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.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
www.andrewmwendasblog.blogspot.com

written by Emperror, May 13, 2009
I however disagree with his definition of "democrtic space in Uganda" as "chaos and anarchy". By any measure, Uganda of present can NOT be described as anarchic, chaotic .... probably (but this has a lot to do with the so called opposition politics than with M7).
The "harvest" from M7's govt policies of divestiture, decentralisation and expansion of the political "elite" SHALL be realised (not necessarily through myopic journalism) in good time. That NRM-O through the divestiture policy has opened the space for private sector participation in infrastructure building should not be "prima facie" construed to be "sowing the seeds of nepotism".
As for Rwanda .......
written by Russo, May 13, 2009
The argument here is that for a regime that has enjoyed the largest share ever of foreign aid to Uganda it would be worthwhile to see marked transformation in general as we build an elite class for the next 40 years much as we have been trying to do in the last 23 years!It is not the opposition, that is already too weak to perform, and resort to accuse the regime-I do not belong to either! One would love to see a quantifiable- qualitative transformation in the key sectors of our society in terms of service delivery that really matter most to the ordinary man/woman. The time has really been good enough for the test to produce a tangible outcome. The opposition can never pull a muscle even in the next 40 years...it is utterly disorganised. The matter here is not campaign/strengthen the oppostion or discredit the govt but rather a voice for the voiceless whether they vote for or against the NRM.It is not myopic really.
written by JIM, May 13, 2009
Wow Andrew I think you are droppin to the smallest denominator. Rwandans dont dare complain because like the Jews who yell anti semitism when you ask them about the 2 state solution, they have successfully marketed the Genocide and Intarahamwe to there sicko advantage. SO the cloak of Genocide is very thick anyone challenging Kagame is automatically silienced,and in some cases never to be seen again.
written by JIM, May 13, 2009
written by Emperror, May 13, 2009
That you can call for a "quantifiable" measure of long term policies to be delivered in the short term, surely qualifies you as myopic (and Mwenda to boot). Just look at the GDP over whatever stretch of time you choose; break out tax collection, education, private sector participation et al and I can bet you there is significant transformation. That there has not been commensurate direct investment in some supposedly "key" sectors is true to govt divestiture policy.
written by denis, May 14, 2009
It is therefore diffcult to galvanise this elite class to make real contributions to the democratic and other development of their countries and end up settling in those places they feel more at home.
Our own situation is a result the greed of a few individuals-sadly the pangs are felt by the majority.
written by the czar, May 14, 2009
written by Emperror, May 15, 2009
written by Mukalazi, May 15, 2009
Sometimes it makes more sense to say ''no comment'' than to keep on uttering rubbish even when uncalled for. I think its high time Mr. Emperror that you learnt the use of this phrase, especially when people like Andrew have made a contribution worth of a reflection for the sake of our good country. The more you want to raise your head up as an intellectual am afraid the more you expose your intellectual bankrupsy, am afraid, to your detriment!!
You do not have to ever critique whatever topic Andrew is discussing. Careful listening can be a betterparticipation at times. Thanks.
written by Josh - sucking, May 15, 2009
written by Josh, May 15, 2009
Short term, when did decentralisation system of governance be considered a policy and long term one? For this system to bring results it does not need long term because it has to deliver immediately as long as it is a system and if it is can't you don’t have to wait not even for 5 years to have it repudiate. As a desired process by government for service delivery that has been failed by the top management, there is no one to blame and am sure every other president has to take responsibility for all the failure in the system. Snapshot in the multinational companies, the CEO is responsible for failures and gains so is the president, and we should have a corporate approach to the affairs of the nation success other than telling us how tax collection has improved which compel us to ask more question that is it is so that we have improvements and have registered significant transformations, how come they are not being felt through service delivery, talk about the infrastructure and giving meaningful services to the people that pay the taxes you are boosting about. Education hmm I will not waste my time on that coz the right word for it it is pathetic at the moment. Private sector, Hmmm man make your research again it is out dated before u conclude on about significant transformation.
written by Emperror, May 15, 2009
If anyone can fail to consider decentralisation as a long term venture (I'll keep clear of the policy bit else Josh gets upset), then surely a CEO is the equivalent of a president to a country (just the small footnote that a country president differs from a CEO in that a country president has to adhere to democracy and being voted for whereas for a CEO it is a matter of merit and does not need to be voted for; small detail though that can be done away with!)
Actually Josh, I was right and wrong, right that you are not myopic, wrong that I said I was not sure how to describe you, and here it is ...... waste of space!
written by Emperror, May 15, 2009
written by paulo, May 17, 2009
I wd be surprised if it was upward sloping at best - just look at current inflation figures, energy bills in last 2yrs, popn growth rate etc add level of unemployment. clearly Ug has peaked on any productivity gains made prior to 2000 & the govt is struggling with high govt expenses & any investment in capital or infrastructure has been a victim of corruption.
