meets once a month. The Secretariat is responsible for the coordination and implementation of the Alliance's activities and policy objectives as formulated by the Management Committee. The secretariat is composed of a Coordinator, Programme Officer, Accountant, Secretary, Driver and a Cleaner.

The Land Alliance was set up in January 1995

As a pressure group with the mission of ensuring that land policies and laws are reviewed to address the land rights of the poor and to protect access to land for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and individuals.4

Its campaigns to meet these objectives focused on a number of issues. First, it attacked the principles upon which the different versions of the land bill were based and tried to demonstrate that these were detrimental to the poor. Second, it dealt with the institutional framework for controlling land and mediating the market in land. Third, it tried to demonstrate the need to protect the rights of wives and children by suggesting that land 3 See the following: Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting held at MISR, September 21, 1995; Minutes of the Meeting of the Land Alliance held on May 2, 1997 at Oxfam Offices; Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting Held on 5`h June 1997 at 2.30 pm at the Legal Aid Project Offices, Kampala; Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting held on 9t' July 1997 at 2.30 at the DENIVA Secretariat, Kampala. 4 The Uganda Land Alliance Brochure.

3 should be co-owned by the spouses and before any land sales, the consent of wives and children must be sought first. Fourth, it struggled for rights of communities to have titles. Fifth, it contributed to the lowering of the number of years from 999 to 99 during which non-citizens can hold land. Finally, it pressurized the lawmakers to ensure that certificates of occupancy carried the same weight as the existing land titles.

The Evolution of Land Tenure in Uganda: A Historical Background.

For us to clearly appreciate the nature of the land problem in Uganda, it is important that we briefly map out the evolution of land tenure. In doing so we shall be able to demonstrate whether or not, the land bills and the contribution of the ULA was a response to the real needs of the producers in Uganda or it was an intervention based on abstract notions about land tenure.

Until the promulgation of the 1995 constitution, there were four legal types of land tenure namely mailoland, customary tenure, leasehold and freeholds. In what follows we deal with these forms of tenure and show how they entered the land debate or the Land Bills. a) Mailoland

Mailoland tenure is a specific form of tenure that emerged in Buganda, Ankole, Toro and parts of Bunyoro. It arose from the British act of giving square miles of land to those individuals that had assisted them in colonizing Uganda.

In Buganda about 8,000 square miles were given to 1,000 Baganda chiefs. This very act transformed the nature of land tenure in Buganda. The Bataka (clan heads) lost their authority to allocate land. Together, with their relatives, some of the Bataka were transformed into tenants. The British also allocated land in another Kingdom of Bunyoro to Baganda chiefs. Again the indigenous people were transformed into tenants. Under the 1901 Ankole agreement, the Omugabe (king) of Ankole received 50 square miles, the enganzi (principle chief) 16 miles while ten most senior chiefs were given 10 miles each.5 Similarly, under the 1900 agreement between the Omukama (king) of Tooro and the British, the Omukama received 16 square miles and the other chiefs ten squared miles each.6 In Bunyoro, the ruling class was punished for resisting colonialism and it was only in 1933 that the king was 5 Martin Doornbos, `Land Tenure and Political Conflict in Ankole, Uganda,' Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, 1975 6 B.K. Taylor, `The Toro' in Audrey I Richards (ed.), East African Chiefs: A Study of Political Development in Some Uganda and Tanganyika Tribes, London: Faber and Faber, ltd., 1960, p. 128.

4 allocated ...square miles.

The relevant conclusion we can derive from this process of creating mailo tenure is that it had a serious impact on production and the general livelihood of the people. First, on much of the land allocated to kings and chiefs lived ordinary tenants. These were transformed into tenants. Ownership of the land gave the landlord the power to access peasant labour or products of his/her labour. It is not surprising that in Buganda the mailo owners began extracting excessive rents - Busulu (ground rent) and envujjo (commodity rent). This led to the emergence of a political protest of tenants led by the Bataka. Since this rural unrest undermined the production of export crops and in turn diminished the revenue base of the colonial state, a law -the busulu and envujjo - was enacted to regulate the relationship between the landowners and the tenants in 1928. Under that law the security of the tenant was guaranteed up to 3 acres so long as the tenants produced export crops. It is interesting to note that the colonial state was erected on landowners. For this reason the British colonialists could not abolish mailo land. It could only regulate the relationship between the mailo landowners and the tenants. It is important to note, however, that despite the 1928 busulu and envujjo law Baganda landowner/chiefs oppressed and exploited the tenants. For example, all big trees belonged to the landlord. The effect of this is discernable today in many parts of Buganda: tenants stopped planting trees with serious consequences for the present and future sustainability of the environment.7

In areas of Ankole, Toro and Bunyoro landowners also extracted rents and oppressed those who inhabited the land. However, to ensure that some production took place the colonial state introduced legislation and policies that provided some modicum of security of tenure. The Ankole and Toro Landlord-Tenant laws provided some security of tenure and established a ceiling on the amounts of rents that landlords could extract. In Bunyoro, where the chiefs had illegally converted official estates into private estates (bibanja), the colonial state compensated the chiefs. In addition it introduced certificate of occupancy that were supposed

7 In my research in Kyanakase village (1995/6), in Masaka District, I discovered that the conditions of tenants were depressing. They had little patches of land that could not reproduce their livelihoods. They could not keep chicken because chicken destroyed the mulch so critical for retaining moisture, suppressing weed and providing manure. They could not keep goats because the land was small and the only available unused land belonged to landlord who could only allow them to access it after paying some form of rent. Tenants were dependent on starch diet (matooke), little proteins. They could very easily derive proteins from beans but they did not have wood to cook them. In many instances they had to collect twigs of coffee tress to cook! Tenants could not plant trees because the landlord would confiscate the trees. They no longer could access wood from crown land because much of it had been privatized. The significance of these findings to the ULA's approach to the land problem will become apparent. See Nyangabyaki Bazaara, 'Agrarian Politics, Crisis and Reformism in Uganda, 1962-1996. Ph.D. Thesis, Queens University (Canada), 1997.

5 to guarantee security of tenure to the actual tillers of the land.

After independence, there were pressures to transform mailo land so that the landowners' basis for accumulation became wage rather than tenant labour.8 However, the landowners blocked the move because control over the tenants besides it value in terms of rents was a basis of class rule. In addition, many of the tenants were of Rwandese extraction. As Mafeje explained:

The recommendations were rejected by the Landlord-dominated Lukiiko for what was called "political reasons." The immediate reasons was that in some of the central counties of Buganda up to 50 per cent of the tenants are immigrants from Rwanda and Burundi, whom the Baganda accept only as a source of cheap labour, and not as landsharing neighbours, no matter how modest the scale. However, one suspects that the fundamental reason was that the landlords did not wish to make concessions to the bourgeois elite inside and outside Buganda. They rightly saw the latter as their class enemies. Secondly, they did not want to lose control over their labouring tenants. In a nutshell, they were prepared to permit neither a revision of land relations nor a transformation of production relations in the form of free peasants and proletarians.9

Whereas, the landowners in Buganda were able to block the transformation of the mailo land within the Lukiiko, they were unable to do so against the UPC government. The UPC government was well aware that the political strength of the mailo owning class derived from their control over the land and over the tenants. The UPC's solution was also half hearted just like the 1928 busulu and envujjo solution. As A.M. Obote was later to proclaim "the land issue was coming nicely. The idea was to alter the mailo system to the leasehold system where land was leased to ...groups capable of making use of it for the national good."10 Much as this could have been a possible outcome, the real headache for Milton Obote was breaking the political strength of the landowning class. Although, he did not succeed during his presidency, the vision was accomplished by Idi Amin who enacted the 1975 Land Reform Decree (LRD) which converted all mailo land and freehold into state land on which individuals or organisations could acquire leases for 99 or 999 years. The LRD intensified the conflicts between the mailo owners and the tenants. In effect the decree removed the security

8 See Archie Mafeje, `The Agrarian Revolution and the Land Question in Buganda,' in Roger Leys (ed.), Dualism and Rural Development in East Africa, Copenhagen: Institute of Development Research, 1973. 9 Archie Mafeje, ibid., p. 145. 10 Quoted in Selyn Douglas Ryan, `Uganda: A Balance Sheet of the Revolution, Mawazo, Vol 3 No. 1, June 1971

6 of tenure that had been guaranteed by the 1928-busulu and envujjo law.11 Although, the decree abolished rents, it did not undermine the power of the landowning class, which could evict tenants on a mere pretext that a particular tenant was a witch. It is this background that informed the discussion over vesting all the land in the `citizens' of Uganda and not the state and the issue of automatic conversion of leasehold into freehold.

Before we leave this section on mailoland, it is important to briefly discuss the problem of Kibaale (what was formerly termed the lost counties of Buyaga and Bugangaizi) as this was one of the issues that dominated the campaign of the ULA. The counties of Buyaga and Bugangaizi were formerly part of the Bunyoro-Kitara kingdom. These were, however, transferred by the British colonialists to Buganda as a reward to Baganda chiefs for assisting the British to defeat the resistance of the Banyoro against British imperialism. Many Baganda were given chunks of land as mailo land. As in Buganda, the landowners in the Buyaga and Bugangaizi extracted excessive rents. This also led to the Bunyoro-Mubende protest movement aimed at returning the `lost counties' back to Bunyoro-Kitara kingdom. This struggle was intensified a few years before independence and threatened to create chaos. Crops were slashed down and houses burnt Mailo landowners run away from those counties. In order to avoid bloodshed the colonial authorities postponed the resolution of the problem until two years after independence. The mode of resolution was to be a referendum in which the inhabitants of those counties would elect to remain in Buganda or to be transferred to Bunyoro.

In 1964, the UPC government, led by Milton Obote, carried out a referendum. Despite the attempt to rig the referendum elections by the Kabaka of Buganda, the results showed that those in Mubende elected to be independent while those in Buyaga and Bugangaizi elected to return to Bunyoro. It is interesting to note, however, that despite the fact that the people of Buyaga and Bugangaizi were returned to the administrative control of the then Bunyoro Kingdom, the mailo land system remained with Baganda absentee owners. By the time of the debate on the land bill, there was no social conflict of a direct nature. However, Kibaale land problem was one of the issues that preoccupied the campaigns of the ULA, as we shall see later.

11 It is not surprising that A. Nsibambi, the ideologue of landlords, could argue that the LRD introduced animosity between the landowners and tenants. Prior to that the relationship, according to Nsibambi was symbiotic! See Apolo Nsibambi, `From Symbiosis to Antagonism: The Case of the Relationship Between the Landlord and the Tenant in the Rural Development of Uganda' in Apolo Nsibambi and James Katorobo (eds.) Rural Rehabilitation and Development, Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Rehabilitation and Development, September 14-18, 1981.

7 b) Customary Tenure

Customary tenure is a legal concept that refers to the numerous forms of tenure that obtained in Uganda's different societies. It is often assumed that under customary tenure land belonged to the entire community and that every member of the community was entitled to have access to that land although someone did not own it as an individual. The problem has, however, been that the usage has not been sensitive to the changing rights under customary tenure and how the redefinition impacts on the livelihoods of the people. For example, a myth has been perpetuated that under customary tenure there is no sale of land. Yet it is apparent in some recent research that customary tenure has been changing with different implications in different societies.12

In the language of colonialism, customary tenure is what was termed as crown lands. After independence, it was renamed public land. By public land it was meant that the land was owned by the state and peasants were tenants. Over the years two processes have taken place with respect to customary tenure. First, land rights have been redefined as the land frontier has closed. In cases such as Bugisu, the land has been sub-divided to the point that they can no longer derive proper livelihood from it. In other instances, there has been a process through which politicians, bureaucrats, etc, enclosed customary land sometimes displacing customary tenants. By late 1960's the conversion of customary tenure into private leases had gained so much momentum that rural unrest was beginning to be felt. This led to the enacting of the 1969 Public Land Act which essentially provided that no customary tenant could be evicted without his/her consent, that if s/he consented he had to be compensated. Furthermore, the act put a ceiling on the amount of land an individual could acquire although recent research has demonstrated, it was very easy for someone to register as many large pieces of land in the names of spouses, children or relatives.13

The enactment of the 1975 Decree had serious consequences for land tenure security of the

12 See Nyangabyaki Bazaara, `Land Policy and the Evolving Forms of Land Tenure in Masindi District' in Mahmood Mamdani and Joe Oloka Onyango (eds.), Uganda: Studies in Living Conditions, Popular Movements and Constitutionalism, Kampala: Centre for Basic Research and JEP, 1994. 13 For example consider the following speech by Hon Mrs. Bitamazire, women representative in parliament. She noted that `People in Mpigi are still not very happy about the size of the leases. Definitely, they do not want automatic conversion of lease into freehold, but, they are saying, this Land Bill should come out with some idea on how much one should be allowed to acquire under a lease, because right now, it is free, as long as one can get access to it. This Land Bill should give, at least, a maximum of so much or, at least, one lease. Some people in Mpigi, I understand, have got leases in almost all districts, so why should some regulations not be put in place, in this Land Bill, to limit the size and a number of leases a Ugandan can acquire in this country.' Republic of Uganda, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 3`d Session First meeting, Issue No 18, June 1, 1998 - June 29, 1998, p.4089.

8 peasants on public land. Military personnel, bureaucrats and the politically powerful grabbed huge chunks of customary land with impunity and displaced many peasants. It is this category of land acquired and leased in this fashion that some members of parliament were opposed to being automatically converted into freehold. As one of them argued:

I will restrict myself to the provision, which turns leasehold into freehold automatically. Mr. Speaker, Kiboga District has almost half of its geographical area in former public land, which my people consider to have been shared out by some individuals in terms of lease. What surprises them very much is that even these leases are not developed yet now we are saying that we automatically turn these leases into freehold... Mr. Speaker, if I can mention some of my landlords in Kiboga District, most of whom are absentee landlords, you will really sympathise with me and the people of Kiboga. Mr. Speaker, for example Maj. Gen. Paul Kagame has a chunk of land in Kiboga and this guy is totally an absentee landlord in Kiboga. Mr. Speaker, I also hear the family of the late Fred Rwigyema has a big chunk of land in Kiboga. Then Major Gen. Salim Saleh, about 200 acres, but his wife and sister and brother also have 200 acres each. Then Hon. Col. Kahinda Otafiire...14

Despite the changes in what is termed customary tenure, ULA campaigned to retain some mythical customary tenure on the assumption that this was one way to safeguard the rights of the vulnerable groups. It should be recalled that customary tenure was used as part and parcel of indirect rule form of state power. While it prevented the emergence of a landless class that would cause political problems for the colonial and various post-colonial governments, it was also used for social and political control. By transferring the power to allocate land to a chief, colonial and post-colonial authorities were able to empower the chiefs to have control over the land and labour of the peasants on the one hand and for the elders and men to control the labour of young and the women. It is important to recall these facts when we come to analysing the recommendation that customary tenure be maintained. To put it differently, can the rights of the vulnerable be protected under customary tenure driven by patriarchal ideology or state power?15 What about those who thrive on the basis of customary tenure and yet the land is too small to reproduce their livelihood?

