The unprecedented diseases of poverty in Uganda led by jiggers and malnutrition (that have become a national scandal) have not only humiliated a proud people but also embarrassed an arrogant NRM government and donors that support it. The government blamed previous ‘bankrupt’ regimes of Obote and Amin for wasting scarce resources including travelling to the United Nations and other destinations in private jets, staying in expensive hotels, hosting expensive functions to compete with superpowers and furnishing their residences with expensive imported furniture. Meanwhile Ugandans suffered all indignities and deprivations including lack of shoes and adequate food resulting in jigger infestation and severe malnutrition. Previous governments were also accused of maintaining a colonial development model that kept Uganda a producer of raw export commodities with low and fluctuating prices against ever rising prices of imported manufactured products. Unfortunately, Museveni and his government that had never run a government set about transforming Uganda’s economy and society in ways that created a paradox of economic growth and medieval social decadence (I wrote a chapter showing similarities in today’s Uganda and medieval Europe in my book titled Uganda’s Development Agenda in the 21st Century published in 2008). Below are a few examples.
First, NRM government relied on its cadres comprising mostly young people many of them not only poorly educated but also without experience in running a government. Because he had won a guerrilla war, Museveni was convinced that he could use the same guerrilla methods to run a country using his fighters (it is the fighters who are still in charge of Uganda since they took power in 1986). In a 1993 interview, Museveni rejected the idea of inviting back experienced Ugandans living abroad to help in the reconstruction of the country. He stated categorically that he was training new people and did not need or even miss those in exile. He suggested they stay there, earn and send money to their families. The cost to Uganda of relying on inexperienced officials which resulted in loss of income and revenue was detailed by George Kanyeihamba who led Uganda delegations in negotiating barter trade deals. Because Uganda did not know how to negotiate contracts and monitor implementation, the benefits of economic growth bypassed Ugandans contributing to social problems.
Second, Uganda government refused to listen to advice from Ugandans particularly on growth with equity especially following the launch of structural adjustment program in 1987. Any advice, however constructive, was seen as coming from opposition groups attempting to sabotage and ultimately remove the government from power. As development problems accumulated in 1986 and early 1987, the government chose to seek advice from foreigners while experienced citizens languished in exile. Key ministries especially finance and its central bank were filled with young western experts, advisers and supervisors who may have been familiar with development theories but lacked knowledge of Uganda’s history and culture. These experts came with all sorts of ideas which culminated in the extreme (shock therapy) version of structural adjustment. This adjustment model emphasized growth, private sector as the engine of growth, hiring of foreign workers and repatriation of profits and salaries, dismissal of civil servants and drastic budget reduction for agriculture, education, healthcare, and housing. Market forces would determine the location of economic activities which ended up concentrated in the capital city of Kampala that contributes some 70 percent of GDP but has less than two million of 33 million Ugandans. Therefore over 31 million Ugandans contribute a mere 30 percent of GDP. Thus, the benefits of economic growth have bypassed the overwhelming majority of Ugandans with adverse social repercussions.
Third, Uganda’s liberal economic and immigration policy has resulted in massive immigration particularly from the neighboring countries of Rwanda, Burundi, DRC and Sudan and increasingly from Kenya, Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Workers from outside Africa are also arriving in the country. These immigrants are concentrated in Kampala city taking a disproportional share of jobs and income, the latter repatriated without any limitation. The situation is likely to get worse as East African economic integration and political federation advance allowing free movement and settlement of people in any part of the federation. Because the neighboring countries of Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi have an acute shortage of land relative to Uganda whose leaders continue to advertise that Uganda still has plenty of unutilized land will end up with more settlers who in the long run could outnumber native Ugandans. In a 1993 interview and since then Museveni has declared that Uganda has a lot of idle land sending an implicit invitation to those that are land insecure to come to Uganda and settle. The next census should record how many immigrants and their family members are in the country, where they are located and what they are doing for a living. This would give an idea about how the benefits of economic growth are being distributed between immigrants and Ugandans. Given that the productive sectors are in foreign hands (Britain has the largest foreign investments in Uganda), the bulk of economic growth benefits is in foreign hands that repatriate profits and salaries to their foreign bank accounts.
Fourth, NRM government opted for a market induced trickle down mechanism to distribute the benefits of economic growth to regions and classes. Unfortunately, what has been experienced is not a trickle down but a bubble up of growth benefits from the poor to the rich resulting in skewed income distribution benefiting those in the already rich top income bracket disproportionately. The introduction of a cash policy has induced peasants to sell their foodstuffs cheaper and buy non-food items dear, leaving little or no money for food and other basic needs. Thus, adverse terms of trade have made it difficult for peasants to benefit from increased production and meet food, healthcare and education, housing, energy, safe drinking water, sanitation and overall hygiene needs. Thus, despite commendable economic growth that reached ten percent in mid-1990s, Ugandans have not attained the standard of living enjoyed at the end of 1970. Contrary to government rosy statistics, poverty in Uganda has spread and deepened as reflected in poverty-related diseases. Jiggers and malnutrition are a clear and undisputed external manifestation of abject poverty. Because of these revelations government rarely refers to poverty reduction from 56 to 31 percent. Uganda’s reporting to the UN General Assembly MDG Summit in September 2010 displayed performance far below targets.
Fifth, Uganda’s increasing attention to security at national, regional and increasingly international levels has diverted much attention and resources from economic and social sectors. Consequently economic growth has declined appreciably. Also, lack of economic regulation has resulted in massive exploitation of Uganda’s labor force and unlimited repatriation of profits and salaries. Consequently, economic growth benefits have accrued to a few people mostly foreigners who own the main productive activities in agriculture, industry and services. Further, the unregulated privatization of health and education, transport, housing and services has drained resources from Uganda peasants into the pockets of a few well connected Ugandans and foreign entrepreneurs.
All in all, the policies followed by the NRM government while resulting in appreciable level of economic growth in large part from excess capacity inherited in 1986, this growth has been disproportionately siphoned off by the few rich Ugandans, foreign private enterprises and immigrants resulting in a paradox of economic growth and social decay (collapsing education, healthcare and housing systems and overall hygiene). The latter has manifested itself in spreading and deepening diseases of poverty such as jiggers, scabies, pneumonia, malaria, cholera, tuberculosis, malnutrition and insanity.
As more immigrants drift into Uganda and take scarce jobs and acquire land, the conflict with native Ugandans is likely to emerge with serious consequences such as a civil war. The civil war that has crippled Cote d’ivore is the result of conflict between native Ivorians and foreign-born immigrants. While population movements may bring economic growth benefits to Uganda, the overall issue of migration within globalization, East African economic integration and political federation need to be weighed against the net benefits to Uganda citizens. Creating trade at the East African level may not necessarily benefit Ugandans as a whole. Therefore Ugandans need to be careful about general statements of benefits. It appears that so far Uganda has not reaped much from economic integration to commend political federation.
In the final analysis Uganda’s development will come from within and largely by Ugandans from the bottom up. So far development has come from outside and is largely top down. Over decentralization of responsibility to local authorities in the form of districts as NRM has pursued it will in the end deliver inadequate benefits to citizens and social sectors even though economic growth at national level may be increasing. To avoid the paradox of economic growth and social decay, policy makers need to pay special attention to growth with equity and social development that benefits all Ugandans.