Subaltern struggles and resilience: the dynamics of land dispossession and responses in Mubende District, Uganda

Abstract

Drawing on the 2001 eviction of 401 registered families from Buwekula Blocks 99 and 103, this thesis examines the responses to land dispossession in Mubende District in central Uganda. Conceptualising the dispossessed occupants as subalterns, the study explores the complex legal terrain they navigate under the 1998 Land Act, which grants them varying statuses. The central question is: how have these subalterns responded to land dispossession since 2001? Employing a qualitative, hybrid design approach that integrates case study, ethnographic, and historical research, the study examines the land tenure dynamics, the contradictions driving dispossession, and the strategies employed by occupants to reclaim their land. The findings reveal that for the past 23 years, land occupants have responded through litigation, petitions, and advocacy. The 23-year struggle for land restitution and compensation has been ineffective, largely due to the government’s conflicting interests in the land, despite efforts to pursue peaceful strategies. ActionAid and FIAN International have supported affected families through petitions to key stakeholders, including Ugandan and German officials. Their advocacy efforts have included research, online activism, meetings with government officials, and grassroots mobilisation. The Mubende land dispute reveals the judicial process’s inherent contradictions, including protracted delays and conflicts between judges and advocates. After nearly two decades of litigation, the 401 families split into distinct factions in 2019. This case highlights the complexities of land struggles where governmental interests contradict those of land occupants. Also, the non-confrontational approach assumes a benevolent state apparatus. However, this thesis argues that these strategies are inherently contradictory, as they seek redress from the very structures that perpetuate the violence. The study further reveals that the primary driver of dispossession was the pursuit of commercial coffee production, which altered existing land uses. This was exacerbated by absentee landlordism, unauthorised settlements, and the 1998 Land Act’s contradictory designation of occupants as “bona fide.” In terms of theory, the research demonstrates that subaltern resistance takes a non-linear path, contrasting with the Marxist linear stance on class struggle. Negotiations for land incorporation are not absolute or one-time events, but rather occur at different stages after other attempts to reclaim land or seek compensation have been exhausted or individual interests shift. The timing of negotiations is crucial, and not all victims of land dispossession may agree to negotiate. Additionally, resistance to land dispossession can vary among individuals within a group, with some choosing to resist while others may opt for negotiation or other approaches. Moreover, resilience is identified as an individualistic, subjective response, not a collective class phenomenon. There is no evidence of collaboration between the working class and the peasantry. Instead, non-state institutions like ActionAid and FIAN International have occupied the working-class space. This research contributes to contemporary debates on agrarian change, rights discourse, and rural resistance in Uganda and broader discourses on resistance, subaltern agency, and human rights protection. It emphasises that contextual specificity is crucial to understanding the politics associated with power relations, fear, and a misguided understanding of the state.