Of late there has been a resurgence of writing and debate about Uganda’s population ‘explosion’ or ‘bomb’ that will destroy development efforts because savings are going into feeding unproductive mouths of children instead of investing in productive enterprises. Increasingly we are witnessing people who are not trained in population much less experienced in this complex subject writing and commenting with confidence like they know more than any other Ugandan or for that matter any other expert. Some of these may have had one day or one week’s seminar in population matters and begin to talk with authority.
Population dynamics are very complex in time and space. We have seen the regrettable results of countries that rushed into reducing population growth rapidly by force or couples that did not want children or just one or two. These countries and their governments are now rushing to reverse the trend. Have you heard of “Conception Day” in one of the developed countries where a national holiday has been declared so that the citizens can stay at home and increase their population? Have you heard of a wide range of incentives that are being offered in developed countries so that their populations can have many children? What I am saying is that rushing into curbing population growth can be costly in the long term.
Ugandans should take a moment especially our leaders and try to understand the dynamics of the country’s population growth. Where is it coming from and which segment of the population is producing more than others and why? Let us look at the rate of population growth over time and see what has been happening so that informed decisions can be taken by Ugandans voluntarily. Let me offer the following preliminary views.
First, in a country, say Uganda, population growth is brought about by two factors. Population migrations: when a country receives more people than it sends out, there will be a net gain that will contribute to population growth. The second factor is births and deaths. When a country’s births exceed deaths, there will be a net natural gain that will contribute to population growth. Therefore Ugandans need to understand first and foremost the relative contribution of each of the two factors. There is no short cut!
In Uganda where there have been a lot of migrants for economic and political reasons since the 1920s, there is likely to be a considerable excess of in-migrants over out-migrants contributing to population growth. Therefore authorities need to check on what is happening in this area. The Ministries of Labor and Internal Affairs as well as the Office of the High Commissioner for refugees in Uganda or Geneva should have this information from 1900.
I have talked to Uganda politicians, demographers and statisticians to look into this migration matter to no avail. Why they do not want to do it perhaps God knows!
At independence in 1962, Banyarwanda constituted 40 percent of Buganda’s total population (A. R. Zolberg et al., 1989). If you add on populations from other countries and other parts of Uganda before and since independence you may begin to wonder who actually is contributing to Buganda’s population growth. Is it Baganda or migrants? We need to know their relative contributions.
Ugandans then need to understand which group or region in Uganda is producing more children than the others and try to figure out why that is so. What I can offer at a theoretical level is the following.
Poor and hungry people all over the world (and the majority are found in rural areas) have a higher propensity or urge for sex than other groups. This urge is facilitated by lack of social entertainment such as television or radio that would keep them awake so that by the time they go to bed they are tired with a lower sex urge. Therefore addressing hunger and poverty should be one of the priorities. Second, children in poor families drop out of school early. In Uganda context, when a girl drops out of school she gets married and begins to have children right away otherwise rumors will circulate that she or her husband is infertile and nobody wants that label.
Furthermore studies have shown that when a population recovers from war or an epidemic such as AIDS, there is a natural tendency for the survivors to produce more to compensate for the human losses suffered. In Uganda we have had both. Therefore the propensity to have many children is high. Will anyone have the moral authority to impose birth control in a situation like this?
Second, Uganda’s record of population growth has remained constant over the decades at around 3.2 percent per annum. So where is this rapid growth coming from? Besides, fertility is declining not only in Uganda but in Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, albeit slowly, thereby dampening the pressure for massive and compulsory birth control.
Third in Uganda’s areas where environmental damage or resource exploitation has been severe population pressure has not been responsible. Disappearance of swamps or wetlands in Kabale district has been brought about by the rich families that drained the extensive wetland and introduced exotic cattle ranches. Nyabushozi district has one of the lowest population densities. Extensive de-vegetation has been caused by the few rich ranchers who have cleared the Miombo woodland to graze thousands of cattle for quick profit and capital accumulation that has exceeded the ecological carrying capacity. Not least, the exhaustion of fisheries in Uganda’s lakes, rivers and wetlands has more to do with government’s desire to export fish and earn foreign currency to meet the needs of the rich.
In these cases, poor Ugandans who have become victims should not be blamed for destructive actions they are not responsible for. Thus, reducing Uganda’s population say in half without controlling the greed of the rich and powerful will not have that much of an impact.
Finally, we have tended to forget, intentionally or otherwise, that the 1994 Cairo conference on population and development stressed that in dealing with population matters the focus should be on people and not numbers! Give girls education beyond primary level, eradicate poverty and unemployment and empower women and you are on a safer road to reduce population growth without political, cultural, racial or religious wrangles.