Fiscal responsibility of Makerere lies with govt

Sep 07, 2011

DAYS after Makerere University was closed indefinitely following a stalemate in negotaitions over staff salaries, New Vision’s Contributing Editor <b>Paul Busharizi </b>carried out an email interview with Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, the Director of the Institute of Social Research, on the issue. Below

DAYS after Makerere University was closed indefinitely following a stalemate in negotaitions over staff salaries, New Vision’s Contributing Editor Paul Busharizi carried out an email interview with Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, the Director of the Institute of Social Research, on the issue. Below are excerpts.


What are your thoughts on the present crisis at Makerere?
A few years ago, I had the privilege of a one-on-one discussion with President Museveni.

It lasted several hours. At one point, the discussion focused on the making of public policy. I cautioned against the temptation to impose policies from above, even if they were correct. To make the point, I gave the example of the 1990 crisis at Makerere.

I was then a member of the MUASA Executive. Government had suggested an end to the model whereby it was expected to foot the entire bill for higher education. We were told to get ready for a new era, one in which the higher education bill would be shared by the Government and families of the students.

At that meeting, I offered the following reflection: “Here is the lesson I draw from that crisis. The Government was right on policy; we, MUASA, were wrong. Experience has taught us that part of the bill has to be shouldered by the family of the student.

But experience has also taught us that the Government was wrong in not initiating a discussion on the subject, in not even trying to persuade all stake holders, especially staff and students, of the advantages of the new policy.

The responsibility of forging a consensus is part of leadership. Instead, the Government resorted to force. As a result, we all lost: the minister lost, the Government lost, as did students, staff, and management.” The President shrugged his shoulders, and muttered: “That was then.”

So let us look now at both process and policy.

It would seem we have learnt little since then when it comes to process. The university management has turned the staff strike into a management lockout. In deepening the crisis, management has turned students – who cannot be blamed for what is going on – into main victims in the crisis.

As for the staff, management insists on interpreting the strike as an individual failure by hundreds of academic staff to report to work. But it is not that. It is a collective strike. The contract notwithstanding, that is a right. The world over, university management works only if it is based on consultation, not dictation. My first suggestion is that we take steps to reverse the process; from confrontation and victimization to consultation and mutual respect.

The second issue is one of policy.

It seems Makerere has gone as far as it can in extracting fees from students (true or false), what options in terms of income generation does it have?
You are right. Makerere has gone as far as it can in increasing fees. Any further increase and the result will be a closure of access. The Government is right to insist that Makerere Council does not and should not have the power to increase fees. That decision in a public university rightly belongs to the public power.

But that right goes with a responsibility. The main fiscal responsibility in a public university lies on the shoulders of the Government. If you cannot increase fees, how do you pay for the cost of education? Donors have come in but they are unlikely to pay more than a small slice, say 10% of the total cost.

But donors cannot be relied on in the long run. Donors prefer to invest their money in new projects, so they can influence the direction in which the university develops. They invest strategically. In return for paying 10% of the cost, they want over 50% influence in determining policy.

One thing is clear. Nowhere in the world do universities pay the cost of higher education mainly from fees. In private universities, the difference is paid from an endowment bequeathed by wealthy donors; in public universities, it is paid from the public purse. There is no third way.

In 1990, the Government thinking was led by the World Bank which believed that higher education, unlike primary and secondary education, is a private luxury and should be privately funded. After the East Asian miracle, the World Bank has changed its mind. It now recognises that higher education is a necessary public good, a part of the necessary investment to build a viable future for all. But the Government thinking, like the thinking of a convert, is lagging behind.

MUASA is right on this. The Government has to bear the bulk of recurrent costs of higher education in a public university. That includes the cost of paying staff salaries.

The simple fact is that Makerere will perpetually hobble from one financial crisis to another so long as the Government does not accept primary fiscal responsibility for the operation of Makerere.

Universities beyond teaching the new generation should also be involved in expanding the boundaries of knowledge. There are fears with universities having to change into businesses; this function may be lost as universities pander to commercial interests, what is your feeling?
There is a further lesson to be learnt from universities the world over. Wherever research is the main component of higher education, whether the university is private or public, the bulk of funding comes from the Government.

In the US, it is the Government funding, under the GI Bill and other defence-related legislation, like Title VI, that has both expanded access to higher education for previously excluded groups and funded research in commercially non-viable areas.

There is a second policy issue, one that is specific to Makerere. This issue is the result of treating the university as if each Faculty was a separate commercial investment. This has led to the fragmentation of the university into rich and poor units; at Makerere, these faculties are called “wetlands” and “drylands” respectively.

This trend also began in the 1990s when the university decided to let each unit keep the bulk of private student fees as a way to seduce academic staff in the faculties to agree to increase enrollment and teach more students.

The result was a division between student-heavy and student-light units, the former with pockets full of fees and the latter with relatively empty pockets. University staff, particularly in the “wet” faculties, began to think that they “owned” the fees they collected from private students.

They were opposed to sharing any of it with the rest of the university.

They began to act and demand as if the faculty was their private (even if collective) property. To the extent they thought so; the staff too became part of the problem.

The more the university has divided into “wet” and “dry” faculties, the greater has been the disparity between “top up” allowances given to academic and administrative staff in different faculties.

The result has been an erosion of the university. A MUBS-type mentality has spread in the “wet” faculties, which have been driving the demand for the creation of Constituent Colleges and now want to turn their newfound college autonomy into a literal UDI. If we do not watch out, in a few years, Makerere will cease to exist as a single university.

What is the way forward?
The entire top management of the university is today in an acting capacity, and has been so for nearly two years.

An acting leadership cannot be blamed for being preoccupied with the short run, for it is not certain of the long run. It can also not be blamed for treating the rest of the university, staff and students, as if they too were there in an acting capacity.

The problem goes beyond the top management at the university. It includes the Government. The same Government that today shirks fiscal responsibility for the country’s leading public university continues to claim the right to define its policies and appoint its top management. How can this be?

It is right that a public university should be substantially funded from the public purse, and that its broad policies, including fees and questions of access, should be defined by the public power while ensuring academic freedom. But who should be the custodian of the public interest in a public university?

The tendency has been for the executive to exercise this power. The President was the Chancellor of Makerere before 2001. Even if he let go some of the control in the 2001 Act, he reappeared as the Visitor.

This raises important issues that need discussion. Does an arrangement whereby the Executive is in charge of higher education place universities on a short political leash? What should be the role of the legislature? What should be the composition of the University Council?

What different interests should be represented on Council and how should these representatives be appointed?

The last big change in the higher education system was inspired in the 1990s. Then the World Bank insisted on privatizing and commercialising higher education. Now that the World Bank admits that it was wrong to do so, it is time for another big policy change.

That change should be driven by an internal discussion, within the university, within the Government, and within the Ugandan society, one that includes a careful consideration of both our own experience and of experiences around the world.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});