It is difficult to conduct a debate on anything in Africa
whose premise is the reality on the ground. Most debate ‘ whether on public
policies or political institutions, on democracy or accountability ‘ uses as
its reference point, the experience of the Western world. Take the example of
electoral competition. It seems to me that the peculiar way in which it is
evolving in Uganda (and many African countries) undermines checks and balances,
accountability and public service delivery.
Just like entrepreneurs seek to maximise profit and
consumers to maximise utility, politicians seek to maximise power. As rational
actors, politicians have to look for the most cost effective way to gain, hold
and retain power. In a democratic setting, elections are the vehicle through
which power is won and retained. Yet electoral competition creates incentives
that lead to characteristic choices.
In the Western world, electoral competition tends to
eliminate greedy politicians seeking to serve selfish motives in favour of
public spirited candidates seeking to serve the common good. Yet in Uganda (and
most of Africa), the opposite is often the case; the thug trounces the nice
guy. Why? Politics is a distributional struggle; as American political
scientist Harold Laswell said, it deals with ‘who gets what, when and how.’
Groups compete in politics for the benefits that come from
power. But this competition takes place within a given context. Most voters in
the industrial societies of the West are middleclass, educated and share a
common national identity. Because of these factors, electoral competition is
animated by issues of service delivery. In Africa, most voters are
semi-literate, agrarian and ethnically divided. The issues that animate
electoral competition revolve around identity ‘ religious or ethnic.
Prof. Gilbert Bukenya was appointed vice president because
he is a Muganda and a Catholic, two major constituencies that President
Museveni wants to win. Joe Biden was nominated as vice presidential running
mate because of his foreign policy experience which Barack Obama lacked.
Museveni would win a block vote of Baganda and Catholics; Obama would have to
win each voter individually. When people vote in blocks on the basis of
identity, they reduce the incentive for a politician to deliver services.
Secondly, in the absence of strong societal restraints on
power, the privileges of political office are many ‘ a luxury state house, two
executive jets, a convoy of 20 vehicles, and money to dish out to friends and
allies. So incumbents have a high incentive to rig to stay in power.
Now imagine you are Museveni. You have decent guys like
Eriya Kategaya, Ruhakana Rugunda, Bidandi Ssali, Apollo Nsibambi and Amanya
Mushega in cabinet. They believe in democracy and free and fair elections. But
you also have hawkish guys like Kakooza Mutale, Sam Kutesa, Amama Mbabazi,
Isaac Musumba and Mwesigwa Rukutana.
You strongly believe you have done a great job
reconstructing the country. Yet during elections, you are told that your
opponent, Dr Kizza Besigye, is working out ethnic and religious deals with
Mengo and Rubaga. The Kategayas are telling you to play fair; the Kutesas are
saying be realistic; idealism brought down Brutus. Besigye is even threatening
to put you and your allies on trial. So the stakes are high. It is most
probable that under such circumstances the hawks will carry the day.
To protect your legacy, you let the hawks stuff ballot
boxes, bribe, intimidate, maim and even kill. You emerge from the election
dripping with blood. When it is time to reward, whom do you give the most
influential ministries: the hawks who were there to rig, beat and kill for you
or the enlightened guys who stayed away? It turns out that after an election,
the number of hawks in cabinet and in the most influential ministerial jobs
increases.
Now you know you cannot trust a Kategaya with your dirty
secrets. What you did during the campaigns goes against all the ideals you used
to share during your liberation struggle ‘ a free and fair election, a level
playing field etc. So he gets few appointments at State House. Now, you realise
that elections have made you trust the thugs. Their numbers in your inner
circle increases after every election.
Yet you convinced yourself that you will regain your moral
standing by doing good things after the election. But the democratic system
demands whatever you do must be approved by parliament. So you go to negotiate
with MPs. But what MPs do you have?
Remember that voters have settled expectations about
politicians; they don’t believe their promises. So they seek to hold them to
account during elections ‘ by insisting the candidate buy them beer, sugar,
salt, soap, or pays school fees and medical bills for their children.
During the campaign, a public spirited politician (PSP) ran
against a thug in a constituency. The thug sold his house in Kampala for Shs
1.2 billion and sunk the money into the campaign. The salary of an MP over a
5-year term is Shs 500m. How does the thug plan to recoup this investment? By
lobbying to become minister so he can steal; or to sit on a major committee so
that he can get bribes! (Parliamentary committees don’t check the executive,
they eat with it).
The PSP, on the other hand, was genuinely committed to
public service. He did not sell his house; so he had little money to bribe
voters. Voters may have liked his promises, but they would be realised at a
future date ‘ so they are uncertain. The thug distributed goodies directly to
voters, so his promises were certain. So the thug defeated the PSP. Even your
choice of cabinet is limited to the large number of thugs in parliament.
You realise that most of the MPs are greedy and selfish.
Because you stole and bribed to win (the MPs were the very guys who did this
dirty work for you in their constituencies), you lack the moral high ground to
resist their thuggish ways. So they increase their salaries, they demand that
their constituencies become districts, they extort bribes from investors and
you realise you have nothing you can do to stop them. A purely democratic
process has led us to an undemocratic outcome.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment