MOU lacks transparency, participation and accountability

Until we receive copies of the MOU we shall continue to ask questions because this is a public, not a private, issue. It is also an issue that goes beyond the interests of Buganda. As they say when Buganda sneezes, Uganda catches a cold.

The MOU apparently signed by the Kabaka of Buganda and the President of Uganda has raised many questions largely because little is known about the process involved in its negotiation and signing.

We understand that negotiations regarding the return of Buganda kingdom began between Museveni and Mutebi during the guerrilla war when the two met in London and again somewhere in Uganda and continued thereafter until about five years ago when everything came to a halt because of fundamental disagreements.

But these discussions regarding public assets have remained shrouded in secrecy. There are stages in the negotiations when things have to be kept secret. But when secrecy becomes a permanent feature or the public is given information that is hard to swallow then suspicions begin to emerge as they have regarding the MOU. This exercise has lacked transparency and participation as well as accountability, the three elements that mark good governance.

A social and economic agenda for Uganda in the next five years

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.

Population dimension in development planning

The population dimension has featured prominently in the reviews of Uganda’s five-year development plan which was launched on Monday April 19, 2010. In considering this issue let us remember that:

First, individuals and couples have a human right to determine freely the number of children they need, when to start having them and how to space them. This is in line with the 1994 Cairo conference on population and development and the recently concluded 43rd session of the UN commission on population and development. Authorities should provide information and facilities to enable individuals and couples full fill their rights voluntarily.

Second, according to Article II (iv) of the Convention on Genocide (1948), imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group [e.g. of poor people] constitutes an act of genocide.

Third, population growth in a country is largely a result of poverty and migration. Poor people as we have in Uganda tend to produce many children because mortality rate in that group is still high, poor parents depend on children in old age, and a subsistence economy requires more hands than a modern one. Children of poor people drop out of school early and get married in their teens and begin to produce children right away. Reducing poverty and keeping girls at school beyond primary education and empowering women reduce fertility rates without controversy.