No one size fits all

Something intrigued me during the Arab Spring of 2011. There were revolts across most of the Middle East, but largely in republics ruled by presidents i.e. most of their rule was not based on tradition but what Max Weber called rational-legal authority, a Western model – Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia. With the exception of Bahrain, all the Arab nations ruled by traditional monarchs– Morocco, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait were not affected. Their people are content. There were some protests in Jordan but the king announced reforms and tensions died.

The first suspicion I got was that these republics and their presidents were ruled by men who lacked legitimacy and had come to rely heavily on patronage and the police state to govern. Part of the problem was that many of these rulers had ruled for long (like monarchs) without traditional legitimacy. Libya’s Muammar Gadaffi had previously depended on personal charisma and the claim to being “revolutionary” but this shine hard worn off and they had retreated to patronage and repression to rule.

This is the crisis Africa is facing as well. Our presidents are always insecure because they acquire a lot of power but have little legitimacy. The Kabaka (king) of Buganda, for example, does not need to prove to anyone that he is king. He enjoys traditional legitimacy. But President Yoweri Museveni has to bribe, cajole and coerce to keep Ugandans inline. Of course, legitimacy can also be acquired through electoral victory. But how many Ugandans in villages believe that a leader needs to be elected to be legitimate? Instead, many people look at teachers, policemen and priests as legitimate leaders more than they do with elected officials.

The real issue, however, is Western belief that there is only one moral way to govern society – liberal democracy – and its foundations in individual autonomy giving raise to a regime of rights. Yet many other societies, including Uganda, do not begin with the individual but with the community. This is based on the belief that people are, first and foremost, members of a large entity – an extended family, a clan, tribe or nation. Therefore, this larger entity is more than the sum of individuals who compose it. Such societies have moral concepts of duty, hierarchy, honor, respect, reputation, patriotism etc. that shape how they cooperate.

From this perspective, the Western emphasis on individual autonomy (liberty) i.e. that individuals should pursue their own goals as long as what they do does not harm others, seems selfish and dangerous. I am a believer in the Western idea of individual liberty but I have grown to recognise how it violates some of the most treasured sanctities of our societies. Most Ugandans see emphasis on individual autonomy as weakening our social fabric and destroying our collective cultural institutions.

This lesson sunk in me while passionately defending gay rights. I believe that homosexuals should be free to live as they wish. During the anti-gay law debate, I was faced with multitudes of Ugandans, including my mother, who were repulsed by such a belief. Initially I dismissed them as backward and bigoted until it dawned on me that I was the one trying to impose Western values on my society. The lesson I learnt is that there is no one size that fits all; and societies need to be given time develop according to their own values and beliefs. It is possible that with time, they may change their values. Dubai sinks this lesson home.

****

amwenda@independent.co.ug