Factors of political instability in Uganda
MetadataShow full item record
This dissertation mainly investigates the fundamental cause of political instability in Uganda. The dilemma is the apparent petitio principii in the search for solutions: whether to start with individuals or the social system and institutions. The hypothesis focuses on the individual, and how he is affected by new ideas and values. The central argument is that political instability is the consequence of frustrating the self-actualization of the individual. This thwarts the harmonious oscillation between individual freedom and social cohesion, an essential requisite for social stability. The problems is seen ultimately as one of the identity with metaphysical roots. It touches on both interpretations of identity meaning permanence amid change, and unity amid diversity. Chapter one is an introduction to the study. Chapter two examines what others observe as destabilizing-stabilizing factors in society and what they propose as remedial measures. It is a search for an insight into the relationship between the individual and society. Centrally, it posits some basic values and features of a stable society. Chapter three exposes the signs and symptoms of political instability in Uganda. It demonstrates that political events in post-independence Uganda fall short of the basic values and features of a stable society. Chapter four critically examines the propounded causes of political instability in Uganda. It does not only question their theoretical justification, but also attempts to show that most of them are effects rather than causes of political instability. Chapter five endeavors to show the freedom of the individual despite the numerous webs of social control which seems to envelop and penetrate the individual. It recognizes that the individual is a product of both his inherent characteristics, and his environment. It examines the paradoxical idea that human beings create and shape social institutions, and are also molded by it. The central idea is that we either suffer from an arrest of change, or from a change which is so fast that it perplexes and bewilderes us. If we are both victims and a threat to the security of society, the problem is not a lack of, but rather a misunderstanding and misuse of freedom. Chapter six recapitulates the major issues discussed, and proposes that basic to political stability is the awareness that the individual is not exhausted in his individuality; that the tension between science and faith should be resolved not in terms of either elimination or duality, but in terms of a synthesis. It concludes that since society cannot change until individuals change, personal liberation is the key to social change. The guiding principle should be: Society will never be what it ought to be until I am what I ought to be.