PhD Proposal

University for Humanistics Graduate School

in cooperation with the Promoting Pluralism Knowledge Program

1. Doctoral Research Supervision Team: Names and email addresses

i) Promoter (UvH professor)

…………………………………………………………………..............

ii) Second or Co – promoter (External: Pluralism Knowledge Program partner)

Prof. Peter Kanyandago (pkanyandago@umu.ac.ug)

iii) Co-promoter(UvH)

Dr. Caroline Suransky

2. Introduction

This research is entitled Ethnicity and Socio-Economic Exclusion in Uganda: Perceptions,

Indicators and Spaces for Pluralism with Specific Reference to Cosmopolitan Kampala. The

purpose of the research is to explore the relationship between ethninicity and exclusion

(socio-economic, cultural and political) in Uganda through the case of Kampala, a

cosmopolitan city accomodating people from most of the ethnic groups in Uganda

(Mwakikagile 2009). According to Mwakikagile (2009), the Baganda constitute the largest

ethnic group in Kampala, followed by the Banyankole. Other large ethnic groups in the city

include the Basoga, the Bakiga, Batoro, Bafumbira, Banyoro, Iteso, Acholi, Alur, Bagisu and

some other small groups.

In the exploration, key focus will be put on the perceptions of the people on: the above

relationship through their own experiences and feelings; the indicators of ethnically motivated

exclusion; and the possibilities for pluralism amidst the ethnic diversity/heterogeneity. The

possibilities for pluralism will mainly be ascertained through critical identification and

analysis of good practices.

3. Research summary in Key Words

The key words in this study are: ethnicity, socio-economic inclusion, pluralism, and

cosmopolitan (urban) setting.

Ethnicity will be here understood as the subjective, symbolic or emblematic use by a group of

people of any aspect of culture, in order to differentiate themselves from other groups (and

create internal cohesion). It goes with subjective criteria for exclusion and inclusion. It carries

with it a contingent status that may or may not be articulated in particular contexts or at

particular times (De Vos cited in Bras 1991).

Socio-economic exclusion is a multi-dimensional concept used here in reference to the

dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic,

political or cultural systems which determine the social integration of a person in society

(Walker and Walker cited in Aasland and Flotten 2001).

Pluralism connotes the active engagement with differences/diversity for social harmony

stretching beyond people’s perceived and real differences.

The concept cosmopolitan is used here in the sense of an urban setting with people of various

diversities on lines of ethnicity, religion, political affiliation/views and race. But our major

focus in these diversities is ethnicity.

4. Details PhD Candidate

Family name and first name(s) Ssentongo Jimmy Spire

Date of birth : 14th August 1979

Nationality Ugandan

Full Address: Uganda Martyrs University

P. O. Box 5498 Kampala - Uganda

Phone number and e-mail-address: +256 -772870391

Highest earned degree/Institution: MA in Ethics and Public Management –

Makerere University

Date of Graduation: 27th September 2007

Academic Discipline/Department: Ethics and Public Management – Department of

Philosophy

5. A Focused Introduction of the Research

Understanding Ethnicity

The subject of ethnicity has been a preoccupation of disciplines ranging from

Anthropology, to Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, and Political Science. This is

precisely due to its multi-faceted nature and the fact these disciplines actually overlap and

rely on each other both conceptually and operationally (Chukwu 2002). While Philosophy

approaches ethnicity in light of its ultimate causes/reasons, Sociology puts more emphasis

on ethnicity’s social groundings, Psychology views it in terms of the nature and operation

of the human mind, and political science puts more emphasis its political roots,

implications and significance.

Critically looked at, there is neither mutual exclusivity nor lack of porosity between the

above areas of focus. As such, exploring ethnicity from a multi-disciplinary perspective

enriches our conceptualization and understanding of the concept. It is thus envisaged that

this study takes the approach of synthetic interdisciplinarity whereby relevant material

from different disciplines is brought together where necessary but with the disciplinary

origins of the material remaining clear (Innes 2005). However, though the study will base

on an interdisciplinary approach, it will be mainly centered on Philosophy and

Anthropology.

As a concept, ethnicity eludes precise definition. It is relative, and has been used as a

metaphor for a variety of things which could be understood differently (Muhereza and

Otim 1998). There have been a number of definitions put forward at different points in

time from a couple of vantage points. As indicated above and shall be seen in the review

below, some of these vantage points/ contexts have been disciplinary; some socio-political;

and others localized to given contexts. We shall here review some of these definitions

before identifying the definition within which the study will operate.

Bates (2005) offers a definition grounded in Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology. He

takes ethnicity to connote group identification based on common name, descent and

culture, common language and territory. To him, it is mainly perceived as a psychological

aspect and an attitude of mind and practice. On top of its socio-anthropological leaning, it

can thus be understood better through studies in group psychology. Chazan et al. (1992)

think that it has its foundations in combined remembrances of past experience and in

common inspirations, values, norms, and expectations. In line with Bates’ view, they

contend that in ethnicity’s capacity to stimulate awareness and a sense of belonging among

the potential membership of a group, the psychological dimension of ethnicity

complements and buttresses the political dimension of interest-oriented social action. Bates

also notes that ethnicity is often used to mean collectivities that share a myth of origin. His

definition is close to an earlier one by Weber (1968) of ethnicity as an emphasis of the

importance of ancestry, the importance of history, and, most often, migration and

settlement or political passage, be it escape from oppression or the colonization of new

territory.

Barth (1969) on the other hand sociologically views ethnicity as a form of social

organization in which the participants themselves play a primary role in determining and

maintaining their identity. The sense of attachment to an ethnic group is normally

voluntary. But Barth’s definition falls short of clarifying forms of social organization that

can be considered ethnic and those that are not. Not every social organization where the

participants themselves play a primary role in determining and maintaining their identity is

ethnic. Nevertheless, though insufficient in explanation, his relationship of ethnicity with

identity maintenance is an important dimension.

Brink (cited in Okuku 2002, p.8) summarises the conceptualization of ethnicity as “a sense

of ethnic identity consisting of the subjective, symbolic or emblematic use by a group of

people of any aspect of culture in order to create internal cohesion and differentiate

themselves from other groups”. This definition subtly suggests that ethnic groups are only

concerned about internal cohesion and not external cohesion. But in a society growing

more cosmopolitan and globalised by the day, ethnic groups are taking on a dynamic path

where cohesion with others outside the group is sometimes strategically put into the

picture, especially in the context of the rational choice theory to be explained later.

