The Rise and Fall of Decentralisation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What was then decentralisation all about?
Existing Decentralised Structures In Uganda today, we have in place a grandiose structure with various cascading, non-contradictory sub-structures, of which social, environmental, economic and administrative role and ideo-logic base, becomes murkier and questionable at all policy levels. Existing structural components, within decentralised structures are problematic to say the least, in a sense that they neither serve transformative schemes nor do they supplement social cohesion, in a four planar social setting, in a nation state which Uganda is. The four planar social setting is composed of social institutions, structures, the biosphere-(production plane), constraints and enablements (non-empirically or non-figurative arrays) Today in Uganda, we have Local Government Finance commission (LCFC), besides Poverty Action Fund (PAF) derived from Poverty Action Eradication Programme (PAEP) which is different from Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP)! Then PEAP was transformed into a three year Public Investment Plan (PIP). Remember what is public, is also included or is part of what is termed as poverty structures in Uganda namely education, food production, electricity, water or rather macroeconomics variables. Part of the above is not implemented by decentralised administrative entities but rather by Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), OXFAM, and Non � governmental organisation (NGO�s).In some way, this will imply that governmental administrative entities are actually not competent to do their duties which interprets that the decentralisation process is as well ineffective. Notice too that PIP is working besides Ministry of Finance, Planning and Developmental Sectoral Plan, which actually is reflected in the National budget sector planning. What is even more surprising, is yet the establishment of Education and Health strategic Investment plan (ESIP & HSIP respectively) as if these sectors are not one and part or independent of the sectoral plan and funding which would have been covered by Public Investment Plan (PIP)! The confusion still goes on, remember today in Uganda, there is also a programme for modernisation of agriculture (PMA) which is also accompanied with a fund. The entire project requires Shs. 66 billion for its effective implementation as per officials in this ministry. Subdivided as per financial year 2001/2002, 53% for research, 14% for management and institutions, 9% for control of pests and diseases, and 26% for other relevant district and community support projects. Besides above estimations, the government is providing Shs. 228 billion for operationalisation of the Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) programmes this financial year. Uganda also received a grant from the Japanese Government of US $450,000 (about sh780m) for development expenditure plans for various PMA programmes. The above PMA strategy is said to be farmer-led agricultural service delivery system, targeting the poor and women farmers. Because of implementation problems, now there is yet the so-called National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). With its Strategy Framework providing for services contracted by farmers groups where there are virtually no co-operatives, also funded through tax money. Among their immediate priorities is setting up an Interim Secretariat, NAADS Organisational Bill, and securing funding from where that is not clearly stated. For a reminder, agriculture covers at least four sectors ;- (1)Farming (2). Forestry (3). Fisheries (4). Tourism. These sectors are not well detailed how they will benefit from those programmes and who implements what where and when. Let us assume that Uganda has district-planning broads presumably planning district roads, hospitals, farmland, storage facilities, schools, housing and communications facilities estates etc. Now under Government�s Rural Electrification Strategy (2001-2010), the priority actions include the establishment of a Rural Electrification Board to give policy direction and a Rural Electrification Unit to operationalise the Strategy. Now what is the role of district-planning boards (decentralisation) one might wonder if they can�t plan for electrification of district towns, road facilities, health care and school facilities, water and sanitation facilities, electrified with refrigerated storage market and housing projects etc? Last year, Government started a preparation of a sector-wide approach in planning (SWAP) framework for the water supply and sanitation sector said to be community-driven demand and extension management. How could this approach be far reaching where there are no permanent housing facilities- I have seen this project in Luwero town! Let us look again at PEAP. PEAP objectives are namely; - 1. Policy and budgetary planning processes 2. Monitoring of expenditures and service delivery 3. Improving poverty data and monitoring 4. Discussions on external development assistance The first question, which comes to mind when one looks at these policy objectives, is who is planning what, respective ministries, local governments, or PAM, PEAP as a unit entity? This is where decentralisation policy is even more disturbing and unimplementable since as shown above it lack focus and working flame-work with a lasting impact. The above PAM, PEAP based on the so-called main features of PEAP (1997) sub divided into two parts. This is not to say that what is outlined as objectives are not vital but rather to show that entire organisational basis and governmental planning is misdirected and thus not implemetable. a. Three broad objectives: 1. Increased incomes for the poor 2. Improved quality of life 3. Strengthened governance b. Priority Poverty Areas: 1. Primary health care 2. Rural feeder roads 3. Primary education 4. Provision of clean water 5. Modernisation of agriculture, particularly extension and research Notice that non of the above can be extended to most rural areas partly because there are no proper national planning like, town and urban planning, housing facilities and worse still every other county town centre is completely unplanned. More still in Uganda co-operative, entities were discarded way back 1994, which would have organised rural folks with vital information and organisational tools in the agricultural sector, which they the rural folk given to the COGNITIVE MATERIAL RESOURCES do not readily have. While Uganda has now what we call Uganda Bureau of statistic (UBOS) for monitoring socio-economic development into the country, there is yet what is called Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Project (UPPAP) and Planning in the ministry of Finance�s Poverty Monitoring and Analysis Unit (PMU). Then what is UPPAP monitoring which UBOS and Ministry of finance can�t monitor? When the above entities fail to deliver the government go yet still further bypassing its own administrative entities � the decentralised administrative entities and creates another jig saw in the Uganda political economy namely; Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment project UPPAP with the same objectives as show above: 1. To look at the need to revise priorities 2. To examine the implementation of the Community Action Plans 3. To help communities identify the best channel of flow of funds (for example, religious institutions such as churches or mosques, or perhaps the local council chairperson) 4. To raise awareness of communities about how to access funding, both through government structures and other sources. Notice that local government act is delegating community activities to the people the so-called peasants- with or without knowledge. In that case in Butambala the peasant will therefore know what is needed to be done for his /her community as the case is with toxicated Kampala city where the elite and power centre lies. Now here the question arises, re-decentralisation policy as to what the roles of the district administrative entities like district planning offices are if they exist at all? The number of district in Uganda at the time of edition of this article is 56 and still going up. While the number of members of Parliament has clocked 300 and above also still going up. On the public administration side in Uganda Resident District Commissioners (RDC) are raising as per district expansion. So is the case with assistant resident district commissioner ARDCs. In return there is another level of the so-called local councils V- I, as yet more dysfunctional structures are added on a confused ideological assembly. The decentralised structures generally are patterned as follows: - 1. Constitute Members of parliament, which number is clocking now over 300 people. 2. In urban regions, we�ve got Mayors and their deputes, secretaries, treasurers and subsidiary core administrative personnel. 3. Residential District commissions (RDC) 4. Assistant resident district commissioner (ARDC) 5. Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) 6. District military intelligence offices (DMIO) 7. Local council chiefs, five administrative positions and I to V. 8. District Agricultural officers. 9. District Environmental officers 10. District Forest officers 11. District Health officers 12. District medical officers 13. District Education inspectors etc. The above ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS apart from the bottom last five, which by the way future less prominently in Uganda�s socio-economic and political administrative structures, all the rest are merely political appointees. They�re no where, near inherent development patterns as pertains environmental and socio-economic transformative strategies based on human MATERIAL WANTS AND NEEDS. They neither serve administrative duties such as societal organisation, project implementation and design, monitoring or take part in systematic planning of socio-economic goals. If they do, they neither have the right information or necessary planning tools. As per local government finance commission plans it even becomes impossible who by law is supposed to implement, oversee or act on what and when, therefore an administrative stalemate. An RDC is politically more powerful than an elected, DOM, DEO, DAO, an MP or LC V. Therefore, the rest are simply clerical and elitist positions for attainment of political power positions, implicitly enhancing corruption and non-working abstract tax dependant consuming class. In order to grasp the intricacies of the above structure, one might call for understanding Uganda�s primary and constitutional development needs. Namely; - lack of planned and designed housing facilities, adequate health care facilities, lacking hygienic conditions, non existing human resource development, lack of oriented vocational and skill development institutional networks etc. Those institutional structures, which would have been significant, in social changes and transformation, are simply not in existence implying POWER POLITICS is above issues like shelter and housing, rural and urban planning, skill attainment facilities and teaching on all district levels. Then the question arises, what does local government finances, finance, what type of poverty does Poverty Action Eradication programmer, eradicate as per Uganda�s socio-economic and environmental needs? Observe too that, Uganda�s electoral commission (EC), RDCs, DIOs and CAOs office receives more money than district agricultural, medical and road engineering (non-existing) officers do. Yet still, more funds are allocated to district intelligence officers and nothing is allocated to urban or rural planning for example. LGFC, does not finance rural housing policies either or entrepreneur and skills development on district level. PEAP does not eradicate unhygienic conditions, which are matter of supervision and law rather than poverty eradication fund. Let us take for example, real needs like locally bio-based food processing or agro-skills attainment in irrigation and agro-bio-technical skills attainment. There is virtually no solar food conservation and storage methods, wood carving, brick making and housing construction, masonry and carpentry, machine or tool fabrication, aquatic or marine farming, forest or mammalian domestication and simple zoological activities. There is virtually no local training in road use or simple construction and maintenance skills attainment. 