The Feudal Mode of Production in pre-colonial Uganda

The class analysis of the Ugandan society today contains a sentence that caused some requests. It is this one: “Before the arrival of the British colonialists most of Uganda already was a class society, a feudal one under the rule of local kings, such as the Kabaka of Buganda.”¹ I will clarify this passage more in the following.

Confusions about the essence of feudalism

It is obvious that in East Africa class societies were already existing. The romanticization of the pre-colonial society as a classless society is, except for a few cases, just an illusion. Mostly the pre-class society was already so far away that it became part of legends. Daudi Waisawa reports from a tale of the Basoga:

“It is said that a very long time ago (even before the time of the floods), there were, in the country called Busoga, people whose clans are not known and who wandered from place to place. They made no houses for themselves to sleep in; they just slept in the bush.”²

Despite it being legendary, there seems to be some truth in it since this describes the situation of a tribe that is still composed of hunters and gatherers. But there are also clear documents that prove the existence of class societies in East Africa.

The Kilwa Chronicles³ are one of many documents that prove the existence of a slave-owner society on the Eastern coast of Africa among the Swahili people. The Kenyan comrades also acknowledge the existence of a society in transition from slavery to feudalism⁴

Source material about Uganda before the 19th century is very lacking. That creates a wide field of speculation. Archie Mafeje wrote in 1973 in his “Agrarian Revolution and the Land Question in Buganda”:

“It is still a question whether 18th and 19th century Buganda was a ´feudal´ society or not. For those who treat the dyadic nature of the relationship between lord and vassal as the crucial variable and less so the association between office and landholding, Buganda had not reached the feudal stage by the time of the arrival of Europeans in the 19th century. Those for whom association of office with estate and dependent tenure is equally crucial, Buganda had entered the feudal stage by the middle of the 19th century.”⁵

Mafeje sided with those who rejected the feudal character of Buganda and other East African kingdoms before the arrival of the British colonialists and fell into a deep pit of confusion. This also led to the creation of the ambiguous term “tributary mode of production” which is often just equated to a renamed form of the alleged “Asiatic mode of production”⁶ that Marx assumed and Engels later corrected to be just a form of feudalism⁷. Mafeje might still recognize the following: “It seems indisputable that the foundations of every society are economic.”⁸ That is a correct truism. With that being said nothing yet is said. Also when accusing “Marxists” (he does not even give one concrete example!) to see tribal societies as “societies without mode of production”. That claim is absurd to make against Marxists since Marxism is based with its historical materialism on the fact that all forms of society have a mode of production (besides the obvious fact that Mafeje makes an accusation that he does not even try to prove at all).

The ironic thing is that Mafeje does not even deny the existence of class society in Uganda before colonization but gives the feudal relations just other names, such as “patron-client-relations”. In the end the question if feudalism is the suitable term or if the “Asiatic mode of production” needs to be renamed and pressed into an African corset a mere theoretical question of which the core is the lack of characteristics of feudalism that developed in Europe over time and did not exist from the start. Mafeje ends his book with more open questions than answers. No wonder that in the Codesria Book Series edition of the chapter on the “tributary mode of production” it is called a mere “hypothesis” in title.

This shows the confusion of African theoreticians about what the essence of feudalism is. Marx used the term “tribute” in his 3rd volume of “Das Kapital” a bit loosely:

“It is furthermore evident that in all forms in which the direct labourer remains the ´possessor´ of the means of production and labour conditions necessary for the production of his own means of subsistence, the property relationship must simultaneously appear as a direct relation of lordship and servitude, so that the direct producer is not free; a lack of freedom which may be reduced from serfdom with enforced labour to a mere tributary relationship.”⁹

What Marx wrote here shows that serfdom is not a necessary condition for feudalism and that the use of the term of “tribute” by Marx and Engels has nothing to do with establishing another mode of production. In case some of the readers might want to know about the whole controversy and vagueness of the term “tributary mode of production”, the article “Marxism, the State, and the Tributary Mode of Production” by Josh Holroyd is to be recommended¹⁰.

