The Regional Tier Critique!

 Home | News | Discussion | FAQ | Federal Model | Regional Models | Addendum | What's New

By J. Senyonjo

This latest agreement between Mengo and the government [as reported in the Monitor] reflects the politics of expediency, as opposed to genuine, stabilizing solutions to politically contentious issues. Unfortunately, our leaders do not seem ready, or willing to emulate the long-term vision of great nation builders elsewhere who produced documents and agreements that transcended their own time.

I agree with Mr. Kibuka [and others] that this agreement is grossly inadequate, and even inimical to the federal cause. It could do to the federal cause what the 'no party', movement politics has done to Political parties, that is, it may be very difficult to achieve genuine federalism in the future once this proposed agreement is enshrined in the constitution; it could have much the same impact as the flawed 1962 semi-federal arrangement [which was not truly federal] that made it difficult for many people in Uganda today to understand, and appreciate the need for genuine federalism, embracing all of Uganda’s regions.

It is yet another example [like in the case of movement politics] of our leaders ignoring world-class models of governance [evolved over centuries], with the belief that they are inventing something new. They do not seem to realize that the issues that they are grappling with have been dealt with by other countries centuries before, and that the models of governance that evolved took into account a lot of experience of power and economic dynamics in the political systems the features of which they are attempting to implement.

On the face of it the agreement between Mengo and the government seems like a move in the right direction, but in reality it is a rather expedient compromise that mainly serves the interests of the negotiating parties without due regard to genuine federalism, or even long term constitutional stability. It seems both parties to the negotiations wanted to be seen as having delivered something even though what they have delivered could spoil the ultimate goal of federalism, accountability and good governance.

The good parts of the agreement concern the elections of the Lukiiko and the Katikkiro. The offending parts as Mr. Kibuka pointed out include the fact that the regions would essentially be under the President's office [notwithstanding the separation of policy and non-policy matters]. This arrangement is contrary to federalism, and is utter mockery. The already powerful Presidency has been made even more powerful. The central government, which never wanted to cede control, has managed to get a modified version of what it always insisted on, the regional tier that is a mere agent of the central government. If any one had any doubts, one just has to consider the report in the Monitor that the President may take over the administration of any region, which basically means that the regions are accountable to the President [they should be accountable to the national constitution], and that essentially they do not have any truly autonomous powers. That is not federalism.

Another major flaw of the agreement is the fact that, according to the Monitor's report, the regions would not raise any direct taxes. This arrangement would handicap them, and make them no more than glorified LC5s. The lack of independent taxation powers by the regions may in time serve to undermine their very existence and support because the people will expect them to deliver more than they possibly can without independent sources of revenue raised through collecting pre-determined percentages of major tax revenues raised from within their environs. Lack of an independent capacity to raise major tax revenues [levies, mentioned in the agreement, cannot be considered adequate] is likely to diminish regional economic initiative and innovation, two of the greatest benefits of federalism.

Worse, financial dependency is likely to produce perennial tension between the central government and the regions; the central government is likely to blame any lack of development and progress on the regions and their leaders, while the regions may blame the lack of adequate funds from the central government for their lack of achievement. In other words, this is an arrangement that would make accountability not better, but rather, worse. It is also likely to intertwine the fortunes of elected regional leaders with those of the sitting President in a quid pro quo kind of way since the regions would fall under the office of the President [and may consequently result in the isolation of cultural leaders]. It is a recipe for disaster.

Revenue raising [and sharing] capacity by federal regions is the linchpin of genuine federalism, without which you get the chaos and circus currently found in Nigeria [and which Nigerians are discussing correcting through a national convention]. Interestingly, the current agreement between Mengo and the government does not [as reported] seem to put regional investment and economic mobilization under regional governments, which essentially means that the regions would also be handicapped in terms of creating economic opportunities for their people. They would continue to rely on the goodwill and initiative of the central government in bringing investment and economic opportunity, thus negating their very existence. The government's smart operatives understand that this agreement does not grant federalism [thus the resistance to using the word federalism in describing the agreement] and that it may forever kill prospects for genuine federalism in Uganda; so it would seem that, by all intents and purposes, Mengo has been out-witted yet again. To be charitable, Mengo’s negotiators probably viewed the agreement as an incremental step, which essentially leaves the problem for others to address, while risking ruining the goodwill and trust that the people invested in them. Unfortunately, for Uganda, incremental measures, followed by renewed demands for genuine reforms [inevitable in this case] are dangerous for constitutional stability and the rule of law in ethnically diverse, and politically contentious countries such as Uganda.

The whole deal is a top-down solution that is contrary to a preferred approach of involving all regions in a national convention [once federalism is endorsed in parliament] to iron out the details of regional governance mechanisms. In the United States, the federal constitution was a result of a constitutional convention, and followed a drawn out process of educating the different regions about the benefits of federalism. It was not an agreement among a few people, or regions, and consequently its legitimacy is not questioned.

The Role of Parliament

Perhaps the best outcome of the agreement is the fact that the government seems to have accepted the need for some arrangement resembling federalism. It is now the duty of our parliamentarians to insist on a world-class model of federalism for Uganda that encompasses all regions [not all only for those who want it] in order to ensure constitutional equity, balanced economic development and better accountability. The desired model should genuinely empower all the regions while ensuring that regional disparities are addressed through substantial equalization grants. In addition, parliament should ensure that regions in the North get special government funds [beyond federal equalization grants] to help them recover from years of civil war.

Parliamentarians should call on taxation experts from federal countries such as the U.S.A., Germany and Canada to help them make sense of how to balance central government taxation with regional taxation [without over-burdening tax payers and investors], and to inform them of the appropriate tax collection mechanisms that ought to be employed. Parliament should nullify the proposal to put the regions under the office of the President, for the sake of long-term constitutional stability, and check and balances on the power of the President and the Central government. Legislators should also streamline the number of central government ministries since the regions would carry out a lot of their responsibilities. The FedsNet document that we presented to the Constitutional Review Commission, found at www.federo.com, dealt with the issue of Ministries, and is a good reference point. If Parliament gets federalism right in Uganda, our country is likely to become a shining example in Africa in terms of the unleashed economic potential in the regions, stability, and cultural dynamism.

The Role of Political Parties

It is pity that opposition Political parties have not come up with policy statements on the issue of federalism, which the public could compare, and contrast with the current agreement between Mengo and the government. In any country with serious political institutions the debate [in the court of public opinion] would not have been left to two parties on an issue of such national importance as federalism. Federalists on FedsNet have long feared that the opposition parties risked being sidelined on the issue of federalism if they did not insert themselves fully and aggressively into the debate. If they consistently made proposals on federalism part of their calls for reform, the public and MPs would be armed with alternative views of what federalism is. However, it is not too late. As the parties prepare for political competition in 2006, they should teach the population about genuine federalism and how it differs from the current agreement. The FDC, the UPC, and the DP should lobby their MPs to do justice to the people of Uganda in as far as the issue of federalism is concerned. If they accomplish that they will earn the respect and admiration of all Ugandans.

For God and Our Country.

By D. Jjingo