Presidential
pledges in Uganda today stand at a record Shs 120 billion. These are promises
of assistance the president makes to different groups, individuals and
institutions and are paid for by the state. They have been accumulating over
the years, some for over a decade. Intended beneficiaries have waited for years
only to see their hopes frustrated.
Presidential
pledges are a primitive system of patronage. If a sub-county lacks a clinic or
school, it should get it as a personal favour from the president. That should
be a function of government policy through the national budget. Yet President
Yoweri Museveni is not alone in sustaining this system. It is practiced by many
of his contemporaries across Africa. These pledges reflect the neo-patrimonial
nature of politics on our continent.
The
word neo-patrimonial comes from Max Webers concept of patrimonial rule. Weber
was referring to governance in small and traditional pre-capitalist European
principalities where decision-making was highly personalised and arbitrary. The
state in Africa is neo-patrimonial because it combines the formal structure of
a modern bureaucratic state with informal and highly personalised rule where
informal practices trample over formal rules; presidential donations disregard
the budget.
Karl
Marx argued that the way people organize themselves to solve their basic
economic challenges how to clothe, house and feed themselves requires a superstructure
of non economic activity and thought. The superstructure cannot be picked
randomly, Marx reasoned, but must reflect the foundation on which it is raised.
For Marx, therefore, no hunting community could evolve or use the legal
framework of an industrial society and similarly, no industrial society could
use the conception of law and government of a primitive hunting village.
From
this perspective, many scholars on Africa have argued that presidents on the
continent are captives of the social forces around them. By presiding over
largely agrarian societies, presidents cannot avoid ruling like African chiefs
of old for example Nyungu ya Maawe of the Nyamwezi, Jaja of Opobo or Kabaka
Junju of Buganda. Museveni is only a reflection of his societys level of social
development.
But
Marx was broader in his grasp of these issues. Although many people consider
him a structuralist a lot of his arguments reflect this tendency he also
recognised the role of agency in social change. He noted, for example, that
when economic conditions change, so do social institutions through the
catalytic function of ideas. Although Africa has remained largely agrarian, a
significant part of our economic, political and intellectual life has changed.
We should be able to register some change.
Only
President Paul Kagame of Rwanda has attempted to banish this neo-patrimonial
politics from his leadership style. He makes pledges but only of a symbolic
nature. Thus, when Kagame attends a fundraising, he will make a token promise say
of a goat or of US$ 200 only to meet social expectation. If a community has no
clinic or a school has fewer classrooms, the matter is addressed through
government policy and the national budget. This way, Kagame has avoided the
Nyungu ya Maawe mentality.
Presidents
office is under clear instructions to meet his pledges within 60 days of making
them. Everyone around the presidency in Kigali will tell you that failure to do
so has serious consequences. Thus, there are no communities, individuals and
groups in Rwanda frustrated that a presidential pledge was not met.
Rwandans
therefore consider their president an honest man and trust his word. Even his
worst enemies will admit this. Save for his authoritarian style, Kagame has
defied many retrogressive African political practices. The lesson: although
Africas agrarian social structures are obdurate, there is room for agency i.e.
a committed leadership can alter them and modernise our continents governance.
One
gets the sense that Kagame has a highly cultivated sense of shame. He is
clearly afraid to be seen to say one thing and do another. Possibly he falters
sometimes. But there is a clear and sustained effort to exhibit a high level of
integrity in his actions. Yet the opposite seems the case in Uganda. Museveni
makes little or no effort to ensure that his promises are fulfilled suggesting
the president is a liar. Even the people of Luwero who financed his guerrilla
war with promises of compensation still gather outside parliament 20 years
later to claim their money.
The
inability of Museveni to keep his word speaks volumes about his moral
character. The list of his empty promises goes beyond presidential pledges. In
1986, he promised to rule for only four years and hold elections. Instead he
extended his rule by another five years which later turned into six. People
began to question his integrity. In 1996, he made an unequivocal promise not to
run for a second term, which he breached without apology or explanation. In
2001, he promised that he was running for his last term in order to organise peaceful
succession. Instead, he amended the constitution to remove term limits and
ended up succeeding himself.
This
deficit in Musevenis moral character will have powerful consequences on his
legacy and on Ugandas progress. Julius Nyerere presided over a declining
economy and an authoritarian state in Tanzania for 24 years. Yet Tanzanians
hold Nyerere in high esteem. Reason: whatever mistakes he made, his citizens
felt Nyerere made them in an honest attempt to do good for Tanzania. On the
other hand, Museveni has presided over a fairly democratic government and a
rapidly growing economy that has brought prosperity to many. Yet he may not
enjoy Nyereres status. Why?
Musevenis
sustained failure to project a high level of integrity has undermined his moral
standing even among those closest to him. Many around him indulge in theft
possibly because they have no moral bar against which they can hold themselves.
The public too have limited faith in the integrity of our president. When he
gives an investor a piece of land or forest purely for developmental reasons,
people suspect he is doing so out of some pecuniary interest. They resist. The
lesson: It is not the so much that leaders do, but what the public thinks were
their motivations, that makes them great.
No comments:
Post a Comment