Whichever party wins next year’s (2011) elections, it will need to form a government that will revise the agenda the NRM has governed on since 1987 if it wants to avoid criticism as a government that has lost touch with reality.
The development plan launched a few months ago is a repeat of structural adjustment. That is why it has not been heard of since its launch. It was arranged to silence disgruntled citizens and buy time for 2011 elections. Commentaries from nationals and foreigners are all in agreement in private and/or public that things have not gone well for the majority of Ugandans under the NRM regime. Between 1990 and 2001 Uganda’s population living below $1 a day was 82.2 percent (A. K. Chowdhury and S. Erdenbileg 2006).
The first government act after 2011 elections is to make fundamental changes in the Ministry of Finance and Central Bank that have driven Uganda’s economy on a ‘bad road and in the wrong direction’. Their focus on market forces and individual effort hoping that the sum total of those efforts would benefit all Ugandans equitably has been an inappropriate policy. While reliance on foreign experts may continue to be necessary, this should be limited to specific cases for short-term assistance only. Uganda has a reservoir of well trained and experienced people who are not being used or used properly because loyalty has replaced competence. Most well-educated and qualified Ugandans are scattered around the world or hibernating at home because they are not wanted for fear they might replace incompetent relatives and friends of those in power.
After the 2011 elections, a quick situation analysis of Uganda’s political economy and ecology should be undertaken in an integrated manner to see what has worked, what has not, and why, in order to make appropriate recommendations on the way forward. The government should know, for example, how export growth and diversification has impacted the environment and food security through depletion of natural resource base including de-vegetation and overfishing as well as a decline in food availability at the household level.
After the 2011 elections, an examination of education and health care system, and shelter in rural but more significantly in urban areas teeming with under-employed and unemployed Ugandans and non-Ugandans is necessary. This should be done to determine how public and private sectors can work together in a complementary fashion. Those days when the state was considered the problem in development discourse are gone: The state now must be part of the solution. Government must in particular participate in those sectors where the private sector which is driven by profit motive does not have a comparative advantage such as infrastructure.
After the 2011 elections, the agricultural sector including livestock and fisheries must get renewed and vigorous support. Agriculture remains Uganda’s economic and social development pillar. Its development and transformation must be based on small holder farmers that have been recognized by the international community – state and non-state actors – as productive, efficient, environmentally-friendly and least socially destructive compared to large-scale farmers. Smart subsidies will be necessary, extension support will be unavoidable and modern technology in terms of appropriate high yielding seeds and fertilizers (organic and inorganic) will be required to boost productivity together with small scale irrigation schemes. The agricultural produce will need proper storage including cold facilities, marketing and transport systems through the development of road network, appropriate rural energy and communication facilities to connect producers and buyers in a timely manner.
Above all agro-processing will be a must. The days of exporting raw materials are over. Countries that have developed embarked on industrialization behind high tariff walls in the ‘infant’ stages. Industrialized countries which shifted to the service sector have realized the importance of manufacturing enterprises in terms at least of creating jobs. They have begun a re-industrialization process. In an article titled “Manufacturing in North-West England: Engine of Growth Set to Fire on All Cylinders”, Andrew Bounds observes that “Manufacturing has become fashionable in the UK again, but in the north-west of England it never fell out of favor. It is part of the DNA of a region that invented the spinning jenny, produced the first computer and where Mr. Rolls met Mr. Royce [and agreed to manufacture the Rolls Royce Vehicles]…
Since the financial crisis, the government has pledged to rebalance the UK economy away from services – even designing an industrial strategy. The idea had been buried for 30 years after its policy of picking winners proved disastrous”(Financial Times Special Report March 2, 2010).
Similarly, after 2011 elections, the Uganda government has to rebalance Uganda’s economy away from raw material exports – ‘even designing an industrial strategy’. Any advice to the contrary should be rejected. Uganda needs to increase value addition, reduce waste especially of perishable commodities and increase jobs and ultimately reduce considerably dependence on foreign handouts with stiff conditionality. To repeat no country has developed without an industrial strategy. Uganda will not develop without it. Britain even protected her agriculture sector for a long time through the Corn Laws. Developed countries are protecting and promoting their agriculture sector through a variety of instruments.
Uganda has a young population structure with over 50 percent of the total population of 33 million below the age of 15. The next government will need to develop a strategy of education and skills, health care and housing commensurate with the demands of this group. Keeping children in school beyond primary level, providing children with adequate and balanced diet and empowering women and men will not only build sustainable human capital essential for twenty first century global demands but also contribute to population decline to optimal rates of growth.
The next Uganda government leadership will need to design a foreign policy that will ensure its national interests outlined above are promoted, defended and protected on the international stage. Therefore, after 2011 elections, Ambassadors and staff appointments should not be rewards for political supporters, punishment for those feared at home or opportunity to pursue further studies rather than working for the interest of their nation. Duty stations such as New York (United Nations General Assembly), Addis Ababa (African Union and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa), Brussels (European Union), Geneva (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development- UNCTAD, World Trade Organization-WTO, Commissioner for Human Rights and Commissioner for Refugees), Washington DC (World Bank and International Monetary Fund-IMF), London (Commonwealth Secretariat) and Rome (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations-FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development-IFAD, World Food Program-WFP and International Criminal Court-ICC) will require staff who are qualified and experienced enough to handle with confidence respective duties in those areas. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have to work closely with line ministries especially Finance, Planning and Economic Development so that embassy staff is properly briefed by their counterparts in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kampala.
Finally, the next government must resurrect choir and sports competitions because they serve useful purposes as appropriate domestically and externally as an instrument of foreign policy and unifier of various domestic interests. Uganda’s holding of international conferences need to be complemented by Uganda’s active participation in Africa Cup of Nations, Commonwealth games, World Cup and the Olympic games etc.