Moreover, in certain instances internal cohesion may necessitate external cohesion. For

example, internal cohesion would be affected if an ethnic group was not at peace with

surrounding ethnic groups or those with whom they live. It would thus suggest external

cohesion. The spaces for pluralism in ethnic consciousness thus still need to be explored.

Theoretical perspectives on Ethnicity

One of the theoretical attempts to explain ethnic conflict/intolerance is Primordialism.

Some of the key proponents of this theory are Shils (1957) and Geertz (1963). Primordial

conceptions of ethnicity focus on qualities such as: a common language, a collective name,

a common myth of descent, a shared history and allegedly inherited characteristics

common to members of the group (Narrol cited in Poluha 1998). As such, primordialism

seeks to explain the persistence of tradition which is one of the constituent elements of

ethnicity (Kaplan 1994). Smith (1997) distinguishes between a ‘strong’ and ‘weak’

primordialism. In this dichotomy, strong primordialism views ethnic ties as universal,

natural and given in all human association. Weak primordialism on the other hand holds

that ethnic ties and sentiments are deep-seated and non-rational so far as the participants

are concerned. As such, members of ethnic communities feel that their community has

existed ‘from time immemorial’.

Primordialists often interpret contemporary ethnic conflicts as the renewal of age old

antagonisms – ones that antedate the formation of a nation state. This theory could partially

serve to explain ethnic conflict and exclusion in Uganda especially by allegiance to

common ancestry since such myths exist in most ethnic groups in Uganda.

However, primordialism falls short of addressing the non-historical side of Uganda’s

ethnic rivalries. For example, it does not account for the ethnic conflict in Uganda that

originates from political manipulation of the ‘ethnic card’ (Kigongo 1995; Muhereza and

Otim 1998; Storey 2002; Mamdani 2004; Nsamba et al. 2007). Neither does it explain the

conflicts emerging from perceived and actual discrimination, especially in the distribution

of power and other resources (Smith 1994). Moreover, as observed by Okuku (2002), the

primordial conception erroneously looks at ethnicity from a static and negative stance with

a tacit suggestion that ethnic rivalries can never be addressed. But ethnicity is never static

since new forms or characteristics are perpetually created because what is considered

important changes over time. “This flexibility makes it possible for members of ethnic

groups to communicate their ethnicity in different ways” (Poluha 1998, p.33). Poluha

further notes that if only primordial aspects are considered, it gives an impression of ethnic

groups as homogenous and bounded entities. But an ethnic group may never be able to

exist as an island, it lives in interaction and with other groups.

Interpretivists and constructivists on the other hand seek to explain change. Because some

ethnic groups are virtually the creations of those who compete for positions of advantage in

the modern state (Mamdani 2004), most scholars feel that the latter two advance the

stronger argument (see Anderson et al., 1967). This is yet to be established in the context

of ethnicity in Uganda.

However, scholars such as Epstein (1958) and Gluckman (1960) noted that in some

situations, such as in labour relations, appeals to class solidarity dominate appeals to ethnic

identity; in other settings, such as during elections, appeals to ethnic interests dominate

those to class solidarity. These findings were later confirmed in studies by Melson (1971)

and Melson & Wolpe (1970) and gave rise to the notion of ‘situational selection’. They

also provided a point of entry for rational choice theory to approach the study of cultural

politics. According to the rational choice theory, people calculate the costs and benefits of

any action before engaging in it (Scott 2000). Rational choice theories hold that individuals

must anticipate the outcomes of alternative courses of action and calculate that which will

be best for them. Rational individuals choose the alternative that is likely to give them the

greatest satisfaction (Heath 1976: 3; Carling 1992: 27; Coleman 1973).

Thus, with regard to ethnicity, ethnic identification would be based on the perceived

benefits and costs. This manifests ethnicity as a resource to be mobilised, or an instrument

to be used, by particular groups and individuals in pursuit of their political and economic

ends (Smith 1994). As in the social contract theory, members of an ethnic group tacitly

consent to belong to the group in anticipation of some benefit. These benefits are weighed

against life outside the group. In such an arrangement, allegiance to an ethnic group would

be on condition that the reasons for belonging to the group are respected. Short of that the

membership loses meaning and some other sort of organisation would have to be sought.

The notion of ‘situational selection’ suggests that people organise their perceptions and

choices depending on how an issue is framed. Ethnic identities are not eroded (as the

Marxists and modernisation theorists once thought), but rather retained; supplemented with

new identities, such as that of a worker; and, in some settings, activated (Posner 2004).

When class solidarity is valuable, ethnic differences are set aside; when competing for the

spoils of office, they are re-affirmed. Viewed from this perspective, ethnicity can be seen

as a choice or a strategy (Smith 1994), the value of which varies with the situation.

In this situational context of ethnicity, it is important to note the behaviour of leaders who

seek to mobilise collective action or support, be it in the form of a labour or ethnic

movement. As Posner (2004) demonstrates, such leaders too appear to choose

purposefully, assessing the relative advantages of ethnic mobilisation against other means

of recruiting political support.

Certainly, rational choice theory could serve to explain some of the ethnic movements, ties,

and conflicts, especially those that are based on perceived benefits of allegiance or claim to

allegiance to a given ethnic group. However, it underrates the role of the affective element

in ethnic ties. Some people identify with and pay strong allegiance to their ethnic groups

even when there are no political or/and economic benefits in sight. This is what calls for

psychological explanations as offered by psychological theories.

Psychological theories of ethnicity perceive ethnic groups as satisfying an inherent human

need to belong to a group and as allowing group members to maintain or enhance the self-

esteem that comes with belonging to the group. Conflict and intolerance occur when these

psychological satisfactions are somehow threatened by another group or by members of

one's own group (Fearon and Laitin 1996). This would mean that essentially ethnic

consciousness is not exclusive of ‘outsiders’. It only becomes exclusive in the event of a

threat to it. The pyschological theories are important because they help explain ethnic

consciousness and conflict that cannot be traced primordially and that may not as such be

based on rational choice but out of an inner inclination.

However, psychological theories are not sufficient in explaining ethnic consciousness and

conflict. They unjustifiably underrate the role of primordial elements and human

intentionality in ethnic action. In light of the conviction that they are not mutually

exclusive (as portrayed by scholars such as Storey (2002)), our analysis will therefore

synthetically use all the above explored theories to the extent to which they can be used to

explain ethnicity in the Ugandan setting.

Concerns with Ethnicity

As earlier noted, ethnicity has been a recurring theme/subject especially in anthropological

and philosophical studies that are our main focus. There are a couple of reasons why it is

given all this attention.

