Boosting agriculture to end poverty in Uganda

Press statement

On behalf of United Democratic Ugandans (UDU), I thank the United States Ambassador to Uganda H.E. Scott DeLisi for his statement on the role of agriculture in tackling the challenge of poverty in Uganda. The statement is timely and relevant because over 80 percent of Ugandans depend on agriculture for their livelihood and poverty is higher in rural than in urban areas where NRM government has concentrated its effort.

The rural areas in Uganda are dominated by peasants who have been the engine in the production of agricultural export commodities and food crops since the 1920s. It has been demonstrated globally that small holder farmers when facilitated are more productive, more efficient and more environmentally and socially friendly than large scale farmers.

The international community including the United Nations, G8 and the World Bank has agreed to support smallholder farmers in the efforts to increase global food productivity and total production. G8 has already allocated funds for supporting small holder farmers including in Uganda. UDU calls upon the Uganda government to create an enabling environment to boost small holder productivity including through high yielding seeds, organic and inorganic fertilizers and small scale irrigation schemes than replace them with large scale farmers as Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi suggested not too long ago. As agreed by NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), a development organ of African Union, Uganda should earmark at least 10 percent of national budget to the agriculture sector beginning in the 2013/2014 financial year.

Plan C of Tutsi Empire might work after all

Plan A of the first phase was to capture Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and DRC by military means. It succeeded in capturing and retaining Uganda and Rwanda. The military solution was halted by Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe troops.

Without abandoning the military solution, the leaders then moved onto Plan B of getting the Empire through the East African federation via the political route. This seemed slow.

Without abandoning the military and political East African solutions, the leaders then moved onto Plan C which is a combination of military and political strategies. Instead of going for the entire DRC they chose to capture Eastern DRC by military means. The region is now in imminent danger of being lost.

Rwanda and Uganda delegations met a few months ago and decided to abolish national borders among East African states probably starting with the border between Uganda and Rwanda. The two presidents may soon instruct their rubber stamp parliaments to pass legislation merging Uganda with Rwanda under a new name possibly The Republic of Rwaganda.

National Recovery Plan (NRP)

Executive Summary

The NRP is based on a vision of free, united and prosperous Uganda and a mission of rule of law, equality and justice for all Ugandans.

Despite its natural resource abundance, resilient people and strategic geographical location at the heart of Africa, Uganda has remained a poor country with over 50 percent of its population of some 33 million living in absolute poverty because of inappropriate policies, political instability, wars and, above all, rampant corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement of public funds. Uganda has been declared a failed state under military dictatorship disguised as democracy. The country is in deep political, economic, social, spiritual and environmental crisis. Corruption has spread and deepened becoming endemic and a principal constraint in Uganda’s development process. NRM has lost the will and capacity to address these challenges. It has resorted to electoral malpractices to stay in power and use of force to frustrate Ugandans demanding change. Consequently, Ugandans and increasingly development partners are losing confidence in the NRM government.

Uganda in deep crisis; needs intensive care attention

Admitting failure is a sign of wisdom and maturity and represents flexibility to look at the situation objectively with a view to identifying the real causes of the problem and provide appropriate solutions. Uganda’s economy had been sick for quite some time but it slipped into a comma in 2011 in part because of the global crisis but more critically as the result of reckless practices during the election campaigns. But the NRM government has refused to accept the obvious hoping presumably that time will correct the situation and return Uganda to normalcy. The author wrote to the president, speaker, prime minister, leader of the opposition and minister of finance advising that Uganda’s economic health was faltering, needing urgent attention. The advice was ignored, not even acknowledged.

To appreciate Uganda’s problems one has to go back to the 1987 decision by NRM government to abandon the ten point program in favor of ‘shock therapy’ structural adjustment program (SAP). The foreign advice NRM received and adopted is similar to what was imposed on Bolivia. During the 1980s and 1990s, Bolivia like Uganda, was a poster child for Washington Consensus market doctrine. Bolivia swallowed shock therapy neo-liberalism whole. Using privatization as an illustration, Bolivia sold off the airline, trains, phone and electric companies, public water system of Cochabamba City and gas and oil fields.

In Uganda eradicating poverty and implementing the 50 year master plan are mutually exclusive

Let me end 2011 with this short message in part as a response to Museveni’s end of year message.