To make clear that feudalism is about the mode of production and not about formal relations first of all, I will give an excursion into feudalism in Europe and its changes over time.

Excursion: Feudalism in Europe

It might be true that on the Ugandan territory there was never hereditary serfdom like in Europe. But that hereditary serfdom like it existed in Europe was not there from the beginning of the feudal society. That was just coming up after the 9th century. It always coexisted with feudal forms of exploitation of free peasants and urban dwellers via taxation.

The term feudalism itself comes from the Latin feudum, a term for renting land which would later develop into the term feud or fief in English. It shows that hereditary serfdom is not a necessary condition for it to exist but the ownership of land by a class of landlords.

Tithing in Uganda is today only known as a due to the church parish someone belongs to. Tithing in feudal Germany was very connected to feudalism. Of course there was the tithe for the church. The Book Leviticus says: “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’s. It is holy to the LORD.”¹¹ This was pretty much confirmed by Jesus in his polemical debates with the Pharisees¹². The reason that the tithing today is not exactly 10% of the income anymore but a different, but mostly lower, number is because of what Paul wrote: “So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.”¹³ Only the Mormons pay until today exactly 10% of their income to their church because in the Book of Mormon it is written: “Even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.”¹⁴ So much to the tithing of the church.

The same word, tithe (Zehnt), was used in German for feudal taxation as well. This taxation did not have to be exactly 10% of the yield but could exceed it by far. The reason that the same term was in use also has a biblical background. The First Book of Samuel says about the rights of a king:

“He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants.”¹⁵

As mentioned, the tenth for the feudal overlord was not necessarily only 10% of the yield. This shows that the Bible was not the source of the feudal tithe but just used as a “divine” legitimization for the rule of the aristocracy.

Serfdom was abolished in Prussia in 1807 and in Russia in 1861. This did not lead to the abolishing of feudalism at all due to the fact that the peasants could remain with some land they used to till on as a feud but had to pay it off. To that comes that most of them were small peasants that had to again rent land from their former feudal overlords. This just meant to transform the feudal relations into formally capitalist ones¹⁶.

The feudal character of pre-colonial Buganda

The Kabaka originally did not hold much power until the late 17th century when he became the undisputed head of the Kingdom of Buganda. The centralization of power went so far that the Bataka (clan leaders) were directly appointed by the Kabaka¹⁷. That made them fully dependent on the mercy of the Kabaka and turned them into mere administrators. The Bataka therefore could not be called a class in the Marxist sense anymore since they owned no means of production anymore, unlike the Kabaka who was the owner of the land. Walter Rusch describes the abundance of power the following way:

“The Kabaka was the undisputed nominal owner of the entire ground and soil in Buganda and could decide over it at will. He did not only have the right to demand an annual ground rent in form of dues and socage, but also had the absolute power of decision and power of control over the entire territory of Buganda.”¹⁸

Due to turning the Bataka into mere administrators of the fiefdoms of the Kabaka, an organization by clan became inefficient, so that a territorial administration based on Saza (provinces) to be created¹⁹. The only “autonomy” of the Bataka was that, in case they had been relocated, often took the Bakopi under their administration with them²⁰.

Archie Mafeje wrote that Buganda was divided into two main classes: The Bakopi (peasants) and the Bami (lords). The Bakopi part is correct, but when having in mind that the Kabaka was the supreme lord, then the Bami as an aristocracy were pretty weak. The royal family of the Kabaka is divisioned in Abalangira (princes) and Abambejja (princesses). They were the actually important feudal class, not the Bami that got subordinated under the ruling dynasty. There were also minor classes and social strata (Mafeje also mentions some of them, not all) like the Bataka (clan leaders) and Abadu (slaves)²¹. The Bataka played the role of an aristocracy ex officio like the stewards in feudal Europe, totally dependent on the king, as already shown.