Ethnicity in itself is not necessarily evil or negative (Mohochi 2002). Kibwana (cited in

Muhochi 2002) makes a distinction between positive and negative ethnicity. He

specifically refers to negative ethnicity as tribalism in reference to the (mis)use of tribal or

ethnic identity to demand or obtain unfair advantage within a national or regional or local

context. Positive ethnicity, in contrast, would refer to the promotion of an ethnic group’s

positive attributes such as language, culture and philosophy. As such, the nature that

ethnicity takes depends on the way it is perceived and managed. The concerns raised in this

section are mainly about negative ethnicity.

In the African context and in Uganda in particular, ethnicity has created enormous impacts

on every facet of nation building (Kigongo 1995). It has been one of the outstanding

impediments to national integration and development in several African states (Chukwu

2002). Among the most important reasons for the concern with ethnicity is the tension

between ethnic groups and the state (MacMillan 2001); and between ethnic groups

themselves resulting into intolerant behaviour and exclusion. The case of Buganda in

Uganda exemplifies the tension between an ethnic group and the state (Mamdani 2004).

Inter-ethnic tension can be exemplified by the Bakiga and the Banyoro conflicts in Kibaale

in Uganda; the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda (Mamdani 2001; Storey 2002).

In the case of Uganda, from the colonial times and with the catalystic force of the colonial

office, ethnic differences/variations have been the basis upon which national politics has

been anchored till today (Nabudere 2009). Kabananukye (2005) observes that from the

constitutional process that led Uganda to independence, ethnic blocks provided the basic

political constituencies with very different and unequal demands from the colonial

government. Buganda, which was the main political actor in the independence struggles

looked at the new nation (Uganda) as a compromise on her own right to exist as an

independent state (Oloka-Onyango 1997). But no other ethnic group would as well wish to

see Buganda offered a special status above theirs. This would be perceived as a mark of

marginalisation. “Although the republican rhetoric continued to dominate official

government propaganda, the concept of Uganda as a republic continued to make little

sense to the citizenry as people simply identified with their ethnic groupings based on

linguistic, socio-cultural and economic identities” (Kabananukye 2005, p.262). Even with

the progress in nationhood realised today, this legacy lives on in Uganda and, on top of

other factors, could be responsible for some of the ethnic tensions we witness today.

It should be noted that in Uganda, like in many other African countries (Wrong 2009),

some people equate political power to economic benefits that have to go to the ethnic

group of the incumbent leader. Thus those who are not in power will either be marginalised

in some way or harbour the feeling that they are being excluded. Okuku (2002) notices that

in Uganda ethnicity has always been more intimately linked to political and economic

conditions, that is, the unequal distribution of and competition for power and wealth.

Ethnicity has played a very significant role in the political upheavals in Uganda during the

post-independence era. Up to now, the role of ethnicity in power struggle continues to

haunt the minds of many Ugandans (Kabananukye 2005). It is true that other factors such

as religion, foreign ideologies and other colonial legacies have contributed toward

turbulent times, but the role of ethnicity (often in together with the other named factors)

plus its attendant exclusion of others has been central.

Uganda’s Ethnic Profile

With over 40 ethnic groups (Marjore 2008), Uganda is one of the African countries that are

so ethnically diverse. The people are predominantly Bantu and mainly live in the south of

the country. Bantu ethnic groups constitute about 70 per cent of Uganda’s population while

Nilotic groups make up about 25 per cent. The Nilotics are mainly composed of the Acholi,

the Langi and the Alur ethnic groups (about 15 percent) from the north; and the Iteso and

Karamojong (about 10 per cent) from the north eastern part of the country (Mwakikagile

2009). Of these, the Baganda in Buganda Kingdom are the largest with 17 per cent of the

country’s population.

The 2002 Uganda Census report places other ethnic groups as follows: Banyankore (9.8 per

cent), Basoga (8.6 per cent), (7.0 per cent), Iteso (6.6 per cent), Langi (6.2 per cent), Acholi

(4.8 per cent), Bagisu (4.7 per cent), Lugbara (4.3 per cent), and other Ugandans from

smaller ethnic groups are put at 30.7 per cent. Most of these ethnic groups are represented in

Kmapala city’s population.

Ethnic Tension as a Colonial Legacy

Ethnic tension in the African context is deeply entrenched in a complex blend of factors

such as myth, history and colonial distortions (Adesina 2002). As stated by Chukwu (2002),

to lay the entire blame for ethnic conflicts on colonization may be erroneous and could be

tantamount to a pretext aimed at avoiding responsibility for our own actions. However,

though it is certainly not the only factor for the ethnic tension prevalent in African countries

such as Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Burundi and others, there is a wide

range of literature pointing to colonial manipulations as one of the key factors (Kigongo

1995; Mamdani 1997; Byarugaba 1998; Nsamba et al. 2009; Nabudere 2009). For example,

it is pointed out that colonial administrative divisions not only contributed to the

cristallisation of ethnic identities but also led to the accentuation of the differences between

ethnic groups (Nsamba et al. 2009).

In his exploration of the ‘legacy of late colonialism’, Mamdani (2004) highlights that British

colonial rule, for example, created tribal hierarchies where they had not existed previously.

Through ethnic affiliations, ‘purer’ and clearer tribal identities were created as the basis for

tribal authorities. Adesina also notes that, in some cases, existing differences between ethnic

groups were exploited for colonial interests through ideologies that promoted the politics of

exclusion.

For the ease of administration, colonialists arbitrarily divided ethnic tribes at the borders

(Samia in Kenya and Uganda; Lugbara in Uganda and DRC; Tutsi in Uganda and Rwanda).

But within countries, especially in the case of Uganda, where possible and practical, districts

were drawn along ethnic lines (Karugire 1980). Consequently, by 1960, tribal royalties were

deeply rooted and the notion of Uganda existed primarily in the minds of Europeans. Thus

Nsamba et al. (2009) argue that the colonial state not only set up, but left in place an

institutional apparatus that promotes ethnic identity. This was inevitable with the colonial

political arrangement that put emphasis on territorial citizenship and rights so as to suppress

nationwide resistance to state power.

In Uganda, Buganda’s relations with Bunyoro have been delicate since independence.

Though the two kingdoms had pre-colonial misunderstandings, they were taken advantage

of and aggravated by the British colonisers. For instance, in appreciation of Buganda’s

collaboration with the British to fight Bunyoro’s Kabalega’s resistance against colonial rule,

parts of Bunyoro were excised and given to Buganda by the British (Byarugaba 1998;

Mwakikagile 2009). Till today that problem has not been resolved. Buhekura, Buruli,

Bulemezi, and part of Singo, which were part of Bunyoro, remain part of Buganda. In the

research we have been carrying out as part of the Pluralism Knowledge Programme, we

found out that the land wrangles in Kibaale District (Bunyoro) have some origins in the fact

that some of the titles of the land are still owned by absentee Baganda landlords.

