A Political Lesson from Rugby

Greetings.

The game of rugby, played for close to two centuries, has shaped society and in return been shaped by it. The insistence on maintaining its amateur status (and the underlying class divide in Britain) led to the schism of 1895 that gave birth to two versions of the same game; rugby league (favored by the working class men) and rugby union (favoured by The upperclassmen, who used their position of influence to spread their version to the rest of the British Empire). The other sports of British origin (association football, cricket) took the hard lesson and adopted professionalism without the repercussions of a split. In South Africa, the sport was at the center of the Apartheid system with the native Blacks denied access to the game. Both the game and the country have made great strides from that turbulent past.

It is from South Africa that I'm getting my lesson. However, this is not another trip down to the 1995 World Cup with the iconic Mandela-Pienaar role in uniting the country.

For the first half of the twentieth century, South Africa were the dominant force of the game. They were the only team to have won a series of test matches in New Zealand (1937, long before the 1971 British Lions), and had swept the Home Nations (England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland) - a feat termed as a "Grand Slam" - on four different occasions (1912/13, 1931/32, 1951/52, 1960/61). The key to their success; do the basics right!

A description of rugby play action states "... The team which has possession of the ball will normally try to keep it ... The need to maintain possession means the team with the ball will usually seek to progress towards the opposition by running while carrying the ball ... [or] may choose to kick the ball forward".

Comparing with South Africa's play, the 1912/13 Grand Slam was won on the basis of a "massive pack" led by Billy Millar. Captain Osler's "giant pack and kicking fly-half" delivered the success in 1931/32, with one critic stating, "No one could fail to admire his poise and technique - the tactics were another question."

They have big forwards to advance the ball, gain ground, win the scrum engagements, win the line outs - all these maintain possession and a team can only score with possession. The traditional role of a fly half and fullback included kicking duties, and they've maintained this over time. At the 1999 World Cup they met a much fancied England team in the quarterfinals, and the South African kicker set the world record for most drop goals in a single match. The England coach during that game learnt the lesson and focused on fitness and basics. At the next World Cup four years later he led England to rugby heaven! Clive Woodward emphasized the importance of this to overall success in his interview with the BBC podcast, Don't Tell Me The Score.

By comparison, their running rugby rivals in New Zealand and Australia had not managed a Grand Slam by 1961. New Zealand's first grand slam came in 1978, and a first tour win in South Africa was only secured in 1996! 

Chicanery vs Chickenery

Just this week I stumbled upon a TikTok video of Mukasa Mbidde criticizing the government. In his usual fashion, he was more complicated than eloquent. With all his brilliance, I'm inclined to believe he has a communication problem! In a country with an illiteracy rate of 70%, the population needs a basic version of English that they can comprehend. I think every politician understands this. Museveni definitely does.

Our ruling president has become a master at delivering simple communications. They might be long and dragging, but he'll never be caught using words like chicanery  (I'm assuming that's the word Mbidde used). He even takes time to give an interpretation of his words in the native tongues (sneezing; okwetsyamura). This is not to say that our leader is a genius, but if an English-illiterate person is listening to his speech with his Primary-going child, the child could easily translate the message to the native tongue.

Like South Africa with its three World Cups to its name, there's a reason Museveni resonates with the common man, despite the opposition's futile warnings of do not "Kow-tow to his ways". 

Ceteris. Paribus.

References 

Don't Tell Me The Score - Clive Woodward episode

Sport and the British - Rugby's Great Split

“Bark-cloth and Hoes” – Tales of the Ancient Tax Season

 

Greetings. Tax season is here. And writer’s block is back; it can only mean one thing – I’ll paste an excerpt from economic history.

Amended provisional tax returns are to be submitted no later than 30^th June of every year. June also marks the end of the fiscal year. In the past, before the westernised economy, tax season was usually at the King’s pleasure, as we shall see. If one belonged to a monarchical society, they were bound to pay a higher tax than one who belonged to a decentralised society, headed by an Elders’ council. Buganda and Bunyoro traditional societies levied taxes on their citizens, going towards the King, the chief minister, the county chief and even the queen’s mother was entitled to receiving tax. The Luo states didn’t have that ardous tax system; you only paid a portion to the elders, sometimes respect would suffice!

When the time to collect taxes was drawing near, the King, the Katikiro, and the Kimbugwe fixed the exact date, and it was then announced in the Lukiiko that the taxes would be collected on such-and-such a date. The King appointed the special tax-collector for each county; to these county-collectors, the Katikiro, the Kimbugwe, the Queen and the King’s Mother each added their own representatives, and the county-chiefs also added a representative. These six men who were appointed to a county went to each part of it; the principal sub-chiefs were first visited by them in person, but they chose and sent other messengers to each of the less important chiefs. The King’s tax collector and his associates returned to the County-Chief’s enclosure, where they were entertained while the work was being carried out by their men.

The first thing to be done was to count the number of houses in each sub-county, and to ascertain the number of the inhabitants; the tax-collector would then settle with each chief what amount he was expected to send to the King. One cowry-shell was brought by the collector’s assistants to represent each house, and after these had been counted, the assistants went back to collect the tax. The amount usually demanded was a fixed number of cattle from each sub-chief, and a fixed number of barkcloths and one hundred cowry-shells from each peasant; of the smaller chiefs each paid a number of goats and also a few hoes. It frequently took two months, or more, to collect the taxes, because the barkcloths and hoes had to be made, and the cattle had to be collected. When this was accomplished, each servant took his amount on the appointed day to the County-Chief; the cowry-shells and barkcloths were counted and tied up in bundles, while the cattle were sent on ahead to travel slowly to the capital.

The King’s tax-collector took the whole amount to the Katikiro, who had to examine it, and to hear the details as to the number of houses and people in each sub-county, and as to how many barkcloths and cowry-shells had been collected from them. If the amount was correct the Katikiro took the whole to the King; if it was wrong, the tax-collector was required to return to the county and to gather what was missing, according to instructions which he received from the Katikiro. The chief of a county received a portion of the taxes for himself and for his sub-chiefs; the King took half for himself, while the Katikiro, the Kimbugwe, the Queen, and the King’s Mother also had their portions. Each sub-chief was given a small portion of the amount which came from his own county; the King, the Queen, the King’s Mother, the Katikiro, and the Kimbugwe kept the whole of what came from their own estates, in addition to the portion which they received of the taxes from the entire country.

The tributary states (Koki, Busoga, Ssesse) paid their tribute through the chiefs under whom they were placed, making their payments in cattle, slaves, ivory, cowry-shells, salt, hoes, etc.  

Ceteris Paribus.

References

Kagwa, Sir Apolo K (1918) Empisa za Baganda. Kampala, New Era Printers. Ssuula 15: Empisa Z’Okusolooza Omusolo, olupapula 131-134.

Roscoe, John (1911) The Baganda. Chapter 8: Government, pp. 244-246