First, Ugandans must understand the simple truth: Museveni is committed to implementing Bahororo 50 year Master Plan which was adopted at his Rwakitura residence under his chairmanship on March 15, 1992.

To realize the Master Plan, non-Bahororo Ugandans must be kept poor economically, socially and politically by denying them what would empower them such as quantity and quality education, jobs, nutrition and access to resources. It is a zero-sum game. Because of this game, poverty has remained very high – over fifty percent – and some 20 percent in the lowest income bracket have got worse.

To explain high levels of poverty, youth unemployment, hunger, disease etc, Museveni has always blamed external forces and “Acts of God” beyond NRM’s control or the opposition. And he gets away with it! It is mainly NRM’s commissions and omissions that are overwhelmingly responsible for too much suffering in Uganda – a country so well endowed to make everyone happy with a surplus. In true democratic countries Museveni and NRM would have been voted out of power a long time ago.

Lasting development comes from peoples own efforts

There is overwhelming evidence in time and space that countries that have developed or recovered quickly from devastation have relied heavily on their efforts – in some cases with additional external support. For instance, post-World War II quick recovery in Europe was more due to domestic institutions and capabilities that survived the war assisted by the Marshall Plan. Those that have relied heavily on outside advice and money – however well-intentioned – have not fared as expected witness Uganda since 1987.

NRM’s ten point program launched in 1986 received overwhelming support of Ugandans because it was homegrown. It covered issues that mattered most to Ugandans. Sadly, NRM dropped it in 1987 before implementation even began in favor of structural adjustment program (Washington Consensus) drawn up by outsiders.

I was among the first that protested to the highest level because I knew many in NRM close to the center of power. We argued that Ugandans know their history, their diversity and challenges and where they are located more than anyone else. Ipso facto, Ugandans should draw the roadmap and drive the process. We argued that experienced Ugandans in exile should be encouraged to return home and participate in the recovery and development process.

Uganda’s diseases of poverty may worsen under the dev plan

The NRM government was unable to detect the diseases of poverty (jiggers, scabies, trachoma, cholera, under-nutrition, pneumonia, insanity and malaria etc) – which have embarrassed the development partners and damaged the image of the government (as it prepares for presidential and parliamentary elections in early 2011) that had presented Uganda as a success story in neo-liberal economic growth and poverty reduction – for the following principal reasons.

First, the government followed strictly foreign advice that focused on inflation control, economic growth and per capita GDP without paying attention to the equity aspects. The distribution of the benefits of economic growth by class and region was left entirely to the invisible hand of the market forces which would not be interfered with at all.

Second, the government focused on producing excellent blue prints such as the modernization of agriculture, poverty reduction action plan and universal primary education with the assistance of renowned development experts from around the world. These blue prints were received by the international community as a model of success story before they were even implemented. The government was satisfied with that assessment which boosted its international standing and did not bother with implementation as long as the donors and the media were happy with what they were marketing on behalf of the NRM government.

Uganda’s development plan is a repeat of structural adjustment program

President Museveni articulated his vision of the five-year development plan in the foreword to the plan. With due respect, he just restated the objectives of the Washington Consensus or structural adjustment program (SAP) which Uganda has been implementing since an agreement was signed between the NRM government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in May 1987. The program was dropped in September 2009 because it had failed to deliver as expected.

Launching Uganda’s development plan raises fundamental questions

The NRM government has decided to launch a development plan in April 2010 which is a fundamental departure from the Washington Consensus or stabilization and structural adjustment program (SAP) that was launched in 1987 and has been praised by the government and donors – state and non-state actors alike – as a “success story” in macroeconomic stability, rapid economic growth, privatization of the economy, diversification of exports, streamlining public service and reducing poverty etc. Uganda became the darling of the west – which occasionally gave more money than the government had requested – and an example of economic development to be emulated by other developing countries wishing to transform their economies and societies.

Until now the government has been publishing statistics showing rosy achievements and projections that promised better days ahead with endorsement by some donors like the International Monetary Fund. The launching of the development plan – the use of the term “new plan” gives an impression that it is replacing an “old plan” which did not exist – at this critical juncture raises the following initial questions that need to be answered.

First, instead of a whole new development ideology embodied in the development plan, why did the government not make substantial changes and retain the current program?