Why, given the apparent democratic space in Uganda compared
to Rwanda, is the delivery of public goods and services in our country so poor
compared to our southern neighbour? Colin Barigye, in last week’s issue argued
that such services are easy to deliver under a dictatorship because ‘autocrats
make things happen because they work through unilateral decrees and autocratic
directives.’
This argument sounds theoretically convincing but is
empirically wrong. Most democracies everywhere outperform autocratic regimes in
service delivery ‘ Mobutu’s Zaire compared to Botswana or Burma compared to
South Korea. Dictators service their personal interests through decrees, not
the interests of the citizens. Dictators do not care about the people except
the influential groups around them.
The obvious discrepancy between democratic space and the
quality of public services in Uganda is because elites have made a tragic
bargain: In exchange for a freehand to loot public resources and destroy public
goods and services, the regime has given elites ‘freedom’ to shout wolf in
newspapers and radios, evade taxes, violate traffic rules, throw garbage on the
streets and build in road reserves.
This chaos and anarchy that some Ugandans mistake for
liberty and freedom are antithetical to democracy. They are a breeding
incubator for fascism as Russia (1917) and Germany (1920s) teach us. The basis
of any democracy is the rule of law, not the impunity we see in Uganda.
Although the benefits of our current bargain go to elites, the costs are
incurred largely by ordinary people who constitute 90% of our population.
President Yoweri Museveni’s strategy of building his power
involves buying off the loudest and influential elites through patronage hence
the large size of cabinet, presidential advisors and assistants, RDCs and over
150 commissions and semi autonomous government bodies. The cost of public
administration (political appointments) has increased from Shs 200 billion in
2002 to Shs 980 billion this year.
Equally, since the state is the largest consumer in our
nation, the private sector has been brought into the fold through state
contracts, tenders, land give away bonanzas, cash payments, tax exemptions etc.
Such personalised privileges are given by the president to build political
support. With vast resources going into patronage, less money is available for
roads, schools, hospitals, medical care and education.
By its very nature, patronage is selective, discriminates
and excludes. The patron decides which clients to reward or penalise. President
Museveni has said that the allocation of services will go to the areas that
vote for him. This creates intense competition among groups; some in support in
order to get services, others in opposition in order to be bribed to offer
support. Although such competition may show vibrant civic life, it is actually
a political pathology that sustains a regime in power whose strategy of
political consolidation is socially harmful.
Clearly, the benefits of this patronage are enjoyed
individually while the costs are incurred collectively. For example, the
minister enjoys the Land Cruiser alone or with his family, a luxury created at
the cost of not maintaining roads. Yet the price of potholes e.g. on trade is
imposed on society as a whole. This unfair distribution of benefits to
individuals and costs to society has created public resentment which is
reflected in agitation ‘ on radio and in newspapers. Institutional dysfunctions
have thus created a large market for public spirited journalism and debate.
But why has this ‘democratic space’ not steered the vast
majority of Ugandans to demand better public services? In exchange for
destroying our public health and education systems the regime has given the
elite a liberal environment to create private sector alternatives. Therefore,
the most articulate sections of our society have exited public services, thus
robbing them of voice. This way, the regime has been successful in separating
key elite groups from the rest of the population i.e. cutting the head
(leadership) from the rest of the body (followership).
The strategy of political consolidation in Rwanda is based
on the provision of public goods and services ‘ good roads, schools and
hospitals and quality health and education. The country has a national health
insurance scheme where any citizen, regardless of income (if they needed it)
can be evacuated for a heart or kidney transplant anywhere in the world. Every
student has access to a loan for university education, scholarships to study
abroad are given by a board on institutionally determined criteria, applicants
and their profiles are pinned on the notice board for everyone to see the
transparency of the process.
If you build good roads with pedestrian walkways, you cannot
exclude those who oppose the government from using them. Equally, it does not
matter whether you support the sitting government or oppose it; as long as you
are a citizen in Rwanda you have access to the aforementioned healthcare and
student loans.
The costs of this strategy are incurred by a few elites that
would otherwise benefit from corruption and patronage. But the benefits go to
all citizens. This does not create a strong market for the kind of public
spirited journalism we see in Uganda. Public spirited people in Rwanda would
therefore tend to serve government in order to achieve its socially beneficial
public goods-and-services delivery agenda. This partly explains why the media
and civil society in Rwanda are weak.
The particular way in which democracy has evolved in Uganda
has left ordinary people without voice. Yet these are people with no exit
options from public services; they cannot afford to pay for their children’s
education or medical bills in private schools and hospitals. This has also left
significant landmines in Uganda’s reform path.
For example, although over 80% of Ugandans are resentful of
government, the opposition has not gained much traction. Why? The public does
not see the difference between those in power and those seeking to take it away
from them. They see political competition as a struggle among elites to share
‘the spoils’ as it were. So in elections, people ask politicians for advance
payment; in exchange for alcohol or salt, they are willing to sell their vote.
This defeats the cause of democracy because elections are not about making
choice but about surrendering it.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment