Uganda is not a failed state

Jun 27, 2011

IN what is no less than a vague, highhanded and comical move, the Foreign Policy Magazine —some publication out there in the Western world—has published an index called ‘Postcards from Hell, 2011’ in which it ranks Uganda among the top 30 ‘failed states’ in the world!

By Mary Karooro Okurut

IN what is no less than a vague, highhanded and comical move, the Foreign Policy Magazine —some publication out there in the Western world—has published an index called ‘Postcards from Hell, 2011’ in which it ranks Uganda among the top 30 ‘failed states’ in the world!

Broadly, the term ‘failed state’ is often used by political commentators to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. It is also a condition of state collapse, meaning that the state can no longer perform its basic security and development functions and that it has no effective control over its territory and borders. In other words it can no longer reproduce the conditions for its own existence.

Some of the criteria for a failed state include: loss of control of its territory or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein. That suggests the state has been rendered ineffective and has lost ability to enforce its laws completely or uniformly because of high crime rates, high corruption, an impenetrable and ineffective bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics and cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area.

This should also include or feature the intervention of other states or external factors: One, military or paramilitary engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict. The other ingredient along this trajectory is intervention by donors, particularly if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions.

Two, erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions. This suggests mob rule and absence of organised state structures.

Three, an inability to provide public services. This refers to a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services such as health, education, sanitation and public transportation.

Four is an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. That means theoretically at least, Uganda cannot exercise its sovereignty on the international plane by way of transacting business or engaging in diplomatic exchange with other states.

The fifth would obviously be sharp or severe economic decline—low per capita income, high national debt, low Gross National Product, high child mortality rates, high poverty levels and high incidence of business failures. To this add growth of hidden economies including capital flight, drug trade and smuggling.

Other indicators on the social front include demographic pressures including those deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life sustaining resources, massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples, legacy of vengeance-seeking groups with grievances based on past or recent injustices and chronic and sustained human flight—brain drain of professionals, intellectuals, political dissidents and voluntary emigration of the middle class as well as high incidence of exiles.

On the economic front, you have uneven economic development along group lines, sharp economic decline. And on the political side, delegitimisation of the state, deterioration of public services, widespread violation of human rights, existence of private or state-sponsored militias that terrorise citizens.

Now, these are all very strong issues to contend with and if true and a matter of fact, have drastic implications for the destiny of any state. Anybody who knows the Uganda of today, under the National Resistance Movement administration will wonder which Uganda the Foreign Policy Magazine is talking about.

As a country we have come from very far. We have suffered plenty of wounds and still bear the scars of yesterday. In the years before 1986, precisely during the reign of terror, Uganda actually did fit the perfect description of a failed state. For many years there was no parliament at all and certainly no opposition. There was no rule of law; no separation of powers. The President ruled by decree. The state was the leading abuser of human rights and in doing so highly criminalised itself, killing its own citizens at will. Every corner of the economy was in a shambles. Smuggling was the order of the day; intellectuals fled the country, as did political dissidents.

Conflict broke out in several parts of the country and the country itself was very vulnerable to external shocks both economic and military. The state could not take care of its people.

But the progress that Uganda has made over the last 25 years cannot be denied by anyone. Space and time will not allow me to go into too much detail; but the above objective tests of a failed state will tell anyone who cares to take a deep and keen look at today’s Uganda that state collapse is not something that Uganda can be accused of. Since 1986 Uganda has progressively moved from a failed state to a going concern.

We have moved from take-off stage and are now in full flight, even though we have not yet achieved cruising altitude. So calling Uganda a failed state should be dismissed as a cruel joke.

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