14 Republic of Uganda, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), ibid., p. 4106. 15 I am well aware of the fact that land was now vested in the `citizens.' This suggests that the previous state power that controlled land has been neutralized. But what about the patriarchal ideology and the exercise of social and political power by some men over women and children?

9 c) Leaseholds

These have been of two types. The first type is private lease, whereby someone with freehold or mailoland could lease land to an individual or organisation for a specified period. The second type is state or statutory leases given out to individuals or organisations for a particular period for a specified amount of rent. During the entire post-independence period, parts of what used to be customary tenure were converted into leaseholds under the programme of `individualization' of land tenure. It was assumed that individualization of land tenure would not only provide individuals security of tenure, but also would allow owners of land titles to procure loans from banks in order to improve their technology and farming techniques. The experience shows that leasehold land was carved out of land that in some cases used to belong to customary tenure peasants. The process was accelerating at a first pace that it became imperative to enact the 1969 Public Land Act which provided that a ceiling on the amount of land an individual could turn into leaseholds. It also provided that in cases where peasants were on the land, no one could turn the land into leasehold without the consent of the peasant and after adequate compensation. The 1975 Land Reform Decree abolished the requirement that a tenant had to consent. And this led to a wave of tremendous acquisition of land into leasehold by those who were politically connected or those with military power. For the first time this process led to the emergence of a landless class - i.e. those who could not access land at all. The issue that arose in the debate on the Land Bills was whether or not there was still such a thing as customary tenure. And if it was still in existence, whether or not to destroy it since, according to `modernisers' it was an obstacle to development.

10 d) Freeholds

Freehold land was originally given to churches. On some of this church land there lived tenants who paid rents. In 1950s, the attempt to individualise tenure led to the creation of adjudicated freeholds in Bugisu, Kigezi and Ankole. The 1975 Land reform Decree abolished freeholds and converted them into leaseholds for either 99 or 999 years.

Basically, then, these were the forms of tenure that existed in Uganda by the time of the debate. It should be noted that under these forms of tenure existed many struggles for rights of ownership or access. These struggles also contributed in the manner in which the debate on land bills unfolded.

The Technical Background to the Land Bill, the Timing and Early Critics a) Social unrest and the Background to MISR- Wisconsin Study.

According to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, E. Tumusiime-Mutebile, the history of the Land Bills date back in 1983. That after `recognising the importance of agricultural policy in the rehabilitation and development of the agricultural sector, and in agreement with the World Bank under IDA-Agricultural Rehabilitation Project, government established in 1983 an Agricultural Policy Committee supported by the Agricultural Secretariat to formulate, co-ordinate, direct and review key policies and programmes in the agricultural sector.16 In 1987 Makerere University Institute of Social Research and the Land Tenure Centre of the University of Wisconsin-Madison were contracted to examine the relationship between "Land Tenure and Development.17 USAID and the World Bank financed the research.

It is important to note that the timing of the study during the NRM period arose partly from the increasing rural unrest in Uganda as well as donor agenda of privatisation. To begin with the rural unrest, there were two sources of the problem. First, landlords tried to sell land that contained tenants. The reason for this was the belief of some landlords that the NRM was a

16 Agricultural Policy Committee, `Proceedings and Recommendations of the Workshop on Land Tenure, Resource management and Conservation Studies,' Jinja, May 18-19, 1989, P. 1. 17 The results of that research are contained in Makerere Institute of Social Research and Land tenure Centre, `Land tenure and Agricultural Development in Uganda,' Kampala: Makerere Institute of Social Research, January 1989. For the sequence of events following the study see a summary in Liz Wily, `Changing Land Laws in East Africa: A Comparative Review of the Uganda Tenure and Control of Land Bill (March 1997) and the Tanzania Draft Bill for the Land Act (November 1996)', Attachment to a Paper Presented at a Seminar Hosted by the Economic Policy Research Centre, Kampala, September 1997.

11 `communist' organisation that would eventually nationalize the land. Since selling of land entailed evictions, this created a lot of conflict and social unrest in rural areas. Second, there were individuals whose land had been grabbed by the state or the politically powerful. Such people interpreted the change ushered in by the NRM as being a restoration of justice and, therefore, attempted to reclaim their rights to land by occupying gazetted forests and government ranches. Such conflicts dominated the entire period from 1986 to 1992. Let us demonstrate with examples.

In Mbale, grandchildren of Kakungulu, the muganda general who helped British colonialism to extend the colonial frontier, tried to sell the 800 acres on which 5,000 families lived to Bugisu Co-operative Union. Peasants reacted by organising a Central Mbale Land Defense Committee in 1986.18 They sang revolutionary slogans:

Fellow peasants, workers and other Ugandans! Our land is being grabbed. Bukasakya (mutoto) land is going. The Bukasakya Land Defence Committee informs you that about 5,000 peasant families are threatened with eviction from their land. This land belongs to them by virtue of custom. They have tilled it and owned it for generations. Now the BCU with the support of foreigners and other exploiters of the people want to grab it from them in the name of "development." Now Kakungulu's heirs (those bootlickers of foreigners and fascists) claim that the land is "theirs" and want to sell it to BCU! How did Kakungulu come to own 20 square miles of land? Has he ever circumcised on this land? Those bureaucrats of BCU have fattened on our coffee, now they want our land. The peasants of Bukasakya (Mutoto) have resolved that they will not move an inch from their land - come what may. They are determined to struggle, but they need your support. Give them support, be it moral, material, political or economic. Today it may be them, tomorrow it will be you. Struggle with them fight back alongside them.19

Similar disputes were reported in `Iganga, Mityana, Masaka and Kabale districts.20

Another category of disputes was that of landless youths who, imagining that the promised fundamental change by the NRM would entail restoration of justice in as far as access to land 18 For an elaborate treatment of this see Apolo Nsibambi, `The Land Question and Conflict" in Kumar Rupesinge (ed.), Conflict Resolution in Uganda, London: James Currey, 1989. See also Peter O. Otim, `Aspects of the Land Question in Mbale District, Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 35, Kampala: CBR Publications, September, 1993. 19 Quoted in Peter O. Otim, `Aspects of the Land Question in Mbale District, ibid., p. 33-34. 20 George Kawule, 'Lands Problems Persist', The NewVision, April 20, 1989.

