Kampala — Many people of moderate disposition in the central region were inspired when a delegation led by the new Kattikiro of Buganda met President Museveni at State House, Entebbe.

This appeared as a beginning in the normalisation of Buganda's relationship with the central government and indeed the whole country.

Contrary to what many people believe, the majority of people in Buganda, including its mainstream leadership, are inclined to the view that Buganda and Uganda are one but this view is always overshadowed by forces which manipulate the general population into what is seen by outsiders as tribal xenophobia.

Previously, such forces were controlled by culturalists who wanted to be the final voice in everything in Buganda and regarded everybody as a puppet on the string which follows whatever direction its handlers choose. In this way many good initiatives were killed and opportunities lost. The recent proposal for a regional tier which had been accepted by the moderates was rejected after the culturists took a different view of it.

When the culturalists were silenced by changes which took place in their ranks, the vacuum was then filled by political newcomers who came on the stage with a lot of conceit and little regard for what had been achieved between Mengo and the central government since 1991.

With many of them having connections with political parties, this group's main interest was to see that the NRM government did not gain advantages over their parties.

Using the gift of the garb in radio programmes in which they labelled whoever did not think like them as an enemy or a traitor who had been bought by President Museveni, the newcomers found themselves with an unprecedented following which egged them on to act more and more irrationally each day. As expected, sooner than later the newcomers' act blew up in the political pressure cooker they themselves helped to overheat.

As the newcomers come under siege a new approach is called for in Buganda's dealing with the government especially on the issue of federalism which should be handled according to its internationally accepted principles.

In simple language, federalism is constitutionalised power sharing through a system that combines self-rule and shared rule. It brings together separate polities within a wider political system which allows each polity to maintain the integrity of its cultural, geographical and other features unique to it.

Today federalism is the most widespread form of political organisation in which the constitution is recognised as the supreme law of the land but in which authority and power are shared between a central government and constituent governments at regional and local levels.

The word federalism is a genus with many species which include federations, confederations, associated states, federacies and condominiums. There are today 19 countries under the federation system among which are the United States of America and Nigeria; 21 countries which have utilised the federal system to incorporate a measure of constitutionalised decentralisation into their system of government such as the United Kingdom and Ghana. These are the two basic forms of internal organisation of a state which is not unitary.

There are two supranational confederations, namely the European Union (EU), the Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom) and 23 associated states such Monaco and France. Examples of federacies are the United Kingdom and Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey while condominiums or states controlled by two or more states are represented by the control of Spain and France over Andorra. What this means is that local suggestions that there is only one variety of federalism which must be achieved or nothing goes are erroneous.

There are enough precedents from which to choose a species which is suitable to the particular local conditions.

Federalism of whatever variety is underpinned by six principles:

Non-centralisation: here the political framework has multiple centres linked together by a fundamental law or constitution and a communication network. Constituent units have separate but equal status. Democracy: federalism is predisposed to what is known as "consociational democracy" in which special arrangements are made to accommodate ethnic, linguistic and religious divisions in order to accommodate the needs of various groups. Belgium and Switzerland are examples of consociational democracy.

Checks and balances: federal democracy rests on a system of checks and balances in which each institution is checked and balanced by other institutions that have their own constitutionally-based authority.

In the words of James Madison, one of the leading framers of the American constitution, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

Barganing: this is a legitimate and an integral part of the political process under federalism.

Constitutionalism: the complexities of making non-centralisation, checks and balances and bargaining work require mutually agreed upon constitutional rules. Over time these rules come to include the written constitution(s) itself and its/their accepted interpretations by constitutional courts.

Given these clear non-controversial principles of federalism, it is difficult to understand why those who wish to have it resort to battle-cry demands for it instead of exploring and explaining to others which principles and practices are suitable in our midst and why.

The situation is even more puzzling when you consider that in practical terms federalism means recognised territorial polities based on the uniqueness of their given areas, a political framework in which powers and responsibilities are shared by three levels of government, acceptance of self-rule, a national constitution in which these arrangements are entrenched all of which have been conceded under our present constitution.

The only thing remaining to be done is the bargaining part in order to fine-tune the present arrangements where necessary. This can only be done at a round table not through hollering at each other.

The writer is a lawyer