There were also the Bakabona (priests)²² which constituted a feudal clergy similar to that in Europe. Their task was to take care of the temples by the stately sanctioned faith into the Balubale (gods)²³. The clergy cannot be called a class on its own because of its dependency on the feudal ruling class, but it was engaging in feudal exploitation ex officio via the temple land and the Bakopi working on it²⁴. Not only did they exploit the Bakopi belonging to the temple land as serfs but also their role as priests was to legitimize the existing feudal order. Their “oracles” stood on the side of the ruling class and not on that of the exploited²⁵. There is only one case in history when the Bakabona rebelled against the Kabaka and succeeded: The priests of Mukasa temple barred Lake Victoria in 1879 from any trade until the Kabaka made concessions towards them²⁶. This was the first and last example in history for such a mutiny among the clergy against the Kabaka and the reason was not that they would have fought against the feudal exploitation, but it was about getting a bigger share.

The fate of the Bakopi and Abadu became increasingly similar due to the feudal exploitation of the Bakopi²⁷. One difference might have been that slaves did not receive a proper funeral but that their corpses were simply discarded into the bush²⁸. The adscript duties of the Bakopi towards their lord were the following:

“1. Paying the ground rent in form of labor and tax in kind towards their lord;

2. Paying an annual tax to the Kabaka in form of land products and socage on the court of the ruler, when demanded;

3. Participation in public labor, which were – because of being commanded by the Kabaka – also part of the tax;

4. Serving in war, whenever they were called to take part.”²⁹

The Bakopi were completely bonded like their European counterparts. The Bakopi were a mere class of serfs.

That means: The actual antagonistic classes in Buganda have been the Bakopi and the Abalangira/Abambejja with the Bataka as their mere administrative representatives. Under feudalism in Buganda, only the Bakopi were the revolutionary class. There was no urban bourgeoisie back in the day to fight alongside the Bakopi.

Not all of Mafeje’s studies are completely useless. He wrote in 1973:

“For the land he received a mukopi (´peasant´) paid tribute and dues to his overlord and rendered him services as a craftsman, housebuilder and warrior. The chiefs, on their part, served the Kabaka by keeping the population under strict supervision, by collecting taxes and tribute and by raising an army for raiding the neighbouring states.”³⁰

This seems to be valid. Just compare that to what Engels wrote about feudalism in its early stage in Europe:

“There was scarcely room for money in the typical feudal economy in the early Middle Ages. The lord obtained everything he needed from his serfs, either in the form of services, or in the form of finished products. Flax and wool were spun, woven into cloth, and made into clothing by the serfs’ women; the man tilled the fields, and the children tended the lord’s cattle and gathered for him the fruits of the forest, bird-nests, firewood; in addition, the whole family had to deliver up grain, fruit, eggs, butter, cheese, poultry, calves, and who knows how much else. Each feudal domain was sufficient unto itself; even feudal military obligations were taken in kind; trade and exchange were absent and money was superfluous.”³¹

The similarities are undeniable. It should be clear that Buganda reached the feudal mode of production. The level of 18th century Europe was of course not reached with its absolutism in the final stage, but the level of the Frankish Kingdom was reached.

The Kingdom of Buganda was also centralizing more and more over time. Mafeje wrote about it:

“Clanship and heredity as sources of power were being supplanted by an appointive system, wherein power was exercised solely at the king’s grace or pleasure. From the point of view of the analogy with feudalism in Europe, it is worth noting here that in the late 19th century political status in Buganda determined control over land and not the other way round, as was the case in Europe where land rights were hereditary.”³²

“The Kabaka had, as the Luganda metaphor goes, ´eaten up´ or ´owned´ the whole of Buganda. He had become the supreme lord and every Muganda was his ´man´ or servant.”³³

That effectively means: The Kabaka achieved the status of an absolute ruler like the absolutist realms in Europe though under far lower technological conditions. That this is true can be seen in his political power that was used to change religion several times during the 19th century while butchering those who refused to convert to the new faith. The stories of the Christian martyrs are especially known.