12 was concerned, grabbed unused land of the landlords, mainly in Buganda. Research carried out by Winnie Bikaako in Mpigi district revealed such cases.21 The NRM government initial response to the increasing unrest was to find a safe middle ground. For example, in 1987, the Minister of Lands wrote a circular in which he stated that

The Government would like to state that it has learnt with dismay that some former mailo land owners are engaged in act of evicting customary tenants (bibanja owners) from their bibanja "plots." Government would like to inform these landlords that under the 1975 Land Reform Decree, any such eviction is illegal unless approved by the Minister of Lands and Surveys. No bibanja owner should, therefore, agree to such a forceful eviction unless the landlord can prove through the office of the District Administrator that the Minister gave consent to such eviction.22

The response of the minister reflected the true NRM that had emerged from the bush and was preaching democracy and justice. This was, however, a threat to both landlords and also created problems for the NRM that was trying to promote reconciliation in the country through a compromise that was termed broad-baseness. It is in this context of social unrest within which the World Bank, the USAID and the NRM government decided to carry out a study that would lead to solutions that would diminish rural unrest while at the same time upholding the sanctity of private property. b) MISR- Wisconsin Study and Its Early Critics.

The Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) and Land Tenure Centre (University of Wisconsin, Madison) - henceforth MISR-Wisconsin - study is a very important study in as far as it is formed the basis of all the Land Bills and the 1998 Land Act. In brief outline, the terms of reference for the study was to analyse the land tenure systems operating in Uganda and making recommendations on changes in land tenure policy. Researchers interviewed a sample of farmers in Masaka and Luwero and also officials and farmers using Rapid Rural Appraisal techniques in Tororo, Iganga, Mukono, Luwero, Mbale, Mbarara and Bushenyi. Given the limited space here, it will not be possible to discuss their findings.23 What we need

21 Winnie Bikaako, ibid. 22 Quoted in Apolo Nsibambi, `The Land Question and Conflict" in Kumar Rupesinge (ed), Conflict Resolution in Uganda, London: James Currey, 1989, p.226. 23 For a reader interested in learning more about their findings, see Makerere Institute of Social Research and Land Tenure Centre, `Land Tenure and Agricultural Development in Uganda,' Kampala: Makerere Institute of Social Research, January 1989; and Agricultural Policy Committee, `Proceedings and Recommendations of the Workshop on Land Tenure, Resource Management and Conservation Studies -Jinja May 18-19, 1989.

13 for our purposes is to highlight the recommendations of the study, as these became central to the discussion of the Land Bills. They recommended freehold tenure and the emergence of a free land market as a mechanism for transferring land from inefficient to efficient farmers. All existing forms of tenure (mailo, leasehold and customary tenure) were to be converted into freehold automatically or through a process of titling. Secondly, they recommended that people without any other livelihood should not be forced off the land. Thirdly, that land tenure should be uniform.

The MISR-Land Tenure Centre study had shortcomings, right from the start. One of the early critics of the findings was the Centre for Basic Research (CBR). The critique was that the terms of reference were narrow, the geographical areas covered limited and the conclusions not derived from the findings.24 Even a well-known ideologue of mailo land/freehold, Prof. Apolo Nsibambi could not help but observe that the study lacked a true empirical basis:

Prof. Nsibambi said there was no clear land policy in the country. Although he was in favour of a freehold land tenure policy as recommended by the study team, he was, however, not convinced of the basis and time frame for the recommendations of the study team. The study was mainly Buganda centered and other areas were not covered. Masaka and Luweero districts also could not be said to represent Buganda region, let alone other regions.25

To test the credibility of the MISR-Wisconsin study findings, the Centre for Basic Research mounted a full-scale research project covering 13 districts.26 A cursory glance at those

24 Expedit Ddungu, À Review of the MISR-Wisconsin Land Tenure Centre Study on Land Tenure and Development in Uganda,' CBR Working Paper No. 11, Kampala: CBR Publications, June 1991. 25 Agricultural Policy Committee, `Proceedings and Recommendations of the Workshop on Land Tenure, Resource Management and Conservation Studies - Jinja May 18-19, 1989. 26 The results of CBR research are contained in these publications: Nyangabyaki Bazaara, `Land Policy and the Evolving Forms of Land Tenure in Masindi District' in Mahmood Mamdani and Joe Oloka-Onyango (eds.), Uganda: Studies in Living Conditions, Popular Movements and Constitutionalism, Kampala: Centre for Basic Research, 1994; Frank Muhereza, `Land Tenure and Peasant Adaptations: Some Reflections on Agricultural Production in Luweero District' in Mahmood Mamdani and Joe Oloka-Onyango (eds.), ibid.; Lawyer Kafureeka, `The Dynamics of Land Question and its Impact on Agriculture Productivity in Mbarara District, Uganda,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 25, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1992; Robert Mugisha, Èmergent Changes and Trends in Land Tenure and Use in Kabale and Kisoro District,' Centre for Basic Research Working paper No. 26, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1992; John Ssenkumba, `The Land Question and the Agrarian Crisis: The Case of Kalangala District, Uganda,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 34, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993; Peter Otim, Àspects of the Land Question in Mbale District„ Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 35, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993; James E. Opyene, `Recent Trends in the Lango Land Tenure System,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 36, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993; Expedit Ddungu, `The Other Side of Land Issues in Buganda: Pastoral Crisis and the Squatter Movement in Sembabule Sub-district,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 43, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1994; Winnie Bikaako, `Land to the Tillers or Tillers to Land: The Existing Forms of Land Tenure Systems in Mpigi District,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 44, Kampala: CBR

14 findings reveals a wide gap between the abstract conceptions about land tenure in the Land Bill and the actual processes on the ground. In their contribution to the Land Bill, researchers at the Centre for Basic Research met and provided a critique of the Land Tenure Bill.27 The critique was also reproduced in the local media in 1993.28 CBR researchers argued that

Because of the narrow empirical base of the research, the three stated objectives of the proposed land bill - encouraging the smooth functioning of a land market, discouraging evictions from the land and a uniform land tenure policy for the whole country - reflect ideals which are generalised and abstract, and in practice mutually contradictory. Instead of reflecting the reality of the land question in Uganda, they are imposed on that reality in an a priori fashion. The problem with starting from generalised and abstract ideals is that it gives rise to an assumption that there is a "correct" policy for all places and all times regardless of circumstances obtaining in a country. The contradiction between general objectives - in this case minimizing landlessness and ensuring a more effective land market -arises because each is proposed without regard to the situation on the ground. For example automatic conversion to freehold for present leaseholders will in the present circumstances confirm landlessness of that vast majority of non-lease holding tenants on mailo and other leased land.29

From their research CBR researchers identified three issues that required attention. One was the need to put to a halt the growing landlessness and ending the practice of absentee land ownership, elimination of unproductive rents, provision of security of tenure to all and avoiding uniform land tenure. When the Land Alliance crystallized from 1995, it found on the ground writings that had dealt with the kind of issues they tackled.

Publications, 1994; and Jennifer B. Kaggwa, `Land Tenure and Land Use in Kampala District,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 45, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1994. 27 CBR: `Memorandum on the Proposed Land Tenure and Control Bill,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 33, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993. 28 For example see Centre for Basic Research, `Land Tenure: Search for Social Justice,' The New Vision, February 10, 1993. 29 Centre for Basic Research, `Land Tenure: Search for Social Justice, ibid.

15 Issues the Uganda Land Alliance Tackled. i) Principles of the Land Bill

The ULA criticised the principles that underpinned the Land Bill. The Principles of the Land Bill were the following:30 a) A good Land tenure system should support agricultural development and overall economic development through the functioning of a land market which permits those who have rights in land to voluntarily sell their land and for producers and investors to gain access to land. b) A good land policy should not force people off the land. The land tenure system should protect individuals' rights in land. The policy should ensure social justice. c) A good land tenure system should ensure sustainable utilization of land as a resource and the protection of environment.

