NPC-NPA merger: A demographic gamble?

________________

OPINION

By Farouk Busulwa

Optimistically, the proposed merger between the National Population Council (NPC) and the National Planning Authority (NPA) marks a progressive move for Uganda’s development.

This could be the commencement of actualised planning by integrating demographic intelligence into development processes.

A chance to finally appreciate that demographic dynamics is not merely a passive independent footnote, but rather a foundation in national planning. Maybe we have finally evolved beyond just numbers and into appreciating the intricacies of population science.

Well, this could be true for the most part; however, if done wrong, it could become another well-intentioned populist reform that offers no credibility in the end.

The NPC, led by Dr Jotham Musinguzi, has created a vital space in Uganda’s development space by bringing to light the need for population dynamics and considerations beyond block figures, but rather as an examination of population characteristics like age structure, dependency ratios, spatial distribution, and providing a nuanced understanding of the role population dynamics in planning and development.

NPC merging with NPA is undeniably a means of appreciating population as the very fabric from which all development planning processes must be woven.

This is a chance to have a perspective beyond abstract theorising where demographic intelligence is central to national planning. Creating a space where economists and demographic experts no longer operate parallel.

Questions such as "What does our demographic reality demand?" rather than "What does the population data say?” front active absorption of demographic interests in to national planning and development.

This optimism has merit, as a merger could eliminate bureaucratic friction that occurs when economists and demographers operate parallel to each other. It would further ensure that infrastructure investment, education policy, and economic forecasting are inspired by demographic realities rather than political convenience.  

However, there is another side to consider if we truly have the finest of intentions for this merger.

The uncomfortable questions of “how will talent be sourced during the merger?’, “is this actually a merger or an absorption of NPC?”, “how will success be measured? Is it by budget cuts, or pragmatic response to planning needs through demographic indicators?”

All these questions need answers, not reassurances.  Without clear parameters, the merger becomes whatever the government desires it to be, a theatrical reform vulnerable to political chaos.

One might think of this as the worst outcome; well, it could further escalate. What if the merger isn’t to centralise demography in planning but rather to neutralise it? Structures such as the Uganda National Bureau of Statistics to an ‘unbothered planner’ seem rather notable and indiscriminately effective at presenting demographic data. Not progressive, but one would assume it works for now, so what is the role of NPC? Makes it seem rather redundant. Owing to that perspective, imagine it is the intention looming over the merger.

Could there be a possibility that the merger isn’t a product of calculus or fiscal pressure or even a reform impulse, but one of a less noble intention?

Maybe! See, when reform rationales aren’t open to expert consultations and public scrutiny, they become performative theatrics with utter disregard for the convenience that comes with demographic expertise, especially in times like this when it is most needed.

As we prepare for the window of opportunity in the next 35 years, where the majority of Ugandans will be of working age, a hidden agenda of the merger during such a pivotal moment is a shrinking space for independent demographic analysis, which will burden future plans with demographically myopic policies.

Urban planning ignoring migration patterns, wealth creation ignoring age structure is the poison borne by a regressive merger disguised as progress.

Uganda’s demographic window is a limited opportunity, and if we dare miss it, we face a demographic burden of a large, frustrated, low-quality youth population breeding instability and wasted potential.

Therefore, the merger matters but beyond organisational fantasies. It should award the population a complex, dynamic realist lens where demographics is an active metric and not a footnote of political timelines.

The path forward demands radical transparency, expert consultations, public input and strategic vision to successfully drive this merger.

The government should be open to language that speaks to appropriately responding to scrutiny. This allows satiability and convenience, where the merger serves development progress, and success metrics are well defined.

Dr Musinguzi and team have managed to institutionalise demographic intelligence up to this stage of recognition; it would be a fall in the pits of hell if this effort is squandered. The merger could undoubtedly be transformative, a well-calculated move toward evidence-based planning and development, but if we are not centralising demography, its merely a shuffle of chairs in fancy offices and a few budget cuts.

Uganda deserves better; the question is not whether the merger should happen, as this has already been decided. The question is whether we will demand transparency and accountability. The answer doesn't lie with the government, but rather with how the citizens vigorously insist on it. For God and my country.

The writer is a student at Makerere University, Msc in demography.