Also the Kingdom of Buganda was militarily powerful. That could not be only seen in the annexation of previously Bunyoro territories but also the vassalization of the Kingdom of Busoga. As Fenekansi Gabula put it: “We Basoga, we were under the kingdom of Buganda.”³⁴ The Kingdom of Busoga had to pay tribute to the Kabaka³⁵ and also was not independent in its foreign policy. On 29th October 1885 the British bishop Hannington was killed in Busoga on the order of the Kabaka by his Basoga vassals because he did forbid him to enter his realm³⁶. This shows the absolute control of the Kabaka over his vassal Busoga.

There was a certain change after the implementation of the Mailo system. Mafeje writes about the Mailo system the following:

“Johnston’s mailo system, as it got to be known afterwards, acted as a double-edged sword. It at once complemented the feudalist ambitions of the chiefs in Buganda and, at the same time, created grounds for the emergence of capitalism in the area.”³⁷

The Mailo system seems to be relatable to European countries that formally abolished serfdom while not expropriating the gentry class. Quite the opposite! The Mailo system strengthened the Bakungu to become a gentry class at the expense of the Kabaka.

The lack of trade relations made it impossible that marketplaces could come up; only local trade existed. Therefore an urban bourgeois class, like the one in Europe due to marketplaces developing into cities, could not yet emerge. Judging by the stand of development of the productive forces in Buganda this would have taken a few centuries if the British did not arrive.

At least Buganda was relatively well analyzed by Mafeje. Many other kingdoms were just superficially mentioned. He mentions that in southern Busoga it was effectively the same as in Buganda. By the late 18th century both Buganda and Busoga also developed a local trade while Bunyoro was already ahead with its early markets³⁸ that were connected to overregional trade routes. The direct trade routes after the mid 19th century towards the East African coast enabled Buganda and Busoga them to finally sell their surplus product in a more efficient way³⁹. But Bunyoro was able to utilize such trade routes already much earlier and to a larger extent.

About the special case Bunyoro

The Kingdom of Bunyoro as well was a feudal society⁴⁰. Its main classes were the Bahuma (aristocrats⁴¹) and the Bairu (peasants) under the rule of a king holding the title Omukama⁴². For Bunyoro even Mafeje is admitting a “semblance of feudalism”⁴³. Bunyoro is seemingly the only Ugandan kingdom that had an emerging merchant class, though in an embryonic state. This merchant class could have turned into a bourgeoisie by higher development of the productive forces. This merchant class had no name on its own, like the bourgeoisie in Europe under feudalism was just counted as part of the “third estate” and therefore had no own official name. Therefore we should retrospectively call them Abashubuzi.

Unlike in Buganda, the aristocratic Bahuma had a high degree of autonomy⁴⁴. The Omukama was no absolutist ruler like the Kabaka⁴⁵. This condition might have given the Bairu some air to breathe so that from among them a class of merchants could arise. Uzoigwe hypothesizes:

“Given the nature of African market organizations, a prerequisite to their rise was the existence of an organized political order. This could either be centralized or decentralized, provided the social organization was such that it enabled people to trade with security. Markets may also arise in two apparently contradictory ways. First, an expanding empire with market institutions may open markets in recently annexed territories or even in satellite countries. Kitara’s markets in Busoga and Teso fall under this category. Second, a declining empire, having lost several important markets to overmighty subjects, may find local markets proliferating to provide services no longer available as a result of the change in political fortunes. For example, the Rubaya market in Bugangaizi may have arisen at the close of the eighteenth century when, with the conquest of Mubende county by Buganda, it was not safe-at least for some time-for the Bakitara to trade in the Nkwali Market. What all these hypotheses assume is that Kitara produced enough goods to support market exchange.”⁴⁶

It is no coincidence that centralized forms were dominant in today´s Central and Western Uganda while the North and the East had a dominance of decentralized forms of social organization⁴⁷. The kingdoms concentrate on the Center and the West indeed.

Of course, the existence of standing marketplaces does not automatically prove the existence of a specialized merchant class. But: Where there is smoke, there must also be fire.

