In Uganda things have changed in the political, economic, social and environmental areas since NRM came to power in 1986. The leaders whether under pressure or voluntarily genuinely changed their opinion to match the changes that had taken place in Uganda and at the global level. In 1987 they abandoned the ten point development model and replaced it with a fundamentally different model of structural adjustment which came into force in May 1987. In 2009, structural adjustment model was declared dead. In line with the global economic wind of change, NRM government announced it had changed its opinion and abandoned structural adjustment and replaced it with Five Year National Development Plan (NDP). But there was no fundamental change in content. The core elements of structural adjustment remained intact – macroeconomic stability and limited state intervention in Uganda’s economy. This was a tactical change to hoodwink Ugandans ahead of 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections. So, one can fairly conclude that since 1987 while things have changed considerably government opinion and practice have remained virtually intact. Is it possible for NRM to change its opinion commensurate with the changes that have taken place since 1987? It is unlikely and this is why, beginning with the president.
Although the national security situation has changed and generally improved with the end of the war in the northern and eastern regions, President Museveni has remained primarily concerned with security matters in large part because of his training and experience in the military since the 1960s (he only worked briefly as assistant secretary for research in the President’s office “trying to settle our people who are like the Masaai” Daily Monitor February 16, 2006) regardless of changes that have taken place in other areas since he stormed Kampala in 1986 through the barrel of the gun. Security has thus remained his preoccupation receiving a disproportionate share of funds and his attention. That is why you find security aspects inserted in programs where they don’t fit including in the Poverty Eradication Action Plan. Because of this preoccupation, Museveni does not have sufficient time or interest in other areas where rapid changes have taken place. He does not seem bothered about rapid de-vegetation and local climate changes, increasing unemployment, poverty and hunger and absence of school lunches besides collapsing education and health systems. He gives the impression that market forces will provide solutions in due course.
In a situation like this, Museveni should have appointed and delegated powers to Ugandans with background and experience in rapidly changing economic, demographic, environmental and social sectors. However, he appointed a vice president, prime minister and speaker who are lawyers and professionally removed from areas where rapid changes are taking place. These appointments were probably based on loyalty or the desire by the president to avoid people who might overshadow him in areas where he is not proficient. Consequently the executive and legislative branches of government are dominated by lawyers. The president’s exact academic background has remained problematic. Some sources record that he studied and graduated in Political Science (Back cover of Y. K. Museveni The Path of Liberation 1989). Others show that he studied “political economy which is even more useful than economics because political economy is the study of laws that govern the development of society”(Africa Forum Vol 1. No. 2. 1991). It is clear that the top leadership in Uganda suffers from a lack of professionals in critical areas such as demographers, economists, environmentalists and food and nutrition security. We therefore end up with people handling these complex and interlinked sectors that are not qualified and therefore unable to adjust to changes when they occur. It would be even more important to appoint Ugandans (and they are there) with multi-sector training and experience to establish linkages among various sectors such as clearing vegetation for agriculture and herding and the consequent environmental changes.
The senior staff in the ministry of finance that has primary responsibility for managing Uganda’s economy together with the central bank have been in office since 1987 implementing structural adjustment programs that failed to deliver as expected. They have developed rigidities that prevent them from adapting to the changes that have taken place. The new development paradigm of public and private partnership combining planned and market economies require fundamental change in opinion which is perhaps beyond their ability or willingness, explaining in part why the National Development Plan launched after the elections in 2011 is gathering dust in the planning department. IMF which is known for supporting macroeconomic stability has acknowledged that Uganda needs to change its tax policy to make it progressive and focus on social service provision including good roads, reliable energy and clean water (Patrick Jaramogi June 1, 2012). Thus, IMF in Uganda has changed its opinion in line with the things that have changed. It is unlikely that the changes that have occurred will be implemented because the people who would implement them are either lawyers, political scientists or economists in neo-liberalism that has been replaced with public and private partnership model that requires different training and experience. So what is the alternative?
What we have in Uganda is a situation of new wine (changes that have occurred) in an old bottle (rigid government). We need a new bottle to contain the new wine. Since the new wine represents things that have changed, we need a new government with a different opinion commensurate with the requirements of changed circumstances. By way of drawing a lesson, let us look at what has happened in China since the late 1970s. The rapid economic and social progress in China since the passing of Mao in 1976 was effected by a new leadership capable of addressing the changes that had taken place. Deng Xiaoping assumed power with a different opinion from Mao’s. He changed the way Chinese thought about development and impressed upon them the need for a rich and strong country. He introduced major reforms in the economy beginning with agriculture and associated township and village enterprises (TVEs). These changes required modification in resource allocation among various sectors. Deng told his military leaders that it was impossible to meet military needs at the same time that China embarked on economic reconstruction. Funding for the military would not meet all the needs as more resources would go to economic transformation. Deng was also frank about his shortcomings. He opted for small changes at a time in contrast to shock therapy changes implemented in Uganda. Deng surrounded himself not with loyal supporters but professionals that were pragmatic and dedicated to transform China’s economy and society. The “Gang of Four” including Mao’s widow that wanted to continue with Mao’s policies was ousted from power.
Uganda will need a Deng Xiaoping with new ideas, pragmatism and determination to tackle the new changes that have taken place. That new leader and supporters/advisers should consist of people willing and ready to adjust to changes that have occurred since 1987 and will occur in the future. The new leader must have self-confidence and be honest with the people working with professionals and on merit not sectarianism as we have witnessed under Museveni especially in key and strategic ministries of finance, foreign affairs and security forces. A development program that puts people at its center would also be necessary. Uganda is very well endowed with natural resources and smart people but has lacked the right leadership. Since 1971 Uganda has been governed by soldiers that have left much room for improvement. Museveni came to power preaching principles of dignity, democracy, liberty, unity and justice for all but Uganda has enjoyed none of them since 1986.
Elections take place because it is a requirement to access donor funds. Unity has been replaced by disunity through over 120 districts. When a family head fails to put food on the table he/she loses dignity. Liberty has been suffocated by anti-sectarian and anti-terrorist laws and new ones are coming soon. Justice is known in rhetoric. In practice it has been replaced by corruption, sectarianism and cronyism. This situation has got to change and only patriotic, bold and dedicated Ugandans can do it. Ugandans are convinced that Museveni has cheated them and breached the contract. When that happens the government should be changed. Museveni called for a revolt against UPC government when many Ugandans felt they got cheated in the 1980 elections.