Equity Issue

The ULA noted that the bill did not address issues of equity. "There are people who are currently landless, and are in need of land.31 In this, the ULA advanced the point researchers of the Centre for Basic Research had raised earlier that the proposal that automatic conversion of leasehold to freehold would `confirm the landlessness of that majority.' The ULA argued that the bill did not amount to a land reform because it did not lead to a redistribution of rights in land in favour of the landless and the poor.

The more general spirit of the bill, directly and repeatedly at every turn, favours the rich over the poor, the investor over subsistence farmer, suggests that if implemented, insecurity of tenure, if not outright landlessness, will dramatically increase throughout the country in both urban and rural areas. For all intents and purposes, the law will unsecure the rights in land, of especially women and the weak, pastoralists, etc. By omission of attention to any citizen who does not currently own land, the law is

30 See Eddie Nsamba-Gayiiya, `The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning's Position Paper on the Proposed Draft Land Bill,' Paper Presented at a Seminar organised by the Uganda Law Society in conjunction with Konrad Adenauer Foundation, at the Law Development Centre, September 20, 1997. 31 Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting Held at MISR 25th August, 1995. ULA Secretariat.

16 directly discriminatory.32

It is very important to note at this stage that ULA was talking at a generalised and abstract level. It did not come out openly to deal with issues of landlessness or injustice as they actually existed. For example, the ULA feared to talk about the land question in Buganda as it was too politically explosive. We shall explain why the ULA could not mobilise the landless and push for real land reform.

Land Market and Development

The ULA also criticised the suggestion that a market led tenure system would stimulate agricultural development. They asked:

What historical precedent and empirical evidence supports this? How is the selling of land supposed to create this development? Will it be by allowing large-scale land acquisition for large-scale farming and agricultural industrialization? Will it encourage registered owners to sell to individual peasant occupants? How will peasants compete on the free land-market with a wealthy and politically powerful Ugandan business community and foreign investors? How will the market be regulated? How will the small farmer be protected? If the occupant is to buy land, where will they get the capital to do so?33

ULA argued that the Land Bill was driven by arguments common with the World Bank and USAID, namely privatization.34 This claim sounded credible since the World Bank and USAID sponsored the study that formed the basis of the bill. ULA argued that the East Asian experience showed that increased productivity/production materialized because of a land reform. Privatization and commercialization came afterwards.

Section 2: Advocacy and Awareness Campaigns: Methods and Limitation.

The Uganda Land Alliance used several methods to advance the cause of the poor. These ranged from publications, radio talks, and open letters to ministers and meetings with

32 Uganda Land Alliance, Open Letter to the Minister of Lands Housing and Physical Planning on the Proposed Land Bill of 1997, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance Publication No. 3, 1997, p.17. 33 Uganda Land Alliance, Position Statement of the Uganda Land Alliance on the Proposed Land Bill of 1996 to the Technical Committee and Agricultural Policy Committee, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance Publication, December 1996. 34 Uganda Land Alliance, Growth and Equity: Are we Growing at the Expense of 65 % of Ugandans?, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance Publication, 199?

17 Ministers and members of parliament and press conferences. In some instances, they resorted to upcountry workshops in its effort to sensitize and raise awareness. Perhaps because of the recognition of the variety of audiences, it tried to package its information in such a way that the intended listeners readily received the message.

Section 3: Contribution and Failures of ULA: Structural and Legitimacy Issues

The donors and the government had only one agenda, that of privatizing the land, without due regard to the consequences of that process, namely landlessness and the attendant rural unrest. Like CBR, the ULA contributed a sobering and corrective voice for the need to reflect on the consequences of a land act that did not safeguard the poor. The ULA did this by raising awareness on issues of land, and especially the plight of the poor. However, the ULA was unable to push for correcting the injustices that had already been committed through the privatisation of `customary tenure' land. True that, the ULA drew a lot of attention of the public to the land problem in Kibaale. In reality, the problem had not translated into a social issue because the landowners did not live in Kibaale; they were mere absentee landowners. The ULA eschewed dealing with the land issue in Buganda where poverty is an every day reality because the tenants do not have enough land to farm. And why was this so?

We can think of two possible reasons why they did not deal with the Buganda problem. First of all the issue was politically explosive. The landowners had successfully forged an alliance with Buganda tenants. Basically, the tenants were drawing sentiments anchored in Uganda's past. The argument was simply that all past governments and the NRM were interested in grabbing land in Buganda if not to nationalise it. The first Obote government had plans to nationalise all the land. Amin turned all land in Uganda into state property. The NRM was conceived as a `communist' movement. Against this background the landlords successfully whipped these fears under the Buganda Nationalist ideology and succeeded in providing a counter force to all those who were advocating pro-poor policies. One of the starkest examples is the use of the landlord owned radio Central Broadcasting Station (CBS) to incite Baganda against the land bill. In this instance, the landlords had gone beyond the agreed framework between landlords and the National Resistance Movement. The government responded with threats. The Minister of Information, Ruhakana Rugunda said

It is true that CBS has been broadcasting information that can incite people and cause problems. It has been handling the matter of land irresponsibly because it has been

18 inciting people instead of explaining the bill to them.35

In his annual constitutional address, the President of Uganda, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, blasted the landlords.

`Museveni flayed the Mengo establishment for using its mouthpiece, the CBS radio station to sow ethnic hatred among local people. He said CBS was misinforming people that `Banyankole are oozing with money, that every pore of a munyankole oozes money which will buy all the land of Buganda... "Political myopia and oligarchic interests in Mengo do not allow them to know who are their possible allies or foes."36

We should add that by the time of the 1998 Land Act, the NRM had changed its position regarding the land problem. At some point it claimed that it was better to allow contradictions to mature and then act. For example, when the tenants went on rampage in Sembabule, the government intervened and resolved the problem in favour of the tenants.37 It is surprising, however, that the NRM could not deal with the landlord tenant problem in Buganda. The reason for this is not hard to find. After the broad-based political arrangement came to an end, the legitimacy of the NRM in Buganda was based on the alliance of the NRM and the landlords. This is why the NRM returned the property (ebyaffe) of the former kings. Resolving the land problem in favour of the tenants would immediately cause antagonism between the NRM and Buganda landlords. The other side to this was that alliance with the landlords was crucial in its effort to lock political parties out of Buganda. It will be recalled that the NRM banned political party activities because it argued that political parties were divisive and fanned ethnic and other sectarian hatred in Uganda. Besides the law, the NRM needed political allies in order to make the ban on political party activity stick. In this context the NRM accepted landlessness as the political price for the land reform. As the president argued eloquently:

Faced with such historical distortions, one has three options: to side with the

35 Peter Okello Jabweli, `Government Cautions CBS Radio,' The New Vision, May 20, 1998. 36 John Kakande and Ofwono Opondo, `Museveni Blasts Mengo over Land,' The New Vision, June 2, 1998. See also David Kibirige, `Police Quizzes CBS' Muwonge for 4 hrs,' The Monitor June 4, 1998; David Kibirige, `CID Summons CBS' Muwonge,' The Monitor June 3, 1998; `Land: Otaffire Fears Genocide, The New Vision May 20, 1998; and `Museveni Opens 3`d Parliament Session, The New Vision June 2, 1998 37 See Ddungu, Expedit, op.cit. 1994. Also see Frank Emmanuel Muhereza, `Ranching, Common Property Relations and the Alienation of Pastoral Lands in Uganda; A Study of the Buruli Ranching Scheme,' Kampala: Centre for Basic Research: Alarm Working paper No. 10, September 1999.

