Uganda’s decentralization needs deepening
Publish Date: Sep 04, 2014
  • mail
  • img




By Moses Nuwagaba

On 10th August 2014 national celebrations for the Africa day of decentralization and local development were held here in Kabale under the theme; “developmental local governments, my responsibility”.
While we were making preparations for a successful function, I also took time off to analyze fundamental pillars on which Uganda’s 1997 decentralization policy was meant to thrive, to establish existing gaps within our contemporary model and to reflect on what would be appropriate rejoinders we need to  improve its performance.
For starters, decentralization means redistribution and dispensing of government functions and powers away from the central authority. For Uganda, in particular, the districts were meant to be quasi-independent with power to initiate policy, plan, budget, collect revenue and to render services to the people. They however remained subordinate to central government.
The first seventeen years of this policy have registered innumerable achievements for Ugandans including: strengthening democracy of electing leaders through popular vote; involvement of councilors and other people’s representatives in planning, finance sourcing and management of certain public services like district roads, water; and in construction of markets, health facilities, schools, etc. There is a lot however that needs to be done to deepen political, fiscal and administrative decentralization.
On local democracy, one of the cardinal pillars on which this policy was meant to build and thrive was the people. It’s now well over ten years, the latter have not elected their LCI leaders. The existing LCIs may be legally occupying offices but, for people to fully submit to their authority, they must renew their legitimacy. 
This anomaly, when assessed at a single village level, looks minor but now that it is the phenomenon in over 60,000 villages of Uganda, service delivery and accountability increasingly get paralyzed. Remember, local village chiefs who would provide a fallback position in case of the need to enforce security and to implement government policies no longer exist.  
Also, government policy entitles LCIs to 25% of the local revenue collected by their respective districts. This practice is long abandoned. This revenue component has, instead, become pocket money for district and sub county authorities who continue to retain it in the name of co-funding, co-financing, co-etc. Inadvertently thus, this financial alienation means that one of the principal ways in which villages interfaced with government is fully blocked.
My other observation is that there is excessive and exaggerated emphasis, by administrators and politicians, on what districts can obtain from central government. Very little is discussed on how the districts can tap into the country’s private-sector-led and export-oriented economic policies. Many leaders, including MPs are now consumption rather than production preachers.

I think, in addition to economic liberalization, we need a clear integrated approach that budgets for and allocates specific attention and functions to the business community, cooperative movements and the local industry. 

Districts should, for example, prioritize use of ICT and other avenues to showcase investment opportunities they harbor. Inevitably their focus will gradually shift from grants and loan seeking to, attracting, foreign direct investment. This approach creates jobs and also progressively augments district revenue.
Lastly, Apostle Paul once said that “man eateth where he worketh” (2Thessalonians 3:10). Our decentralization policy, in its current form, overtaxes districts with hardworking people and rewards those with lazy ones. We no longer have a district experiencing war in Uganda. Why then would we entertain affirmative action in allocation of funds from central government?
In my view, allocation of, say, development grants should be commensurate to revenue collection of individual districts. Save for proceeds from natural resources, this Peter carry Paul approach is outdated.
The writer is the deputy RDC, Kabale

The statements, comments, or opinions expressed through the use of New Vision Online are those of their respective authors, who are solely responsible for them, and do not necessarily represent the views held by the staff and management of New Vision Online.

New Vision Online reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author.Find out why we moderate comments. For any questions please contact digital@newvision.co.ug

  • mail
  • img
blog comments powered by Disqus
Also In This Section
Civilians, stand warned, stand advised!
With MPs opposed to handing such powers to the Minister lost in their nerves, a scuffle ensued....
Uganda rational medicine use campaign
Last Friday was World Pharmacist Day 2015. The theme for this year’s celebration: Pharmacist: Your Partner In Health....
Keep the promise to deliver on Global Goal 6 post 2015 SDGs
On September 25 2015, the UN General Assembly signed the post 2015 sustainable development goals....
Govt should see civil society as partners, not opponents
Application of a new law is likely to become synonymous with the now infamous Public Order Management Act....
How papacy began in Catholic Church
Today, the Pope is known as the Bishop of Rome hence the successor of St Peter the apostle, the Vicar of Christ....
Education: Investment in early childhood development has far-reaching lifelong returns
Investments in nursery schools can improve children’s academic performance in later life and contribute to the overall quality of life in a country....
Should sachet waragi be banned?
Can't Say
follow us
subscribe to our news letter