The British colonialists conveniently treated Buganda as ‘a nation within a nation’. Even

when they abandoned their system of divide and rule and enacted the Local Government

Ordinance in 1949 (Rupesinghe cited in Byaruhanga 1998), the Ordinance did not apply to

Buganda! Buganda was governed by the Uganda agreement of 1900. This seemed to give

Buganda a privileged position in Uganda. This constitutional divide proved a source of

conflict in postcolonial Uganda. Until now, the Buganda question remains a contentious

issue derailing the democratization process in Uganda and standing as a boiling pot of ethnic

tension.

Ochieng (1995) and Byarugaba (1998) observe that there were several forms of tribal

stereotyping that informed recruitment for jobs in colonial Africa. Some of these survive

until today. Some tribes were specifically employed as clerks or foremen. People from

certain tribes could not be servants because they were known to be ‘genetically dishonest’.

He gives an example of Carey Francis, a renowned mathematician, who kept a Luo as a

houseboy and kept a Kikuyu on his shamba (farm). In the same vein Kabananukye cites an

example of a Kampala friend of his who owns a forex bureau. The friend says it is better to

employ a Mukiga or an Alur as an accountant than employ a Muganda. The rationale behind

is that the Kikuyu and Baganda have been stereotyped as thieves while the Luo, Batooro,

Bakiga, and Luhyia as good and trustworthy servants. As Mamdani observes:

Every institution touched by the hand of the colonial state was given a

pronounced regional or nationality character. It became a truism that a soldier

must be a northerner, a civil servant a southerner and a merchant an Asian

(1983, p.10).

The army was recruited from people regarded as martial. Thus it was mainly dominated by

Nubians –Langi, Acholi, Mahdi, and Kakwa- all from the northern part of Uganda. This

practice was maintained until 1986 when the National Resistance Army took power

(Byarugaba 1998). This differentiation amongst the colonized subjects is seen by Okuku

(p.220) to have inevitably led to the crystallization of ethnic and racial consciousness.

People came to identify themselves as different from others and this also came to

characterize the relationship between the different ethnic groups.

In Nabudere’s (2009) view, the manner the 'divide and rule' policy was used by colonialists

was so intense that it was socialised in the consciousness of the Ugandan political elite who

later became the rulers of post-colonial states. He believes that it is for reason that ethnic

manipulation has become an important tool of political power and political control and

political management in contemporary Africa, more specifically in the Ugandan context.

Ethnicity and Pluralism

Pluralism is a relatively new concept in the sense in which it is used here. In some writings,

pluralistic society is one that is diverse (see Okuku 2002). According to Eck of the Harvard

University Pluralism Project, pluralism is not diversity alone, rather, it connotes the

energetic engagement with diversity. In the words of Marty, “speak of “pluralism” and you

venture to a terrain in which people have thought about what to do about diversity” (2007,

p.16). Whereas diversity tends to be a given, pluralism is not; it is an achievement. Mere

diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our

societies1. The peaceful accommodation of ethnic differences remains key to successful

democratic development (Berman et al. 2004).

It is further clarified that pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of

understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does

not require people of different ethnic groups to know anything about one another. It is thus

seen as too thin a foundation for a world of ethnic difference and proximity. It does nothing 1 (http://pluralism.org/pluralism/what_is_pluralism.php viewed 3rd March 2010).

to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the costly stereotype, the half-

truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence.

Unlike tolerance, pluralism invites diverse people to come as they are and be themselves,

with all their differences and angularities, pledged only to the common civic demands of

citizenship. It is yet to be established whether Ugandan society is pluralistic or merely

tolerant. Our ongoing PKP research in Mpigi has for example already showed that, contrary

to popular belief, to a big extent people are just tolerant since entrants have to adapt to the

natives’ cultures in order to be accepted.

Marger (cited in Mohochi 2002) makes a distinction between ‘equalitarian’ and

‘inequalitarian pluralism’. Equalitarian pluralism involves holding together various ethnic

groups through the consensual allegiance to a common state. On the other hand,

inequalitarian pluralism holds different groups together through coercion. They are

forcefully brought together and forced to accept and live with each other. Mohochi believes

that equalitarian plurarism is more sustainable because the values lived are appreciated. In

view of Marger’s dichotomy, it will be important in our study to establish the nature of

pluralism where it will be manifested.

Pluralism is in opposition to exclusion. According to Silver (1994), exclusion is a socially

constructed concept that can depend on an idea of what is considered ‘normal’ to draw lines

between the acceptable and unacceptable, those to be allowed in and those to be left out. In

an ethnic context, the ethnicity or adaptatability to ethnic standards would be the defining

criteria. Looked at from Sen’s (2000) capabilities and functionings approach, social

exclusion can thus be seen as a process leading to a state in which it is more difficult for

certain individuals and groups to achieve certain ‘functionings’. By functionings is meant

things that an individual is able to do or be in leading a life, such as having a healthy body,

being educated, having self-respect, participating in community life, and so on. On the other

hand, ‘capabilities’ are combinations of various functionings which allow an individual to

lead the kind of life he or she values. The impossibility to reach a functioning leads to a state

of deprivation, and so the ‘state’ of social exclusion can be defined as a combination of

some relevant deprivations. It is important to ascertain the functionings and capabilities that

are blocked by ethnic exclusion in Uganda and the dynamics at play within such exclusion.

It should as well be noted that pluralism is not synonymous to social integration. The latter

has been defined as “the process of promoting the values, relations and institutions that

enable all people to participate in social, economic and political life on the basis of equality

of rights, equity and dignity” (Ferguson 2008). Social integration can also imply integration

on poor terms or cultural homogenisation, which do not signify pluralism. Social integration

could as well involve the removal of the identities of the diverse elements (such as ethnic

groups in this case) being integrated. This may not only be uncalled for but also non-viable

in the context of ethnicity, especially where ethnic attachments are as strong as in Ugandan

society.

In Uganda pluralism is mainly understood as unity in diversity (Kigongo 1995). This goes to

imply national unity across lines of difference. In the National objectives and directive

principles of state policy, it is specifically stated:

i) All organs of State and people of Uganda shall work towards the promotion of national

unity, peace and stability.

ii) Every effort shall be made to integrate all the peoples of Uganda while at the same time

recognising the existence of their ethnic, religious, ideological, political and cultural

diversity.

iii) Everything shall be done to promote a culture of cooperation, understanding,

appreciation, tolerance and respect for each other's customs, traditions and beliefs

(Uganda Constitution 1995).