19 oppressor against the oppressed; to stand with the oppressed against the oppressor; or to promote a compromise. If you side with the oppressor we call it oligarchism, counter-revolution or repression. If you side wholly with the oppressed we call it revolution. If you promote compromise, we call it reform. The NRM prefers a reformist approach.38

The reformist approach runs counter to its goal of modernising agriculture and even attracting foreign investors. The land bills and the 1998 Land Act created a stalemate in landlord-tenant relations in Buganda by, as Mahmood Mamdani argued, severing the unity of ownership and control of land. The land bill had given the ownership of the land back to the landowners but not the control. At the same time, the bill gave control to tenants but without ownership. This situation led to sabotage rather than being an instance that led to increased agricultural productivity/production.39

In the compromise situation brought about by the Land Act, the NRM still hope to create private property rights through encouraging the tenants to buy themselves out using a Land Fund for tenants and encouraging customary tenants to buy land titles. The Uganda Land Alliance claims to have originated the idea of a land fund from which small loans would be drawn for tenants to buy ownership rights from landowners. However, as early as 1993, the President had been talking of such a fund. He wrote that `my solution revolves around the government making available money to lend to the tenant families that occupied a portion of land for, at least 20 years, in order to "okwegula" - redeem themselves. This would be fair because most of the present mailo-owners bought from the original allocates.'40

The ULA idea of a land fund clearly reflected its inability to push for a genuine land reform. +It refused to promote a position whereby tenants would simply be transformed into landowners. In this it feared the wrath of the NRM and possibly donors. Despite its tremendous awareness campaigns about the plight of Kibaale tenants, it could not propose that the land be returned to the tenants who were the owners in the first place. Instead it recommended that a land fund be set up so that tenants could borrow money and buy rights from the landlords some of whom are not known. In parliament, the idea was taken up but the call was clearly the fund be for the entire country. Clearly, the ULA was treading the

38 Museveni Opens 3rd Parliament Session, The New Vision June 2, 1998. 39 Prof M. Mamdani on the New Land Bill: Will it Marginalise the Poor,' The Net Forum, Vol. 1 No. 1 August 1998. 40 Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, `A Case for the Restoration of Buganda as a SingleUnit,' April 7, 1993.

20 government's reformist line and in doing so it did not realise that it was affirming the role of the market in land and diluting their objective, namely the desire to ensure that land rights of the poor and the vulnerable are protected. It is not a surprise that the ULA could not push for a genuine land reform.

The ULA also vehemently chose to advocate for the rights of the women, children and the disabled. It hoped that these rights could be safeguarded through a number of institutional arrangements. These included a call for maintaining customary form of tenure, co-ownership of land and the requirement that spouse and children consented first before selling of land.

Their call for customary tenure was based on the notion that all persons under customary tenure have rights to land. To prove its case, the ULA mounted a research in Lango, a district believed to be the home of customary tenure. A group of elders were interviewed in a two-day workshop in Lira town in November 1997. The ULA reported that

The Lango customary land tenure system is superior system because it provided security of tenure and is equitable since it guarantees access to all members of the Lango community. Land in Lango is controlled by the clan which guarantees right of use by the community in the case of the commons i.e. grazing grounds, forests, woodlands, wetlands, quarries and pits.41

The problem here is that the empirical basis for the conclusion that customary tenure is an institutional framework that safeguards the rights of the vulnerable is questionable. Research carried out by CBR researchers revealed that the so-called customary tenure had been undergoing tremendous changes and that it was no longer useful to imagine that customary tenure catered for rights of the vulnerable. James Opyene Ebong's research in Lango indicated that the rights to land under customary tenure were being modified in ways that did not safeguard the poor.42

More profound was the failure to realise the political dimension of customary tenure. Although, is some ways it helped keep people in the rural areas, it none the less was pivotal in denying certain rights to land to the very groups the ULA claimed to be advocating for. In fact by interviewing elders in Lira, ULA uncritically accepted the ideology of the patriarchy

41 Uganda Land Alliance, Customary Land Holding in Uganda: A Case Study of Lira and Apac Districts, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance, 1997. 42 Opyene, James, E., `Recent Trends in the Lango Land Tenure System,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 36, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993.

21 which elders utilised to control the labour of women and children and also their rights to land. In the colonial and post-colonial setup, customary tenure was a good plank for social and political control. Power to allocate land was vested in chiefs and in turn this power was used to control the land and labour of peasants directly or via the elders (clans). The disadvantaged were the women and children. By advocating for the uncritical return of customary tenure, the ULA was enslaving rather than liberating the women, children and disabled, the vulnerable poor.

Furthermore, the notion that children and spouses should consent before land is sold was also based on a thin understanding of realities on the ground. First, it was based on a sweeping assumption that all men never consult their spouses when selling land. Secondly, the ULA did not think through whether or not this aspect can be enforced in practice. For example, a counter argument against the consent of children was that when they are less than 17 years, they are to young to understand the realities. When they are more than 17 years they should be fending for themselves. Besides, there are two types of laws that are still operational in Uganda. There is the customary law and the statutory law. It is not clear which one will take precedence. Customary law enforces rules that are sometimes detrimental to women and children.

The most controversial issues that ULA advocated was the co-ownership clause in the Land Bill. ULA worked hard to ensure that the issue got the attention in parliament. Indeed, it was debated and passed in parliament. However, when the final bill came up, the clause had mysteriously disappeared! Up to present the reason why it was dropped is a matter of speculation. When one views this issue against the history and culture of this country, it is not difficult to surmise the fact that the male dominated parliament and in particular the state got scared of the consequences of this clause to rural social stability. This clause no doubt with generates a lot of conflict, given the dominance of patriarchal ideology.

Structural Sources of the Reformist Line of the ULA

The ULA had serious structural limitation. That is why it could not resolve some of the contradictions in its advocacy campaigns.

First, the ULA crystallised as a group concerned about the poor. But they did not have a concrete grasp of the realities on the ground. Members debated a lot about the course of action. Quite often, the result was mere agreement for the sake of moving forward. It is not

22 surprising that because of this government attacked the ULA not only to show who these poor people were but also show facts. Recognition of this fact led the ULA to mount researches in Kibaale, Karamoja, Lira and Apac. Some of these researches had severe limitation such as not being able to bring out the actual processes on the ground.

Second, the issue of governmental demand that ULA shows who its poor were was based on the fact that the founding members of ULA were foreign NGOs with programmes for the poor in Uganda, namely, Oxfam, COOPIBO, World Vision International. The initial reaction of the state was to claim that the ULA was a front of foreign interests with no genuine concern for the poor. These organisations responded by trying to indigenise. It tried to co-opt as many local NGOs as it could find. Many Uganda NGOs joined in the hope that the ULA could become a mechanism through which they could access donor funds and not that they had programmes for the poor within their own organisations. Besides they were poor organisations dependent on foreign funds. This also shows that the Uganda Land Alliance did not crystallise from the real struggles for land rights that were commonplace during the period. As such the Uganda Land Alliance was weak as it did not have a real constituency on the ground.

The fact that ULA was initiated and continued to be funded by outside donors put the ULA in a weak position. That is the ULA could not deal with very controversial issues. No wonder they could not focus on the politically explosive issues such as the tenant question in Buganda. It could not be aggressive. For example, when some of the members of the ULA took a very aggressive position on some of the local radio stations, the state responded with threats. Oxfam, the organisation that has been at the forefront in organising the ULA was quick to advise that the `offensive' adverts be withdrawn from radio.

In addition, the fact that the ULA drew membership from organisations some whose commitment to land rights of the poor was questionable, created weakness with the ULA. Many organisations did not attend meetings. In some instances, it is individuals in those organisations who were really interested in the campaign. As soon as those individuals left, the attendance of replacements could be guaranteed.

Because the initiative to form the ULA came from foreign NGOs, the ULA agenda was foreign derived. In other words there was no local constituency committed to those issues. Issues of women and children rights are a donor agenda. Not that the issues of women and

23 children are not legitimate issues but rather that in terms of lobbying the ULA could only have limited impact because of narrow constituency. Even the NRM regime allowed the politics of women and children rights partly because of donor pressure and partly because of its quest for legitimacy using women support. Is it any surprise that the co-ownership clause was dropped from the 1998 Land Act?

Section 4: Lessons from the ULA Campaign to the theory and practice of Civil Society organizations

Civil societies understood as a process that is intimately linked to the state implies that any organisation to operate will necessary acquire a legal personality and be registered. By accepting to be registered, an organisation accepts to operate within the framework defined by the terms of that registration. In the case of the Uganda Land Alliance, it was forced to register under the NGO Act of 1989 in order to be able to receive money.

Acceptance to be registered implies that its campaign agenda has to be of reformist nature and limited in scope or on issues that the existing regime has no serious opposition.

In addition, its ability to push a serious agenda is dependent on the level of autonomy it has in the realm of ideas (ideology), organisation and finances. In the context of the Uganda Land Alliance most of the issues were derived from external forces and although it succeeded to raise awareness, still the realisation of those rights require that it transforms itself from a basically externally supported organization to that which is intimately linked to the actual land problems in Uganda. It is in that context that it will be able to gain a genuine constituency. However, that in itself may transform it into another type of organisation with radical intentions. In fact, there are no signs that it can do so because to do so will draw the wrath of the state and ULA membership can not `commit' that suicide.

To be able to carry out campaigns that can redress past injustices require that the ULA develop organisational and financial autonomy. Many of the organisations in ULA are closely linked to the NRM and donor agendas. As such they have to operate within the framework defined by the NRM and donors. Thus the operation of ULA has to remain reformist and restricted. That is why its critique of the market and landlessness could not amount to much. The ULA accepted the framework of the market in land. It introduced some aspects to slow down the market in land but which aspects could not alter the direction of the market and its undesirable consequences: the marginalisation of the poor or the women and

24 children.

The dependence on donors equally diminished its capacity to operate. In turn the money from donors may serve to undermine the ability of the membership to address real issues. Membership of the ULA is mainly institutional which have no direct core interest. Some may be in ULA as public relations. Some of these organisations do not have land as part of their in-house activities. Donor money may actually cause internal strife and conflicts that will undermine the ULA.

Conclusion

The ULA is an example of a civil society organisation that advocated for policies that are for the poor. Its contribution was in raising the awareness of the public and possibly the long term consequences of that consciousness rising will empower those who suffer the brunt of bad policies to act to change them. However, the ability of organisations such as ULA to push for democratic governance is dependent on the political and economic context. In this case, the NRM has been liberal with respect to civil society organisations so long as they do not become political. That is as long as they advocate a reformist road and within the context of a market driven economy, civil society organisations will not have to confront the state. If however, they show signs of becoming political, they will be de-registered or harassed. In other words, civil society organisation registered with the state can only contribute reformist programmes to the governance of the country. And as long as pluralism is circumscribed by laws that prohibit freedom of association and the right to dissent, civil society organisations acting within the framework of the law can only contribute little. At least this is what the over all context of the Ugandan situation seem to suggest.

25 Bibliography

Agricultural Policy Committee, `Proceedings and Recommendations of the Workshop on Land Tenure, Resource management and Conservation Studies,' Jinja, May 18-19, 1989.

Bazaara, Nyangabyaki, `Land Policy and the Evolving Forms of Land Tenure in Masindi District' in Mahmood Mamdani and Joe Oloka Onyango (eds.), Uganda: Studies in Living Conditions, Popular Movements and Constitutionalism, Kampala: Centre for Basic Research and JEP, 1994.

Bazaara, Nyangabyaki, `Agrarian Politics, Crisis and Reformism in Uganda, 1962-1996.' Ph.D. Thesis, Queens University (Canada), 1997.

Bikaako, Winnie, `Land to the Tillers or Tillers to Land: The Existing Forms of Land Tenure Systems in Mpigi District,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 44, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1994.

CBR: `Memorandum on the Proposed Land Tenure and Control Bill,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 33, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993

Centre for Basic Research, `Land Tenure: Search for Social Justice,' The New Vision, February 10, 1993.

Doornbos, Martin, `Land Tenure and Political Conflict in Ankole, Uganda,' Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, 1975.

Ddungu, Expedit, `A Review of the MISR-Wisconsin Land Tenure Centre Study on Land Tenure and Development in Uganda,' CBR Working Paper No. 11, Kampala: CBR Publications, June 1991.

Ddungu, Expedit, `The Other Side of Land Issues in Buganda: Pastoral Crisis and the Squatter Movement in Sembabule Sub-district,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 43, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1994.

Kafureeka, Lawyer, `The Dynamics of Land Question and its Impact on Agriculture Productivity in Mbarara District, Uganda,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 25, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1992.

26 Kaggwa, B. Jennifer, `Land Tenure and Land Use in Kampala District,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 45, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1994.

Kakande, John and Ofwono-Opondo, `Museveni Blasts Mengo over Land,' The New Vision, June 2, 1998.

Kawule, George, `Lands Problems Persist,' The New Vision, April 20, 1989.

Kibirige, David, `CID Summons CBS' Muwonge,' The Monitor June 3, 1998.

Kibirige, David, `Police Quizzes CBS' Muwonge for 4 hrs,' The Monitor June 4, 1998.

'Land: Otaffire Fears Genocide,' The New Vision May 20, 1998.

Mafeje, Archie, `The Agrarian Revolution and the Land Question in Buganda,' in Roger Leys (ed.), Dualism and Rural Development in East Africa, Copenhagen: Institute of Development Research, 1973.

Makerere Institute of Social Research and Land tenure Centre, `Land tenure and Agricultural Development in Uganda,' Kampala: Makerere Institute of Social Research, January 1989.

Minutes of the Advocacy Alliance for Land Issues Meeting, Hotel Diplomat on Friday 26th May 1995. Uganda Land Alliance Secretariat, Susie House, Plot 1001, Gaba Road.

Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting held at MISR, September 21, 1995.

Minutes of the Meeting of the Land Alliance held on May 2, 1997 at Oxfam Offices.

Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting Held on 5t' June 1997 at 2.30 pm at the Legal Aid Project Offices, Kampala.

Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting held on 9th July 1997 at 2.30 at the DENIVA Secretariat, Kampala.

Minutes of the Land Alliance Meeting Held at MISR 25th August, 1995. ULA Secretariat.

Mugisha, Robert, `Emergent Changes and Trends in Land Tenure and Use in Kabale and Kisoro District,' Centre for Basic Research Working paper No. 26, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1992.