Andrew is right - the least the public can get is to share in public goods. unfortunately they r being robbed of that. M7 knows that, but at this stage its more psychological - he's in denial - just like many CEOs that see their performance taper off, or even rogue stock traders that were previously stars.
The best thing he can do is take a holiday to reflect on his legacy, & when he returns, announces his plans not to stand for 2011. He can then be Uganda's madela, & focus where he seems to have talent - on African Strategy
written by paulo, May 17, 2009
The elite wanting change r frustrated by a slow govt, & a weak parliament to rein in govt. so theres no point fighting for improvements at a cost, while the rest want to be free riders. M7 & his crew have made it clear they didnt fight the war so free riders would benefit.
I think a key prob for the public is lack of orderly means of wealth acquisition eg housing. so everyone has to steal to acquire wealth. an orderly process would raise the costs of corruption on individuals, bcoz now benefits are higher than any costs.
written by paulo, May 18, 2009
analyse ugandas performance over the last 5-10yrs, for real gdp/capita growth, any labour productivity gains, savings rate trends, investment trends, proportion of gdp contributed by various factors-govt expenditure, exports, investments etc. , inflation trends, interest rate trends, currency etc,
Then make a forecast for 5-10yrs ahead based on expected events & current trends & govt plans - include estimates of any oil benefits.
compare this with 3 african countries, 2 far east, and 1 developed. we need to see where we are & whether with these trends we r going anywhere or deluding ourselves!
written by Emperror, May 18, 2009
On the other hand, I will toss the ball back in your court, provide the figure to the contrary as I am rather sure you can not. Visit the UBOS website, that should be a start, and if you are in Kampala, go to Ministry of Finance (I have met some very good and helpful people there when looking for data) and they will point you in the right direction.
written by Denis, May 19, 2009
written by JIM, May 19, 2009
written by paulo, May 25, 2009
Now when challenged, yr best excuse is limited space, yet you respond to almost everyones contribution, with some bland statements.
You dont even have the spine to stand by yr comments & present a logical defence of what you meant.
written by king, May 29, 2009
The revolutionaries of 1986 meant well for Uganda, but unfortunately though the denominator to the equation was self interest and aggrandizement.if Ugandans benefit from them, then its just the spill over effects emanating from their houses overflowing with milk and honey.
However,if uganda is rebranded, and our leaders are held accountable, and that voters vote basing on ideas,ideals, ideology,ability , and that our universities,are given the worth deserved and that they act as breeders of new knowledge and that technology is local bred here and made to trickle down to the economy then we can move to our destination that is worthy of our sweat.
who knows.... cry my beloved country, Uganda
written by king, June 01, 2009
in a democratic society, the public good and the urge to ensure a just and fair society transcends the selfish nature of mankind.
thus for a democratic culture to be inculcated, our souls need to be liberated from selfishness,fear of the unknown and ignorance.
our souls then will appreciate that all citizens need to benefit and partake in the national cake.
if we do not liberate ourselves from selfishness, you will always find a professor whose mindset is no different from peasants. you possibly have seen them imitating the big man's way of speech,walking style and soon they will also start shaking hands using the left hand because the boss does it though due to health problems. they are like apes, how sad.....
written by king, June 02, 2009
presidents especially in Africa fear fear itself. thus they instill fear amongst the masses, create imaginary rebel groups, use poverty and ignorance as political tools to rule till they breath their last.
a revolution succeeds when most people share in a common threat and as such seek to address it. a revolution is not an end in itself, the french revolution for instance continued its mutation until a free and fair society evolved.
we have the raw material for change, the elites are here to lead, the Mwenda's of this world are here to show the devils schemes and to show the way.it is your duty to disseminate Mwenda's gospel, this will then have a multiplier effect.Mwenda is a political prophet,those with ears and eyes should listen and see
our souls need to be liberated first or else after the revolution, selfishness will take the better part of people and so the tragedy of 1986 revolution will be repeated.
our way of reasoning needs to be liberated, to learn to separate subjective sentiments from objective ones. Let the revolution begin with Mwenda's blog. to use reason and logic.to pick the substance of Mwenda's articles and to judge whether they hold truth or not than to engage in empty debate of who bank rolls Mwenda,what car he drives etc.
GET SAVED AND EMBRACE THE GOD OF DEMOCRACY. REASON ,LOGIC AND SELFLESSNESS. LIBERATION STARTS WITH THE SELF.











Just for a brief comment-
I rather work with an autocratic leader whose results I can see than blind myself in 'democracy' of thieves and greeds! Your argument is one of the best in years, it shows maturity in professional journalism.Long live The Independent!