In the above sense, the understanding of pluralism in the Ugandan context seems to

incorporate national unity through tolerance, social integration, cooperation, appreciation,

understanding and respect. But these concepts are not neutral in themselves and may

operationally be difficult. It is not clear what each of them specifically means and how it

ought to be executed. Perhaps this may not be easy to specifically lay down since different

settings and conditions may call for different operational measures with regard to each of the

concepts of pluralism highlighted above. This conceptual elasticity/flexibility as such

embodies both strengths and weaknesses. With such terms undefined, ethnically conflicting

groups may all claim to be observing the ideals of pluralism outlined in the Constitution

though in varying forms. That way, the lack of conceptual clarity with regard to pluralism

may harbour tendencies towards exclusion.

(a) Gaps, silences and limitations

The breadth of literature available on ethnicity, socio-economic exclusion and pluralism is

of great importance for this study both conceptually and methodologically. As illustrated in

the literature reviewed above, a lot of research has been done on ethnic expressions,

shapers of ethnic identity, and factors for ethnic conflict. There is extensive literature on

the roots of ethnic conflict in African countries. This is done through a number of

theoretical perspectives as explored above. All the theories have some strengths in

explaining ethnicity though they cannot sufficiently serve that purpose when employed

independently and as though they were mutually exclusive.

A comprehensive application of the explored theories in the explanation of ethnic socio-

economic inclusion/exclusion and tension in the context of Uganda was not reflected in

any of the sources. Without such a comprehensive analysis we might at best come out with

reductionist accounts of ethnicity which distort reality.

However, there is a paucity of literature exploring the links and dynamics of ethnicity and

socio-economic inclusion/exclusion in a cosmopolitan (urban) setting. In the Ugandan

setting, ethnic conflict in rural settings tends to involve two to four ethnic groups. The

urban scenario with a multitude of ethnic groups does not take on the same dynamics as the

rural, and the driving forces may differ in some details. Therefore researching on the

dynamics of ethnicity and socio-economic inclusion/exclusion in the urban setting is

crucial in clearing the illusions that come with a generalised approach to ethnicity with no

regard to rural-urban differentials.

Perceptions are a strong determinant of action. But there is little research exploring the

perceived relationship between ethnicity and socio-economic inclusion/exclusion,

especially in urban settings. Such research is especially crucial about the Ugandan society

today where there is growing ethnic tension based on such perceptions.

Though pluralism is a relatively new concept, what is commonly referred to as unity in

diversity in Uganda seems to mean the same thing. This study will not therefore be

approaching it as a completely new concept. Suggestions have been given on how unity in

diversity can be achieved (see Kigongo 1995). However, there is a dearth of field studies

done to explore the spaces for pluralism that exist amidst the ethnic diversity in Uganda,

particularly in an urban setting.

6. Concise Statement of the Research Problem and Key Research Question(s)

Statement of the Research Problem

Uganda is occupied by over 40 ethnic groups. Of these, the Baganda form the largest

group, comprising almost 17% of the population and live in the south. Other significant

ethnic groups are Ankole (8%), Iteso (8%), Basoga (8%,) Bakiga 7%, Banyarwanda (6%),

Langi (6%), Bagisu (5%), Acholi (4%), Lugbara (4%) (Marjore 2008). Ideally, Uganda’s

wealth of ethnic diversity would constitute an opportunity for progress through mutuality

by which the different groups complement each other for socio-economic development

(Seymour, 2000; Elbadawi cited in Modo 2002; Kabananukye 2004). As viewed by

Amutabi, ethnic diversity would encourage “constructive competition and innovativeness

that are some of the attributes of a development dynamism” (cited in Chukwu 2002, p.44).

So ethnic diversity in itself is not as such a negative social attribute (Mohochi 2002).

However, ethnicity as well constitutes a potential threat to social harmony/ national

integrity. For instance, the prejudice and discrimination that sometimes comes with

ethnicity provides ground for discriminative competition, divisive ethnic manipulation and

conflict for the scarce resources such as power, wealth and prestige (Olzak 1998; Chukwu

2002; Nabudere 2009; Modo 2002).

Ethnicity plays a significant role in Uganda's politics (Nsamba et al. 2007), religiouos,

economic and social relations. Whereas ethnicity does not constitute a well-defined line for

policy-based exclusion or inclusion today, in some cases it can be seen or perceived to

motivate socio-economic discrimination. Though they had gone down in the early years of

the current government (1986 to the late 1990s), perceptions and sentiments of ethnic

marginalisation and domination have resurfaced in Uganda. For example, “there is a

widespread perception that he [president Museveni] has favoured his own ethnic group

when it comes to government positions and all attendant benefits” (Seela 2009, p.12). A

number of Baganda (one of the biggest ethnic groups in Uganda and in Kampala) harbour

a feeling that Buganda is being marginalised through the suffocation of her interests and

refusal to grant her demands such as for federal status and for the return of her property

that was confiscated by the Obote Government in 1966 (Nabudere 2009). In some cases,

such sentiments have culminated into calls for cessation - such as by some Baganda and

Acholi politicians – due to a feeling that within the current state arrangement they are

being marginalised.

In September 2009, there were ethnic riots in spread over the Buganda region that were

sparked off by the King being stopped from visiting one of his constitutional provinces.

Government argued that some of the members of the minority Baganda sub-ethnic group

(the Banyala) of the area had not invited the Kabaka and that they wanted a separate status

from Buganda. In the violence that ensued, people from western Uganda (where the

current president comes from) and some other non-Baganda spontaneously became a target

and were molested, forced to sing the Buganda Anthem and humiliated in a number of

ways being taken responsible for the marginalisation of the Baganda in their own land

(Seela 2009).

The war in Northern Uganda was also fueled, among other factors, by undercurrents of

ethnic marginalisation. Odoi-Tanga (2009), for example, argues that the war that has

dragged on for over twenty years in Acholiland (land of the Acholis in Nothern Uganda)

has been partly a product of extensive manipulation of politicised ethnicity and ethnic

stereotyping. As is already apparent, these tendencies could easily fan more inter-ethnic

suspicion/strife that could in turn become a hindrance to the construction of a pluralistic

societyand national unity in general. In light of the sentiments and tensions explored

above, questions still abound as to: the perceived relationships between ethnicity and

socio-economic exlusion; the chain of factors perpetuating sentiments/tendencies of ethnic

exclusion/marginalisation and intolerance; and the existing spaces for pluralism in a

country as ethnically diverse as Uganda.

