03/06/2015
We need to spruce attitude
not national anthem
The thing about brand gurus is that they will never stop trying. Even in matters as uninviting as changing the national anthem, they will convince the government that the anthem is no longer up to scratch. Whatever that means! The gurus exploit the master (client) weakness until he turns the tables and signs the deal. Corporate branding often results and remains in external appearances changes, and ignore many other aspects of the organization. For instance, the Minister of Tourism, Maria Mutagmba who is spear heading this drive to have the anthem changed so as to endear to the tourists among other things, is unhappy with the lyrics and tunes. The question is for whom is the change of the anthem intended? Mutagamba and others’ project lacks depth. It aims to improve on the aesthetic of the anthem. It seems Mutagamba’s mission is intended to please and attract more tourists for the country other than instilling a sense of patriotism, belonging and pride in what is truly Ugandan. She says the way it is played, it does not promote tourism and the young don't like it. So it appears Mutagamba believes and has been made to believe the anthem is out of tune with the young generation. Upon the death of the composer of the anthem, George Kakooma, some prominent artists criticized his works and claimed that the words did not register with Ugandan’s aspirations. He claimed that if given a chance he would rewrite an anthem that define Uganda and also one that would be associated by all Ugandans. I was not surprised that, this artist is one those that has been hired by Mutagamba to fine-tune the anthem. But have we really carried out study on why Ugandans might not like the anthem? Wouldn't it have been better if we sought the views of Ugandans from the different districts, to confirm if they wanted change, if so, what kind of anthem would they wish to have? If there was need to change why wasn't this project advertised so that as many composers participate in the competition rather than restricting to a few ‘experts?” Still must the anthem be changed for the sake of it?
In 2001, the Republic of Rwanda changed its national flag, anthem and coat of arms. They moved away from an anthem, which tended to promote one ethic group as being superior against another perceived to be vanquished and inferior. The coat of arms incorporated many things that are perceived to be representative of Rwanda. The changes aimed at national unity, patriotism, knowing that the country had been through a difficult time of war based on mainly on ethnicity.
I used to think that there was a bug of rebranding that had hit our country. Later I discovered that whenever, a new manager is assumes the seat of the corporate or public institutions, one of the first things he or she does is to try as much as possible to delink himself with the past. If this person doesn’t systematically sack the executives he finds in office, he will introduce changes in the appearance of corporate logos and other paraphernalia.
When the Executive Director of Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), Jennifer Musisi assumed officed, one of the first things she did was to change the coat or arms of KCC and logo. Her reasoning was that she didn’t want to associate with the dodgy image of the defunct Kampala City Council (KCC) which was known for the all the bad things like corruption, dubious land transactions, ghost bank accounts among others. The previous coat of arms comprised the history of Kampala in the images of the lion, kob (Impala). The Impala (kob) signified where the name Kampala came from. This was replaced with an interplay of colours (red, green, yellow) and the superimposition of the White Hall tower, and laced with a tagline or motto: For better city. My is that the new image of City as represented in the new symbols, was in an effort in futility is as far as depicting Kampala for what is it. Musisi didn't have change the coat of arms because her assumption of power had began polishing the tainted image.