95% of Ugandans population live in rural areas whereby the majorities are still combining hunting, farming, petty small trading, rudimentary wood carving as their material life styles etc. In sum and substance rural folks, are well disposed into these niches, which by the way can be elevated to modern production methods on the bio-sphere plane, in production and reproduction of material life. More still, what is central to the decentralised policies dismal performance, is a non- ideological political patronising and emphasis, which is more inclined to elevation of the above-mentioned group of individual demi-political gods, pseudo-power position seekers and quasi-institutional creation rather than environmental and socio-economic enduring society. Theoretically, the economics methodology generated here is based on two presupposition namely rational choice and individual efficiency in self-projection. Generally the economic approach as it is referred to above, entails subjective utility or rather the rational pursuit of self-interest with the individual in the centre, her actions interpreted both as macro and micro-economic explanations of individual as well as social reality. Therefore, it can be ascertained that with the economic approach to politics, econometric models of economics however unrealistic are applied to politics, in order to make the interpretation of political action in society possible, as such social action therefore defined solely as economically generated. In essence, if we are to use traditional social institutions like, Muluka chiefs, Gombolola chiefs, Clan system, Elders institution availability to social existence and enhancement within there time realm, the above system falls on its face flat. The major purpose then of the sole existence of LGFC is therefore in financial planning, budgeting, and revenue collecting and sharing (distribution). There are a few remarks in this connection, namely;- (a). local politics is a creation for representing power positions (clerical/administrative work) rather than representing social reality. (b). In Uganda there is no single district with comprehensive, reliable and accurate data /information on its development needs to enable technical planning and budgeting.(c). In rural regions where the majority population is located there is virtually no human resources to sustain point b. Therefore there is no knowledge of what is needed to be done apart from traditional niches which the rural folk understands better which are also totally underdeveloped. Consequently, the term local government (LG) is simplistic, espousing policy strategies, which are self-defeating as a matter of fact transposed on the nation state plane. Reinforcement of socio-economic ethno-philosophies The colonial state was based on social systems, which grouped people into their small enclaves. By enclosing the African into small social enclaves the colonial system, reinforcing his paradigmatic ethno-philosophies and barren anthropological traits, in a sense which states that given groups of people are behind yesterday. Such socially grouped and classed people, where rendered incapable of attending to one or the other social needs and wants- since the evolutional process as a fact of natural laws has not enabled or rather positioned them to highest social group. It is exactly this trend which has configured the minds and body of the African thought process complexes. A system, which by the way is being implicitly, reinforced into regional development imbalances of decentralisation. Undoing of these structures can�t be attained through decentralisation processes, for the colonial socio-economic development strategy was segregative and more so applied a capitalistic policy of division of labour based on accumulating reserves farm labour forces, which is against and contradictory to free will and technological developments alike. It is within these parameters, local government policies become an absurdity. In the above respect, ethno-philosophies pre-supposedly built on a false anthropological perception of misinterpretation, misidentification, misrepresentation and mis-definition of the existential realms in which African societies have produced and reproduce themselves for so many years through demographic changes and intermingling. In Africa, there were no national boundaries, therefore people could move freely, become assimilated, intermarry and intermingle, consequently generating an array of socio-economic hybrids and social stability. Notice too, that decentralisation due to regional development imbalance do reinforce colonial ethno-philosophies of social changes entirely based on anthropological variables. What can Uganda do for Karamoja, which Karamoja can�t do for Uganda? The entire northern region is terribly underdeveloped. Northern region can�t do much without Uganda, therefore a necessity for an integrated implementation, monitoring and standardised strategic socio-economic and environmental policy. Human resources scarcity: Uganda basically lacks a systematic, resource development infra, supra and meta structure, a well-developed labour force. That is to say, there is neither educational facilitation nor institutional infra and supra-structure alike, to offer educational tools for skills attainment or development within our social realities. Uganda have societies living in their village enclaves, without a corresponding institutional structure to, motivate full attainment of national goals as the said national development strategies might claim to be doing. Therefore, farmers and pastrolist, unless their generations by lack or chancing within the confined limits of the above enhanced colonial structures, have less possibilities of being elevated and attaining educational tools through normal