Key Research Question

What are the perceived relationships between ethnicity and socio-economic exclusion, and

what spaces exist for pluralism within the perceptions in a cosmopolitan setting?

Subsidiary Research Questions

i) How is ethnically-motivated exclusion perceived to be manifested in the area?

ii) What are the perceived relationships between ethnicity and socio-economic inclusion?

iii) What factors determine pluralism in urban multi-ethnic communities?

iv) What are the existing spaces for pluralism amidst ethnic diversity in Kampala?

7. Research Methodology and Design

Research Design

Case Study Design

A case study design with specific selection of Kampala will be adopted for the study. The

design involves detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman 2008; Odiya

2009). Kampala is mainly chosen for the study due to the fact that it is a multi-ethnic entity

accommodating people from most ethnic groups in Uganda (Mwakikagale 2009) hence

being an appropriate case. Though it is hoped that the case design is expected to enable us

to verify theoretical positions and to study the link between our variables in Kampala’s

unique urban setting, we also hope to instrumentally use the findings for explanation of

other related or similar cases. The case study design will be both descriptive and

explanatory. The specific questions of the study require both description of some of the

issues under study and explanations on why some things happen the way they do and how

they relate.

Qualitative Approach

The research will mainly be qualitative in approach due to the assumed value of context

and setting and so as to allow for deep understanding of the participants’ lived experiences

(Marshall and Rossman 1995) with regard to ethnicity and exclusion. As proposed by

Thomas (1949), in the study of human experience, it is essential to know how people

define/explain their situations.

Ethnographic Design

Ethnographic methodology will mainly be used but it will be the sort that accommodates

interviews on top of the participant observation method. Ethnographic research involves

the immersion of the researcher in a social setting for some time in order to observe and

listen with a view to appreciate/understand the social practices under study (Willis and

Trondman 2000; Bryman 2008). It has strength of resulting in “richly written accounts that

respect the irreducibility of human experience…, acknowledges the ‘role of theory…, as

well as the researcher’s own role…, and views humans as part object/part subject”

(O’Reilly 2009, p.3). Such a design is deemed effective in studying perceptions and

understanding people’s interpretation of occurrences/ phenomena.

Research Population

The research targets all categories of people from different ethnic groups and from all

identifiable relevant social classes/groupings (casual workers, the elite, cultural leaders,

politicians, government officials, businesspeople, youths). It is assumed that there might be

some differentials in the different groupings/classes in their experiences with ethnic

inclusion/exclusion and in their ethnic perceptions.

Sample Selection

Some respondents will be selected through the use of accidental/convenience and

judgemental/purposive sampling techniques. “A convenience sample is one that is simply

available to the researcher by virtue of its accessibility” (Bryman 2008, p.183). This

technique normally raises questions of representatives but the technique is deemed most

fitting where chances will present themselves to gather data from a convenience sample in

an opportunity too good to be lost. The social classes/groupings (ethnic groups,

occupational groups, and others) will be identified purposively so as to ensure that they are

all represented in the study. This would ensure an inclusive account and therefore boost

internal validity. But within the groupings, purposive (for identifying key resource

respondents, especially for historical accounts helpful in identifying people’s perceptions

with regard to ethnicity and socio-economic exclusion); snowball sampling (where one

respondent would lead the researcher to another one where necessary); and convenience

sampling will be used.

Data Collection Methods and Instruments

As ethnography draws on a family of methods (O’Reilly 2009, p.3), data collection will be

through indepth interviews, adhoc/informal interviews, life histories, participant

observation (both overt and covert), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and documentary

analysis. Each of the methods will be used to called data on all the research questions. In

order to avoid a distorted picture (Cohen et al. 2007), none of the research questions will

be answered by the exclusive use of any of the methods. This methodological triangulation

is aimed at cross-checking, enhancing the credibility (Hesse-Biber 2010) and verifying the

data collected through the various methods.

Indepth interviews will mainly be with key informants who will be deemed to have

privileged or extensive knowledge on the issues under research. Among these key

informants will be purposively identified members of different ethnic groups who have

lived in the area for over five years. Interviews (indepth, adhoc, and Focus Group) are

generally preferred because of their strength of getting large amounts of data quickly

(Marshall and Rossman 1995).

FGDs are hoped to enable us to acquire a wide variety of information across a large

number of subjects in a short period and to come with the psychologically-oriented

advantages of group settings. Life histories will be employed to serve the purpose of

drawing rich and objective data based on life experiences of a few selected respondents

(from different ethnic groups). Triangularly combined with observation, interviews are

expected to lead us to integral data. The validity of the instruments to be used within these

methods will be duly ensured by pretesting and peer review. Documentary analysis will

mainly entail critical examination of existing relevant documentary sources for unobtrusive

data. Content analysis will specifically be used to explore and analyse perceptions on

ethnically motivated socio-economic exclusion as they have featured in some of the

popular media (newspapers, radio, TV, and online discussions).

Ethical Considerations

As highlighted by Cohen et al., “a major ethical dilemma in research is that which requires

researchers to strike a balance between the demand placed on them as professional

scientists in pursuit of truth, and their subjects’ rights and values potentially threatened by

the research” (2007, p.51). The researcher will therefore endeavour to seek the informed

consent of all respondents. They will be informed about the nature and motivations of the

study so that they can knowledgeably make up their mind to participate or not. We ground

this procedure on the belief that all subjects have the right to freedom and self-

determination.

The researcher will make all efforts possible to avoid any sort of psychological and

physical harm to the respondents. This will involve avoiding careless reference to

offensive ethnic stereotypes, assumptions and other statements hurtful to the respondents.

Due caution will be taken in reference to emotional events such as the September riots and

others as shall/may arise in the course of the study.

Where respondents would wish to participate in the study without their identity being

revealed, their request will be granted. Due anonymity will therefore be observed. This not

only for the moral of respecting their wishes but also to ensure their security and avoid any

harm that would otherwise occur to them.

Anticipated Structure of the Thesis

Preliminary/ Frontis pages

Chapter One: General Introduction

Introduction

Background of the Study

Definition of Key Concepts

Thesis Statement/ Statement of the Problem

Research Questions

Scope of the Study

Justification of the Study

Significance of the Study

Limitations of the Study

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Sub-sections generated from the Research Questions

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Introduction

Research Design

Study Area

Population of the Study

Sampling Procedures

Data Collection Methods and Instruments

Quality Control Measures

Data Management and Analysis

Ethical Considerations

Chapter Four: Presentation, Analysis, and Discussion of Findings

Introduction

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Sub-sectioning in line with the Research Questions

Chapter Five: Theoretical Implications of the Findings

Chapter Six: General Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

Summary of Findings

Conclusions from the Study

Recommendations

Suggestions for Further Research

Research planning

Provide an outline of the approximate timetable of the various stages of the proposed

research (per year, steps in research, work load, output)

Date Activity

October 2010 - January 2011 Developing research tools

Reviewing literature

February – April 2011 Training research assistants

Pretesting instruments and recogniscance

May – August 2011 Data collection

September 2011 - January 2012 Data analysis

February - June 2012 Report and article writing

August – October 2012 Work on second draft

December 2012 – March 2013 Work on third draft

8. Link with the Promoting Pluralism Knowledge Program / Kosmopolis Institute of

the University for Humanistics Research Program

Please describe the link with the Promoting Pluralism Knowledge Program in the context

of the regional program (India, Indonesia or Uganda) and the overall knowledge

program.

Please describe the link with the Kosmopolis Institute- UvH research program

In the research in the Promoting Pluralism Knowledge Programme (PKP) we (the Uganda

Martyrs University group) are carrying out in Mpigi, it has come to our notice that

ethnicity is a very sensitive element of social diversity that needs to be handled cautiously

for social harmony/inclusiveness. We observed that, unlike in many other societies,

religion seems to be less of a threat to pluralism in Uganda as compared to ethnicity. This

PhD research is majorly linked to the PKP programme by the fact that it focuses on an

issue (ethnicity, especially in an urban setting) so crucial to be analytically understood and

addressed in the promotion of pluralism. It has the potential of shaping future trajectories,

questions and the scope of the PK Programme.

Socially and politically, this research draws its relevance from the fact that in Uganda,

though at different degrees at different points in time, ethnicity has consistently been an

impediment to social cohesion and national unity. I am not by any means suggesting that it

has not been researched about before but I do believe that its quasi-mutative nature since

independence requires constant research to keep critical track of its trends, motivations and

mitigation possibilities. On the cultural side, as earlier stated, the diversity and wealth of

cultures in Uganda should be a strong foundation for social development. But this can only

happen if cultural differences that come together with ethnic diversity do not translate into

points of exclusion. The knowledge to be generated through this research would, by

expanding on the knowledge for pluralism, be socially, politically and culturally

significant.

9. Expected Academic Output, Strategic – and/or Practical significance of the study

(a) List the expected academic output (e.g. Doctoral thesis as a monograph and/or

series of refereed articles, handbooks, conference papers etc)

a) Academic Output of the Research

- Addition to literature on ethnicity and inclusion/exclusion in Uganda’s urban context

- Critical/comprehensive application and testing of ethnicity theories to real contexts

- Research report

- Academic articles on some of the research questions

- Methodological knowledge for ethnographic research on ethnicity

- Revision of distance learning modules of MA in Development Studies – Distance Learning

(specifically the Development Ethics and Sustainable Development modules which I

facilitate)

b) Output that is Relevant to Practitioners in the Field

- Knowledge that can be based on by civil society in their work, especially in the area of

advocacy for national unity.

- `The thesis will carry practical recommendations on the promotion of pluralism (for civil

society and government). To the extent possible, copies will be availed to relevant bodies

- Generation of knowledge on the dynamics of ethnic inclusion/exclusion that can act as a

basis for policy making

- Pluralism advocacy newspaper articles based on the findings

10. Bibliography

Adesina, O. C. (2002). ‘Ethnic Profiling and Yoruba Irredentism: A Political Economy’

Carabine, D. and Ssemusu, L. L. (eds), Ethnicity in an Age of Globalisation, UMU Studies

in Contemporary Africa (4). Kisubi: Marianum Press.

Anderson, C. W., F. R. von der Mehden, and F. Young (1967). Issues of Political

Development. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aasland, A. And Flotten, T. (2001). ‘Ethnicity and Social Exclusion in Estonia and

Lativa’, Europe-Asia Studies, 53 (7), pp. 1023-1049.

Barth, F. (ed.) (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown.

Berman, B., Eyoh D. and Kymlicka, W. (2004). ‘Preface’ In Berman, B., Eyoh D. and

Kymlicka, W. (eds). Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa. Oxford, Athens: James Currey,

Ohio University press.

Bras, P. R. (1991). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. New Delhi,

Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods, 3rd Edn. Oxford, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Byarugaba, E. F. (1998). ‘Ethnopolitics and the State – Lessons from Uganda’ Salih, M. A.

M. And Markakis, J. (eds). Ethnicity and the State in Eastern Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska

Afrikainstitutet, 180-189.

Carling, A. (1992). Social Divisions. London: Verso.

Chazan, N., Mortimer, R.., Ravenhill, J., Rothchild, D. (1992). Politics and Society in

Contemporary Africa, 2nd Edn. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Chukwu, C. (2002). ‘Ethnicity and Nation Building: An African Perspective’ In Carabine,

D. and Ssemusu, L. L. (eds), Ethnicity in an Age of Globalisation, UMU Studies in

Contemporary Africa (4). Kisubi: Marianum Press.

Coleman, J. (1973). The Mathematics of Collective Action. London: Heinemann.

Geertz, C. (1963). ‘The Intergrative Revolution’, in C. Geertz (ed.) Old Societies and New

States. New York: Free Press.

Epstein, A. L. (1958). Politics in an Urban African Community. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

Fearon, J. D. and Laitin, D. D. (1996). ‘Explaining interethnic cooperation’, American

Political Science Review, from http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-

213107_ITM [viewed 11th MArch 2010].

Ferguson, C. (2008). 'Promoting Social Integration: Background Paper for Discussion',

Report commissioned by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

(UNDESA) for the Expert Group Meeting on Promoting Social Integration, Helsinki,

Finland, 8-10 July

Gluckman, M. (1960). ‘Tribalism in Modern British Central Africa.’ Cahiers d'Etudes

Africaines 1(1): 55-70.

Heath, A. (1976). Rational Choice and Social Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. New

York, London: The Guilford Press.

Innes, J. L. (2005). ‘Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and training in foretry and forest

research, The Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 81 (3), pp. 324-329.

Kabananukye, K. I. B. (2004). ‘Ethnic Diversity: Implications to Development’ in

Mukama R. And Murindwa-Rutanga (eds). Confronting Twenty-first Century Challenges:

Analyses and Re-dedications by National and International Scholars. Kampala: Faculty of

Social Sciences, Makerere University.

