My philosophy about Uganda

A lot has been written and said about me directly and indirectly. Given my frank involvement in Uganda’s political economy discourse, it would have been unusual for my views to remain unchallenged. I have already informed readers what triggered my interest in research and writing about Uganda in the context of the Great Lakes region. I began research in the early 1970s and my first book was published in 1997. In doing so I was guided by my faith to tell the truth and be on the side of voiceless, powerless and vulnerable people. In order to empower the voiceless, one has to understand why they are voiceless in the first place. That is why I spent many years doing research using primary and secondary sources. I obtained invaluable information through personal contacts, at times travelling by bus many times between Kampala and Rukungiri. I have done my research in a historical context, not from 1986 when NRM government came to power as some commentators have implied. I have given credit where it is due and criticized where it is the right thing to do. I have credited and criticized administrations in Uganda especially British, UPC and NRM. My belief is that to solve a problem you have got to get to the root cause and the agent that caused it otherwise you will treat symptoms and you will never get the work done satisfactorily. As a result of frank and manner of presentation of research findings some people have labeled me radical, assertive, sectarian and impatient. Let me explain what each one of these words mean from my perspective and why I feel the way I do.

The difficulty of applying Malthus essay to Uganda’s population

Uganda’s population challenges enter the development discourse when there are serious economic and social problems. Amin condemned population growth when the economy turned sour and ordered doctors to deal with it through contraception which he had banned a few years earlier. Currently (in 2010) Uganda’s population ‘explosion’ is again at the center of the development debate, invoking Malthus’ idea of population racing ahead of food production.

Malthus stated that population was growing geometrically (1,2,4,8,16 etc) while food production was growing arithmetically (1,2,3,4,5 etc), implying that all the food produced would be consumed in the same country. He concluded that if not checked, the least able to procure food would starve to death. Those able would survive – hence the survival of the fittest concept developed by Charles Darwin based on Malthus’ essay. The essay was written for Europe and North America. He used statistics compiled by Benjamin Franklin whose figures had included migration into America where it has had no application. During the 18th century agricultural productivity had doubled which Malthus ignored when he published his essay on population in 1798. One of the principle recommendations to check population growth was delayed marriage.

Population explosion: Africa is sitting on a time bomb

A response

Mr. Peter Mulira – a lawyer by profession – has written an article on Africa’s demography with the above title which appeared in New Vision (Uganda) March 31, 2010.

I would like to offer the following observations.

First, Africa’s fertility is declining albeit slowly thus lessening the scare of a ‘population bomb’ – an expression that entered the demographic discourse in the 1960s.

Second, Africa has the potential to feed many more people than it has right now given its arable land, water supplies (surface and underground) and idle labor force. The problem is that much of the food is wasted through storage, transport and processing constraints and much of the balance is exported to earn foreign currency as required under the Washington Consensus, thus leaving little for domestic consumption – pushing up prices which many households cannot afford. At the same time Africa’s agricultural productivity is very low.

Third, instead of addressing these shortcomings, a new idea has developed: Africans are being urged to sell or lease land to foreign countries and/or companies to produce food to feed people in their home countries – an arrangement if implemented will reduce food supplies in African domestic markets. The case of Madagascar is too well known to be repeated here. The reduction of food availability to African consumers will then be erroneously interpreted as population growing faster than food supplies.