channels, i.e. formal education facilities, they will largely remain in their traditional skill parameters. In essence, the above statement only goes to expose a mere fact that Local Councils I to V, are largely predominated with an uneducated and unskilled lot, devoid of necessary development strategies and policies. In return rendering the entire Local Council structure, become a grand failure of an unproportional magnitude. Since those people who are at the helm of these entities have neither, policy programme mapping, implementation, monitoring or programmatic ability nor socio-economic and environmental ideological base, to steer necessary transformational patterns, of their existing and well entrenched traditional status quo. In reference to the above, for the last decade one might like to do a summation of cumulative development empirically i.e. quantitative and qualitative. Notice too that Uganda so far, has not increased her housing stock. There is declining agriculture potential, animalistic and agricultural products have not increased in volume. Uganda certainly does not export much of her food and animal product items however prices have only increased in cities where those items are sold off- implying the laws of supply and demand, suggest there is law supply of the same products. Roads are being rehabilitated however, only where war has necessitated making new roads non-have or virtually nothing has been created in the entire northern region. Most hospitals have no drugs and Uganda annual doctor output is a mere 150 persons. There is virtually no district town centres, with adequate facilities in terms of electricity, water, telecommunication, banking, residential or commercial facilities apart from private development in Kampala central district, Mukono and Mbarara. More over these towns are neither planned or designed as per urban, structural construction engineering, fire engineering, urban road, sewage and water design, health or environmental laws. It is within this regard one has to ask, of what relevance is the entire decentralisation policy and its subsequent ruling social structures as shown above? Economics of decentralised governments There are two factors in economic allocation and distribution of national resources. These factors must be intentional, such that there is visible social, economic and environmental changes. One concerns monetary policy, which is handled by the state, and is generally at the discretion of the parliament as annual, or provisional marco-economic policy strategies. Two is fiscal policies, which in Uganda are technical issues, which must be handled as such either by the revenue authority, Bank of Uganda or national economic parliamentary committee with a clear intent to triggering both macro and microeconomic policy programmes. However during 2001 presidential campaigns taxes were slashed to Uganda�s Shs. 3000, without meeting the above two mentioned criteria as the law stipulates. Both ways, monetary and fiscal policy issues, where dragged into pseudo-power politics, with total disregard of the development needs and efforts at district levels. To build district roads, run environmental projects, adult education, meet agricultural project funding, INDIRECTLY remains an option for political power, rather than the law, central government and/or local governments to determine when and how such projects should be executed. On that basis we can as well say there is no existing social system as elaborated on in the local government act. Let me try to elaborate on this issue in details. The entire country needs electricity for both developmental and transformation purposes and in this case, no more need is agent in any other part of the country than the northern region. The proposal to build a dam at Karuma, which would have facilitated the northern regions, was shelved by the central government on International Monetary Fund and World Bank preconditions. Therefore electrification of the northern region seems not to be a priority area. Local governments however can�t take any decision in this respect however big the need for electricity is. In West Nile for example, Nyakag dam for a mere US $ 23 million has all but remained a mere paper work not to mention Karuma � Parkwach road, which in fact is strategic in the development of Uganda�s northern frontier. On the other hand, Kakira Sugar Works (KSW) wanted to extend their power production capacity from 2.5 MW to 20 MW. However, has been affected by the government's delay in giving the project a go-ahead despite that Kakira could supply electricity within the geographical region through UEB. Monday, April 9, 2001 THE EASTAFRICAN Kasese Cobalt is already producing some 10.5 MW to supply its cobalt plant and selling the rest to UEB, which implies Kasese, can get electricity facilities on a daily basis on a particular regional basis. Uganda Rural Electrification Company (UREC) already plans small hydropower stations. The planned plants are one at Kyambura Gorge and another at Ishasha River expected to generate a combined total of 11.5MW. The twin projects will be funded by the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC), at about US$ 16m (Shs. 28bn) All Universities, private and public are located either in the west, East or central regions. Such development is not by accident but rather that it is a linear natural growth started as colonial ethno-philosophy based on anthropological trajectories, which the government has failed to arrest. The banking and financial sectors are distinct in central and western Uganda but non-can be named, in reference to northern region. More road networks are concentrated in the south than in the northern region despite the fact that this region links four to five countries to Uganda. And in fact are the shortest roots to European and Middle East economic powerhouses. bwanika, Luwero ----------------------------------------------------------- Spela poker mot verkliga m�nniskor �ver Internet. �ver 40 000 spelare online http://www.multipoker.com -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