Karugire, Samuel (1980). A Political History of Uganda. Kampala: Fountain Publishers.

Kigongo, J. K. (1995). ‘Ethical Problems of National Unity in Uganda’, in P. G. Okoth, M.

Muranga, and E. O. Ogwang (eds). Uganda: A Century of Existence. Kampala: Fountain

Publishers.

Mamdani, M. (1983). Imperialism and Fascism in Uganda. London: Heinemann.

___________ (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the

Genocide in Rwanda. New Jersey: Princeton University.

___________ (2004). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late

Colonialism. Kampala: Fountain Publishers.

Marjore (2008). ‘Ethnic and Political Diversity in Uganda: Central Themes to the

Knowledge Programme’ from http://www.hivos.net/Hivos-Knowledge-

Programme/Themes/Promoting-Pluralism/Topics/Ethnic-and-Political-Diversity-in-

Uganda [viewed on July 30th, 2010].

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd

Edn.

Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Marty, M. E. (2007). ‘Pluralisms’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 612.

Melson, R. (1971). ‘Ideology and Inconsistency: The Case of the 'Cross Pressured'

Nigerian Voter’, American Political Science Review 65(1), 161-71.

Melson, R. and H. Wolpe (1970). ‘Modernization and the Politics of Communalism.’

American Political Science Review 44(4), 1112-1130.

Modo, I. V. O (2002). ‘A Second Look at Culture and Ethnicity in Africa’ In Carabine, D.

and Ssemusu, L. L. (eds), Ethnicity in an Age of Globalisation, Uganda Martyrs University

(UMU) Studies in Contemporary Africa (4). Kisubi: Marianum Press.

Mohochi, E. (2002). ‘Language, Ethnicity, and Politics in National Development: The

Kenyan Experience’ In Carabine, D. and Ssemusu, L. L. (eds), Ethnicity in an Age of

Globalisation, Uganda Martyrs University (UMU) Studies in Contemporary Africa (4).

Kisubi: Marianum Press.

Muhereza, F. E. and Otim, P. O. (1998). ‘Neutralising Ethnicity in Uganda’ In Salih, M. A.

M. And Markakis, J. (eds). Ethnicity and the State in Eastern Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska

Afrikainstitutet, 190-203.

Mwakikagile, G. (2009). Ethnicity and National Identity in Uganda: The Land and its

People. Dar es Salaam: New Africa Press.

Nabudere, D. (2009). ‘Ethnicity And Conflict in Uganda - is National Consensus

Possible?’, The Daily Monitor, September 20th

, 2009. From

http://allafrica.com/stories/200909210758.html [viewed on July 30th, 2010].

Nsamba, A. M., Oloka-Onyango, J., and Dolan, C. (2009). ‘Breeding Fragmentation?

Issues in the Policy and Practice of Decentralisation in Uganda, Beyond Juba: Building

Consensus on Sustainable Peace in Uganda. Issue Paper No. 1.

Odoi-Tanga, F. (2009). Politics, Ethnicity and Conflict in Post-Independent Acholiland,

Uganda 1962-2006. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria – South Africa.

Okuku, J. (2002). ‘Ethnicity, State Power and the Democratisation Process in Uganda’,

Discussion Paper 17. Uppsala: Nordisca Afrikainstitutet.

Oloka-Onyango, J. (1997). ‘The Question of Buganda in Contemporary Ugandan Politics’,

Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 15 (2), July.

Olzak, S. (1998). ‘Ethnic Conflict in Core and Periphery States’, Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 21(2), 187-217.

O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key Concepts in Ethnography. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,

Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.

Poluha, E. (1998). ‘Ethnicity and Democracy – A Viable Alliance’ In Salih, M. A. M. And

Markakis, J. (eds). Ethnicity and the State in Eastern Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska

Afrikainstitutet, 30-41.

Posner, D. (2004). ‘The Political Significance of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and

Tumbukas are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi.’ Los Angeles: Department of

Political Science, University of California.

Scott, J. (2000). ‘Rational Choice Theory’ in G. Browning, A. Halcli, and F. Webster.

(eds). Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. Sage Publications.

Seela, U. (2009). ‘Uganda Riots Revisited: A Conversation with Emily Drani and John De

Coninck’, Pluralism Working Paper No. 4.

Sen, A. (2000). ‘Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny'. Asian

Development Bank.

Seymour, M. (2000). ‘On Redefining the Nation’, in Miscevic (ed). Nationalism and

Ethnic Conflict: Philosophical Perspectives. Chicageo and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.

Shils, E. (1957). ‘Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties’, Bitish Journal of Sociology

7, 113-145.

Silver, H. (1994). ‘Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms’, International

Labour Review, 133, (5-6).

Smith, A. D. (1994). ‘The Politics of Culture: Ethnicity and Nationalism’, Companion

Encyclopedia of Anthropology: Humanity, Culture and Social Life. New York: Routledge.

Storey, Andy (2002). ‘Ethnic Scapegoating: Elite Manipulation and Social Forces in

Rwanda’ In Carabine, D. and Ssemusu, L. L. (eds), Ethnicity in an Age of Globalisation,

Uganda Martyrs University (UMU) Studies in Contemporary Africa (4). Kisubi: Marianum

Press.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2002). Uganda Population and Housing Cencus.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. Glencoe: The Free Press.

Willis, P. And Trondman, M. (2000). ‘Manifesto for Ethnography’, Ethnography, 1(1): 5-

16.

Wrong, M. (2009). It’s Our Turn to Eat: The Story of a Kenyan Whistleblower. London:

Harper Collins Publishers.

11. Appendixes

(a) Short CV of PhD Candidate

......................................................................................................

(b) Certified copy of qualifying degree

..........................................................................................

(c) Additional documentation

........................................................................................................................

Statement of Approval by UvH Board of Professors

Names and signatures of Supervisory Committee:

(1) UvH Promoter

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(2) External Second – or Co-promoter (Promoting Pluralism Knowledge Program

partner)

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………..………………………………………………………………………………………

(3) UvH Co-Promoter (Kosmopolis Institute)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(4) PhD Candidate

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

This research proposal was considered by the UvH Board of Professors on

………… ………………..(date) and was ranked

1 2 3 4 5

1: Disapproved and not to be re-considered

2: To be reconsidered after major revision of the theory AND method section

3: To be reconsidered after major revision of the theory OR method section

4: Approved with minor adjustments

5: Approved

Date ………………………………

Name and Signature Chair UvH Board of Professors:

Name: _______________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________