There are two theories how the markets came into existence:

“There are two major hypotheses relating to the rise of market institutions. The first asserts that markets arise naturally among communities in response to the needs of economic exchange. The second theory argues that markets can only rise as a result of external stimuli. In other words, local markets arise as a result of long-distance trading.”⁴⁸

These theories have different connotations since they either come from primarily intern or primarily extern factors. My guess would be that it were intern factors that gave rise to the market since without a surplus product it is impossible to engage on the market: When there is no surplus product, there is nothing to sell and therefore there would be nothing to buy as well. The external factor can only work in combination with the intern one.

The historical origin of the markets are seen by Uzoigwe in the Bachwezi dynasty of the Kingdom of Kitara, the predecessor state of Bunyoro⁴⁹. The issue here is that he delivers no dating. The Bachwezi dynasty is estimated to have ruled over a period somewhen between the 14th and 17th century with differently estimated duration of their rule⁵⁰. It is most likely that the author Uzoigwe sides with the theory that the Bachwezi dynasty ruled during the 17th century, because all other possible durations of their rule would be too far in the past to logically back up the author’s conclusions. That still would be more than a century before the launch of local markets in Buganda.

As mentioned, the Baganda also started to have their own local market places by the late 18th century. Mair even wrote for the 19th century, that “markets have been only recently introduced”⁵¹. Roscoes describes the situation in the mid 19th century as the following:

“Not only in the capital, but also throughout the country districts, there were market-places under the supervision of the authorities, with regular market-fees for the wares which were offered for sale. Moreover, people in the capital, who tried to evade the market-dues by selling their goods privately outside the market-place were liable to heavy fines and to the confiscation of the goods which they tried to sell. The market-places in and around the capital were under the supervision of a special chief appointed by the King, who collected the dues; these amounted to ten per cent of the value of each article sold or bought.”⁵²

So: Where was the difference in comparison to the markets of the Banyoro? At first, the markets were still not that connected to foreign trade, though routes to the East African coast started to be established around that time. Still, it was in the beginning phase. These markets could not play the role before the arrival of the British imperialists which they have played in the Kingdom of Bunyoro. Secondly: “The exchange of commodities was handled by the producers themselves, because even by the end of the last century a special group of Baganda traders had not yet developed.”⁵³ That means even though the Kingdom of Buganda started to slowly awake from its mercantilist slumber during the 19th century, the development of trade was still very low compared to that of the Kingdom of Bunyoro which was ahead by more than a century. Without a merchant class the markets could not be professionalized.

In Buganda the professionalization of craftsmanship was also just in the beginnings. Pottery and smithing became the profession of specialists instead of cottage work⁵⁴. Emin Pascha noted: “Actual commerce does not exist, with the exception of smithing.”⁵⁵ Also in this field Buganda was behind the social development of Bunyoro, especially when being dependent on imports of resources like iron and salt from Bunyoro⁵⁶. The Banyoro craftsmanship was very specialized into basketworkers, dressmakers, jewelers, canoe-builders, wood carver and pipe makers⁵⁷ as well as smelters and smiths, which were organized in guilds already⁵⁸. The Banyoro almost held a monopoly on iron products in the region⁵⁹.

It is true that the Banyoro merchants “did not significantly facilitate the accumulation and conversion of values”⁶⁰. If that had been the case, Bunyoro would already have reached the manufacture period of capitalism. But reaching that stage was impossible under the still too lowly developed productive forces. This is also part of the reason why the existence of markets did not correlate with urbanization in Bunyoro⁶¹. Accumulation has been impossible without a currency – and by that I do not mean using the value of a cow as “currency”⁶²! That started to come up in the 19th century with ensimbi (shell money) – not too long before the arrival of the British imperialists.

Besides Buganda and Bunyoro there were also other kingdoms in Uganda, which played minor roles. Busoga as a dependent and obedient vassal of Buganda already has been mentioned. Busoga also had a peasantry (Balimi) that was exploited by an aristocracy (Bami) to which it had to deliver their taxes in kind and socage⁶³ but Busoga was not a centralized kingdom until the arrival of the British. Instead of one Kyabazinga (king) on top there were several local duchies under a loose federation⁶⁴. That made Busoga weak, divided and an easy target for Buganda. But there were other kingdoms that played some regional role at least.

The Kingdom of Ankole was divided into the Bahima (aristocrats)⁶⁵ and Bairu (peasants)⁶⁶ just like the Kingdom of Bunyoro, but lacking a merchant class. The kingdom was headed by a king with the title Omugabe⁶⁷. Karugire, the author of a history of the Kingdom of Ankole rejected to regard the kingdom as a feudal society⁶⁸, while he recognized that other historians did so⁶⁹. As we have already seen in length on the example of Mafeje, this historical debate permeates the entire debate of feudalism in Uganda.

In 1830 the Kingdom of Toro broke away from the Kingdom of Bunyoro. By classes it therefore was divided, just like Bunyoro, into the Bahuma (aristocrats), the Bairu (peasants) and the Abashubuzi (merchants). Barter trade was also common there and salt was a commodity especially important for trade⁷⁰. Effectively it can be said that this kingdom took over the Banyoro market institutions on a smaller scale.

Among the Ugandan kingdoms only Bunyoro had the potential by the 19th century to reach the manufacture capitalist mode of production if being left alone for maybe a further couple of centuries.

Mao Zedong said:

“As China’s feudal society had developed a commodity economy, and so carried within itself the seeds of capitalism, China would of herself have developed slowly into a capitalist society even without the impact of foreign capitalism.”⁷¹

If China had “seeds of capitalism” already for already having reached the manufacture period of capitalism in some fields of the economy, then Bunyoro had “microbes of capitalism” with its merchant class – microbes that have not yet grown big.

We can therefore say: The merchant class of Bunyoro was the most revolutionary class in pre-colonial Uganda.

Conclusions

Mafeje might be right when he writes: “Both historical and contemporary studies of social production in Africa are handicapped by lack of necessary data.”⁷² But still, the lack of data alone does not mean that it would be impossible to make an assessment based on the available information.

We can conclude that kingdoms that existed in Uganda had feudal character and mostly were on a stage that was more comparable to the Frankish Kingdom. The development of the means of production was very slow, trade was underdeveloped and was mainly focused on unproductive commodities. That could be seen in Buganda as the biggest example.

Only Bunyoro had an emerging embryonic merchant class and was on the transition to hereditary forms of subordination. This kingdom was more on the development status of Charlemagne in early German feudalism, where market places started to pop up in Germany but the founding of cities around these market places did not take place yet. Therefore Bunyoro was the kingdom that was the closest to reach a natively spawned capitalism, even though that would have taken centuries.

Today all those mentioned kingdoms outlived their utility in the development of the Ugandan society. As Obote already wrote in the Common Man´s Charter:

“We do not consider that all aspects of the African traditional life are acceptable as socialistic now. We do not, for instance, accept that belonging to a tribe should make a citizen a tool to be exploited by and used for the benefit of tribal leaders. Similarly, we do not accept that feudalism, though not inherently something peculiar to Africa or to Uganda, is a way of life which must not be disturbed because it has been in practice for centuries.”⁷³

Feudalism used to be in accordance with Uganda’s development of the productive forces centuries ago, but at latest with the arrival of the imperialists in Uganda who brought advanced productive forces even into kingdoms that were in deep feudal slumber like Buganda, feudalism turned into an archreactionary form of society and the economic system. Lenin said that “no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe” but that “state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism”⁷⁴. And what did imperialism bring to Uganda besides all its negative aspects of imperialist exploitation and oppression? Modern technology based on state-monopolist capitalism! The society of Uganda was catapulted from a feudal society into a capitalist one.

Our goal in Uganda is today to get rid of the remnants of feudalism and to abolish capitalism to achieve a socialist society. Today´s Ugandan main classes are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the working class and the capitalists, and the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie as allies of the workers in between. The class struggle of today is not directed against feudal lords in the first place anymore but the comprador bourgeoisie nourished by Chinese and Indian capitalist foremost. “It is the elimination of bourgeois property relations that comprises the proletariat’s historic revolutionary mission.”⁷⁵, as Plekhanov once wrote.

That is the historic task the progress of mankind commands on us.