27 Muhereza, Frank, `Land Tenure and Peasant Adaptations: Some Reflections on Agricultural Production in Luweero District' Mahmood Mamdani and Joe Oloka Onyango (eds.), Uganda: Studies in Living Conditions, Popular Movements and Constitutionalism, Kampala: Centre for Basic Research, 1994.

Muhereza, Frank Emmanuel, `Ranching, Common Property Relations and the Alienation of Pastoral Lands in Uganda; A Study of the Bluruli Ranching Scheme,' Kampala: Centre for Basic Research: Alarm Working paper No. 10, September 1999.

`Museveni Opens 3rd Parliament Session, The New Vision June 2, 1998.

Museveni, Kaguta, Yoweri, `A Case for the Restoration of Buganda as a Single Unit." April 7,1993.

Nsamba-Gayiiya, Eddie, `The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning's Position Paper on the Proposed Draft Land Bill,' Paper Presented at a Seminar organised by the Uganda Law Society in conjunction with Konrad Adenauer Foundation, at the Law Development Centre, September 20, 1997.

Apolo Nsibambi, `From Symbiosis to Antagonism: The Case of the Relationship Between the Landlord and the Tenant in the Rural Development of Uganda' in Apolo Nsibambi and James Katorobo (eds.) Rural Rehabilitation and Development, Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Rehabilitation and Development, September 14-18, 1981.

Nsibambi, Apolo, `The Land Question and Conflict" in Kumar Rupesinge (ed.), Conflict Resolution in Uganda, London: James Currey, 1989.

Opyene, James, E., `Recent Trends in the Lango Land Tenure System,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 36, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993.

Otim, Peter, `Aspects of the Land Question in Mbale District, Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 35, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993.

"Prof. M. Mamdani on the New Land Bill: Will it Marginalise the Poor?' The Net Forum Vol. 1 Special Issue August, 1998.

Republic of Uganda, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 3rd Session- First meeting, Issue No 18, June 1, 1998 - June 29, 1998.

28 Republic of Uganda, `The Report of the Technical Committee on the Recommendations Relating to Land Tenure Reform Policy,' Kampala: Agricultural Secretariat (Bank of Uganda), October 1990.

Republic of Uganda, `Report of the Technical Committee on Land Tenure Law Reform,' Kampala: Agricultural Secretariat (Bank of Uganda) April 1993.

Ryan, Selyn Douglas, `Uganda: A Balance Sheet of the Revolution, Mawazo, Vol 3 No. 1, June 1971.

Ssenkumba, John, `The Land Question and the Agrarian Crisis: The Case of Kalangala District, Uganda,' Centre for Basic Research Working Paper No. 34, Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993.

Taylor, B.K., `The Toro' in Audrey I Richards (ed.), East African Chiefs: A Study of Political Development in Some Uganda and Tanganyika Tribes, London: Faber and Faber, ltd., 1960.

The Land Bill, 1997, October 14, 1997.

The Land Bill, 1998, Uganda Gazette No. 12, March, 1998

The Land Act, 1998, The Uganda Gazette, No. 41 July 2, 1998.

The Uganda Land Alliance Brochure

Uganda Land Alliance, Position Statement of the Uganda Land Alliance on the Proposed Land Bill of 1996 to the Technical Committee and Agricultural Policy Committee, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance Publication, December 1996.

Uganda Land Alliance, Open Letter to the Minister of Lands Housing and Physical Planning on the Proposed Land Bill of 1997, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance Publication No. 3, 1997.

Uganda Land Alliance, Customary Land Holding in Uganda: A Case Study of Lira and Apac Districts, Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance, 1997.

Uganda Land Alliance, Growth and Equity: Are we Growing at the Expense of 65 % of Ugandans? Kampala: Uganda Land Alliance Publication, 199?

Wily, Liz, `New Land Law and the Poor: Implications for the Draft Uganda Land Bill with

29 Comparative Reference to the Tanzanian Bill for the Land Act,' Paper presented to a Land Tenure Seminar Hosted by the Economic Policy Research Centre in Collaboration with the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning, Kampala September 2, 1997.

Wily, Liz, `Changing Land Laws in East Africa: A Comparative Review of the Uganda Tenure and Control of Land Bill (March 1997) and the Tanzania Draft Bill for the Land Act (November 1996)', Attachment to a Paper Presented at a Seminar Hosted by the Economic Policy Research Centre, Kampala, September 1997

Interviews

Rose Mwebaza, Coordinator, Uganda Land Alliance, at Centre for Basic Research, September 6, 1999.

Harriet Busingye, Chairperson, Uganda Land Alliance, International Conference Centre, October 6 and 7, 1999.

30 Appendix 1

Action for Development (ACFODE) Akina Mama Wa Afrika BBFA Busia BUSO Foundation Community Development Research Initiative (CDR) Community Development Rural Network (CDRN) COOPIBO Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary Associations (DENIVA) Development Research and Training East African Sub-regional Support Initiative Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE) Foundation of Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) Goal Ireland Gomba Environment and Energy Project Institute of Social Studies, Makerere IUCN, Plot 39 Acacia Avenue Legal Aid project of Uganda Law Society Lutheran World Federation (Karamoja Resource Centre) Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) Mukono District Development Association National Association of Women Organisations in Uganda (NAWOU) National Environment Information Centre NGO Forum Organisation for Social and Economic Change and Advancement (OSCA) Oxfam GB Pallisa Community Development Trust (PACODET) SNV/NOVIB Television for development Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA) Uganda Change Agent (UCA) Uganda Debt Network Uganda National Farmers Association (LTNFA)

31 Uganda Rural Development and Training (URDT) Uganda Women's Network (UWONET) VEDCO Women Finance and Credit Trust (UWFCT) World Vision International.

Individual Members

1. Hon. Kasirivu Atwooki 2. Hon Omwony Ojok

32 Appendix II

He argued against their position on land that `It was the British and collaborator chiefs of 1900 that robbed the Baganda and non-Baganda of the "lands of their birth" in the form of mailoland. I know some Baganda elite parading around the line that the Baganda and non-Baganda peasants known as "basenze" affected by the mailoland system "enjoyed" that status. I know of many peasants in other parts of Uganda that do not miss that "enjoyable" status of not owning the land your occupy. Indeed, I will not rest until this injustice is resolved. I have told you, in our many conversations, that, as we return "ebyaffe" to Baganda noble (abakungu), we must also return "ebyabwe" to the peasants without injuring the abakungu. The discussion we had when you came to see me last, touched on this question. You seemed favourable to my proposed solution to this problem. My solution revolves around the Government making available money to lend to the tenant families that occupied portions for at least 20 years, in order to "okwegula" -redeem themselves. This would be fair because most of the present mailo-owners bought from the original allocatees. The point, for the time being, is that Baganda peasants have suffered as much injustice at the hands of their Baganda elite as at the hands of elements of the elite from other areas, Obote being one of them. The tragedy of the mailo system was that huge chunks of land were not for production but for enfettering the peasants' production. It was not for capitalist, but for feudalist relations of production. Had it been for capitalist production, it would at least, have enhanced GDP and the peasants could have benefited more, albeit indirectly. According to you, this dispossession, notwithstanding, the Baganda were very "proud" of the whole arrangement. One should not confuse absence of social cognition as happiness. See Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, `A Case for the Restoration of Buganda as a Single Unit." April 7,1993 (mimeo).