| Britain�s aid withdraw threat is impotent | ||||
| May 8 - 14, 2005 | ||||
|
Last week, the British government cancelled �5m of aid to Uganda, claiming government had failed to meet certain agreed benchmarks on the political transition. The opposition will certainly be happy about the news but out of opportunism. However, this decision is neither new nor of much significance. It provides the British with an alibi to claim in future that "we took action." It also plays to their domestic audience. The decision's real effect, however, is to make it morally defensible for the British government to sustain its current aid portfolio.
I admit that some individuals in the British establishment may be genuinely committed to seeing a genuine political transition to more accountable and democratic politics, and this shaped the decision to withhold the aid. But we should not mistake individual positions to reflect the broader political flow. This is because fundamentally, the relationship between President Yoweri Museveni's government and donors has been built around a convergence of different, but compatible interests - interests than cannot be easily outdone by such spasmodic actions. Since 1987, Museveni has successfully employed a strategy of selective adaptation to donor demands. He allowed them to shape economic reform, in the return for considerable financial and diplomatic support. Museveni then successfully exploited donor money and diplomatic support to bolster his political standing in Uganda. On their part, donors have always been keen to support "a success story", broadly defined as a growing liberal economy, so as to justify their continued engagement in an otherwise distressing African continent. Donors either inadvertently, or naively, or even stupidly traded democracy for liberal economic reform. In the process, they helped consolidate a one party government. That is why I find it hypocritical of them to now turn around and claim to be the champions of democracy. I realise that many in the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party who colluded with Museveni to consolidate one party politics are not shy today to also claim to be the champions of democracy. Museveni strikes me as the most consistent politician in all this. He knows what he wants and he has pursued it with relentless zeal. Over time, mutual dependence between the NRM and the donors has turned them into mutual hostages. After years of singing Uganda's praises, it is unlikely they will walk away that easily and quickly. There are many people in high positions in the international aid industry who have made names, advanced their careers and gained reputation(s) on the claims of Uganda's "success". Should the smouldering political and economic edifice they have been propping for years come tumbling down like a pack of cards, their reputation(s) will be at stake. That is why the World Bank is currently sitting on a report by independent consultants, it hired, regarding Uganda's political future. The report shows how corruption has been used as an instrument of rule; says the political process in Uganda is dangerously flawed, and projects political upheaval. It then recommends rolling back of aid flows. Top people inside the Bank have censured this report even from their colleagues of equal rank in Washington DC and in the Uganda country office. In October last year, Jean Clement came here as IMF Chief of Mission on the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility only to find Shs70 billion had been spent outside of the budget framework - Shs30 billion spent at State House alone. Clement was, sources tell me, furious and made it known in DC. His fate is similar to that of former IMF country representative here, Walter Mahler. An experience economist with seven years experience as IMF's man in Seoul, South Korea (1970-77), Mr Mahler knew what successful countries look like. He openly - and naively - criticised Uganda's oversize public expenditure and the cost (in time and money) of meetings and workshops to "eradicate poverty." Museveni complained to the IMF president and Mahler took early retirement! Mahler and many others in the international aid industry who are coming to Uganda after 2000 and are therefore not tied to Uganda's "golden era" of the mid 1990s are beginning to question the many claims made about this honourable republic. This scares their superiors and many are finding themselves out of their jobs. In any case, most stay here for three years only and as they begin to learn the real Uganda, it is time to move to another station. I have many examples. My point is that donors are fundamentally responsible for the distortion of Uganda's political process. Foreign aid builds roads, schools and hospitals and pays teachers salaries, etc. Government employs such assistance as a political resource to bolster its popularity. Therefore, donors have spent over 18 years building the political fortunes of a government that has adamantly denied space to its political opponents. Donors have therefore been critical in creating the current situation where the opposition is too weak to resist the government's anti democratic designs - the pretensions of Her Majesty's government notwithstanding. |
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet % UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
