Last week, we were treated to a televised debate among
Uganda’s presidential candidates. Although we face an immense task of
transforming our country from a poor and backward nation into a rich industrial
society, our presidential candidates’ arguments fell far below what is required
to achieve this task. For example, all the candidates talked about poor
delivery of public goods and services. But they assumed this is due to
corruption and the lack of care by those in power. Yet the real challenge of
Uganda is that we are a poor country that cannot afford to pay for a large
basket of public goods and services to the quality we desire.
The fundamental objective is to sustain a high rate of
economic growth over a long period of time. This is critical because it will
increase public revenues and thereby the government’s ability to pay for these
public goods and services in an effective way. It was therefore intriguing that
the “debate” did not have a single candidate mention economic growth.
The most passionate candidate was Dr. Kizza Besigye. Yet he
defined his candidature narrowly as being against President Yoweri Museveni. He
said if Museveni was not in the race he would not be in it either. He added
that he only came to the debate because he had been misled by the organisers to
believe Museveni was also going to attend. In personalising his struggle around
Museveni, Besigye only demonstrated his lack of a vision of the Uganda he
wants.
Only Maj. Gen. (retired) Benon Biraaro articulated a vision
arguing his aim is to end poverty. But he was unable to show the core elements
of achieving such a goal. Yet even with this limitation, I felt if ideas can
become actions, Biraaro can make a transformational president. Former Prime
Minister Amama Mbabazi had a very good introduction by stating the tactical
challenges government is facing in its efforts to serve its citizens. However,
he lacked a broad vision of the country he is seeking to build. If elected, I
felt he can only make a transactional president.
The disasters were Kyalya and Mabirizi. Both were totally
clueless about the needs of Uganda and the responsibilities of the office they
are seeking. If I had been the organisers I would not invite them to the next
debate. Barya was the most disappointing of all, perhaps because I expected
something substantial from him. Abed Bwanika failed to link his anecdotal
stories from his village to the wider challenges facing Uganda. These four came
across as being in the presidential race to make a name rather than to offer an
alternative governance strategy.
There was very little, if at all, debate among the
candidates on their different policy and governance options. Instead, the event
turned out into a question and answer session between the moderators and the
candidates. I wanted to hear Biraaro challenge Besigye on his policy promises –
like how to fund teacher’s salaries, improve agriculture productivity and give
laptops to every secondary school student. I waited for Besigye to challenge
Mbabazi on the viability of his proposed village banks. And I thought Mbabazi
would challenge Biraaro on his management ability given that he knows how he
performed when he as Chief of Staff of UPDF and he (Mbabazi) was minister of
defence. Instead, all the candidates failed or feared to challenge each other.
Some people have argued that a substantial debate would only
have been possible if Museveni had participated. They have said that a good
debate would have needed an exchange between the incumbent and his challengers
on the different policy and governance strategies. This is nonsense. What if
Museveni was not in the race? There is no incumbent in the current race for the
White House in America, the country from whom we have copied and pasted this
practice. But even among the opposition republicans, their internal debate is
vibrant.
This Musevenicentric view has been most articulated by
Besigye. He has defined the problem of Uganda as Museveni. Get rid of Museveni,
Besigye argues, and the rest would follow. This simplistic approach to
political problems appeals to the masses but does not address the core
challenges of a country like Uganda. Museveni is not the cause of the problems
of Uganda as Besigye seems to believe. A more reasonable argument could be that
Museveni has failed to solve the problems of Uganda. All evidence would show
that in spite of his one million and one weaknesses, Museveni has made an
invaluable contribution to the reconstruction and stabilisation of Uganda. The
challenge therefore is how to build on what he has achieved and transcend the
limitations of his leadership of the country.
There was little effort to rely on verified facts and
figures to argue their case by the different candidates, although I admit
Mbabazi did so in his opening remarks. It was obvious that all the candidates
were not prepared for a serious and informed discussion. Besigye made wild and
ill-informed allegations on the cost of building roads in Uganda on Bujagali
dam, the kind that his supporters admire him for. Sadly, Mbabazi who was in
government as prime minister and therefore knows (or should have known) the
facts made no effort to challenge Besigye.
The debate lacked substance on the core challenges of a poor
country – like how to sustain economic growth and how to create jobs for the
large mass of young people leaving school. It did not address issues like how
to increase export earnings through value addition so that our country can earn
more foreign exchange to pay for the construction of dams, railways, roads,
power lines and other infrastructure absolutely necessary for growth and
transformation. And most critically, there was no discussion of the
international economic system and how it limits our government’s independence
in decision making thereby stifling growth.
I also wanted to hear from the candidates how to make
Ugandans own the commanding heights of the economy which under Museveni has
been largely taken over by foreign companies. There was no informed and
passionate discussion on how to increase agricultural production and
productivity, a sector that employs 70 percent of our people and whose growth
has been slow for the last 20 years. The men I listened to on Friday January
15th were sincere, patriotic and passionate. But they were equally far below
the calibre needed to address our challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment