|
|
Frequently Asked Questions |
|
Home | News | Discussion | FAQ | Federal Model | Regional Models | What's New |
|
|
Uganda
has never had federal structures, how do you expect federalism to work? Uganda has never had federal structures, how do you expect federalism to work? To paraphrase Shakespeare. Some countries may be "born" federations in the sense that a federal structure from the beginning played a real role in the political and fiscal structure of a country. A good example of this is India. Under a second category, some countries may "become" federations in order to reconcile regional differences and preserve the nation, as was the case in South Africa. This may also apply to Uganda. There is a third category, some countries may have federalism "thrust upon them" in a desperate attempt to keep them alive by weakening the centre, as was the case with Bosnia Herzegovina. This too may apply to Uganda. Are there examples of "natural" federations? Yes, countries such as multilingual Switzerland, Canada and India, are composed of entities that were distinct at the foundation of the country and have largely remained distinct. Size is irrelevant. Federalism is feasible in small and large countries. Switzerland, Belgium and Bosnia Herzegovina are small but functioning federations. In Africa, Nigeria and South Africa are large federations. Are you advocating for a tight federation similar to that of Germany and Malaysia? No, we are advocating for a loose federation, where states will have more power to act independently with respect to expenditure and taxing patterns. A tight federation on the other hand is not very different from a unitary system. Are borrowed models from other countries applicable to Uganda? These models only serve as guiding principles. We realize that every country is unique and different. We are aware that institutions from a specific setting cannot be planted in the alien soil of another country and expect to obtain the same results. What is feasible and desirable in Uganda depends very much upon our setting and history. We hope to have "tailor-made" adjustments to suit Uganda's need and circumstances. Will federalism solve all Uganda's problems? No, federalism is not a panacea, it cannot and will not solve all problems. Indeed, it may sometimes create new ones or at least make them more obvious. Federalism however, has many virtues, not least letting people take more control over their own lives, better satisfying local preferences. Moreover, state governments can always utilize previously unused entrepreneurial and managerial resources and hence strengthen rather than weaken the overall level of administration and governance. "Small" may not always be beautiful, but it is more likely to reflect and yield what the local people really want. Uganda has embarked on a massive decentralization scheme, isn't that as good as federalism? Decentralization that is being implemented in Uganda is basically delegation from the centre to the local governments. It has been more marked in the spending rather than in the tax fields, thus creating a situation of perpetual fiscal imbalance, which in turn has resorted to diverse conditional grants from the centre. Delegation which is taking place in Uganda has created a lesser degree of financial autonomy, forcing districts to be accountable to the centre and not to local taxpayers or residents. Districts are really acting as agents of the central government, executing certain functions on its behalf. Under formal federalism, the implementation and authority to decide what is done is in the hands of state/local governments. Leaders are accountable to local taxpayers and residents. Federalism involves collective decision making, which is not the case under decentralization {delegation}. Federalism grants states/local governments some financial autonomy which decentralization never does. Because accountability under federalism is to the local taxpayers, it ensures the acknowledged link between taxing and spending, where states/local governments have autonomous and broad powers of taxing and expenditures. Under decentralization the central government tells local governments what to do, while federalism accords states/local governments to decide what is best for their residents and taxpayers. There is therefore a huge difference between decentralization {delegation} and federalism where there is complete autonomy {devolution} with regards to taxing and spending decisions. Unlike decentralization, federalism acknowledges that what is good for the centre is not necessarily good for state/local governments. Decentralization is a a principal-agent approach since local governments serve as agents of the centre [principal], whereas federalism is grounded in public choice mechanisms for collective decision making. Federalism guarantees accountability, something decentralization does not since local leaders are not accountable to local voters but rather to bureaucrats and politicians in Kampala, who decide what is best under their one model fits all policy. Under Federalism the elected state executives are accountable only to the local electorate, not to the President, or a distant ministry as in the current decentralisation system. Won't federalism mean Obugabe-ism in Ankole? Of course not, the majority of the Banyankole get to choose what kind of institutions their Federal State would have. And indeed, all regions not just Buganda would have executive powers. Indeed some of the politicians spokespeople are embarrassing in their ignorance, or perhaps in some cases, willful misrepresentation! Mr. Byaruhanga for example, confuses Federalism with monarchism. Are there any regions of Uganda that want to federate with Buganda? Yes indeed, there are districts which wanted to be organised in the federal states, and what federal states these should be. Among others: a) Gulu, Kitgum of Acholi Is federalism compatible with republicanism? The truth is, there are many federal countries that are republics. The United States of America is a federal republic, Germany is a federal republic, South Africa and Nigeria in Africa are federal republics, notwithstanding, the Zulu Kingdom.. Why do federalists only talk about federalism, but not economic plans? Africa has no shortage of brilliant plans for development, food sustainability etc. The point is that without a conducive political environment that is accommodative of differences whether of political philosophies (political parties) or regional (federalism) no amount of economic planning will have an effect because instability or political agitation will make all of it moot. In the ensuing vacuum, or chaos, politicians will continue to rob the country's treasuries without abandon. There is no accountability and it's hard to enforce it because the system itself lacks accountability, and has no legitimacy. It is not rooted in people's minds, not even the elites. One can write about the most beautiful plans until Christ comes back, but without a political system that is deemed fair and legitimate by key segments of society, they will all come to naught. Before the colonialists came, all the communities in Uganda took care of their own affairs as will be the case under Federalism. The only thing lacking was a unified Federal (Central) government. Federalism will allow each region, along with the central government, to implement good economic plans. Provided accountability systems and proper checks and balances are put in place, our country will prosper under a federal system that enables each region to implement parts of a grand vision. One should have faith in all regions of Uganda being capable of managing their own economic affairs without much reference to a unitary center. What happens to devastated areas like Acholi under Federalism? Under Federalism, the government of Uganda will have to transfer a good chunk of its resources to Acholi for a long time. The Acholi themselves will decide how to go about restoring their great culture, economy, institutions and people. They will need technical and moral support from all Ugandans, even as they take charge of their destiny. What type of federalism is best suited for Uganda? The proponents of Federalism in Uganda do not have a neatly wrapped package to answer your question "what kind of Federalism do you want?". We are sharing opinions to try to decide what is workable. You see, all our previous governments have been a "neat package" promulgated by one man without consultation. According to The American Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of The English Language a Federal system is defined as follows: 1. Of, pertaining to, or designating a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government. 2. Of, constituting, or characterized by a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units etc. This is also our definition of federalism. But more specifically we want to empower the people in the various regions of Uganda to mobilize their human and natural resources for development without being unduly dependent on the often distant, indifferent, corrupt, and sometimes hostile central government; to have more ability to shape their destinies through the capacity to raise and retain revenues at a regional level for building roads, clinics, industries, schools etc. Both the regions and the central government will raise revenue through taxes (which will be balanced to avoid over taxation), and as now, the central government will transfer money to the regions to assist them in their development efforts. But it will no longer be the only major source of revenue. Less advantaged regions will get more help from the central government than more privileged ones, a central feature of all federal systems. Our Federal system will be a democracy; indeed true federalism cannot exist in a non-democratic nation. Ours will indeed be a representative democracy with parliaments (assemblies) at both the state and federal levels. The Federal (National) parliament will be the voice of the nation and of the states at the national level, while the state (regional) parliaments will concern themselves specifically with their particular regional needs. It is our contention that representative democracy has failed in Uganda, Kenya and much of Africa because of our failure to accommodate our diversity (ethnic, political, social and economic). Our diverse peoples' competition for economic and political resources and their often gets confused with evil and backward "tribalism". The reality is that our ethnic groups, which tend to inhabit particular geographic areas, are competing or yearning for development and economic resources. However, in our current unitary systems they are not genuinely empowered to develop their economic and natural resources. The only real means for advancement and economic benefit is the central government, the civil service and the security forces. We also want to enable the various ethnic groups in Uganda to celebrate their cultures, and their institutions, within constitutional limits, without being repressed or ostracized. We want to diffuse the competition for the limited national positions, and release some of it into building, vibrant regional centers that create opportunities for their inhabitants, and thus for the nation. All Ugandans would benefit from this arrangement. There will be full mobility of citizens from state to state, i.e., if I think the Bunyoro state has developed a great Banking industry, and I am a banker, I can move to Bunyoro without any problem. I will now also pay my taxes to Bunyoro, and the central government, and not to my state of origin. As to the U.S., you may know that the United States was at first a confederacy before it became a federation. What is a confederacy? Well, a confederacy is a union of states or nations uniting for a common purpose that retain almost all their powers, with a weak central government that relies largely on the states. Later The United States chose federalism, which allows for a stronger central government. However, around 1861 after, Republican Abraham Lincoln became President on a strong anti-slavery platform, a number of southern states choose to form a new southern confederacy to resist the central government's (and the North's) imposition of its morals on the south. The Southern states pulled down the U.S. flag. And when some southern military members shot at people hoisting the United States flag (most of the army at the time comprised of southerners, the Northerners shied away from enlisting) a civil war ensued. The south was defeated through the mobilization of several state militias and new recruits. A factor in the north's favor was that even though 90% of the military personnel were southern, the factories that produced weapons were all in the North. The South was defeated; Federalism prevailed. Far from dividing the country, we federalists actually want to unite it. We think it is now divided, and that the central government has very little, to no legitimacy in several regions (it varies with regime) due to its repressive nature, nepotism, and the failure to address economic needs and accommodate diversity. We think that when all Ugandans, whether they are in Karamoja or Kigezi, get the power to shape their destinies within the context of Uganda (without being at the mercy of the Minister of Local government), pride in Uganda, as an entity, will increase along with increased regional self-confidence. And that, we believe, will increase national unity as regional needs become legitimised and addressed. Why has representative democracy failed in Uganda/Kenya? Uganda has so far failed to find a formula whereby its citizens can live together in civic peace and build up some prosperity. It is not that representative democracy has failed, it is that we have failed to establish a playing field upon which democracy can be successfully executed. All of our governments since 1966 have been based upon an ethnic minority's domination of the army. Federalism is not the only solution being considered, some ardently believe that we have actually got it right with our existing one-party state, others believe that the multiparty formula that existed in 1966-69 and 1980-85 is an already proven solution. If you have some knowledge of Ugandan history you will recognize that these arguments have one big hole, they pretend that ethnic friction does not exist and did not exist as a major problem in Ugandan politics. Will Federalism increase tribalism? No. Uganda is a beautiful country, but lacks a sense of national unity. We don't constitute a single people. Accordingly, rather than increasing tribalism, federalism is actually a recognition that some Ugandans feel discriminated against under the existing unitary system; that discrimination is mostly based on one's ethnic background. Moreover, some groups feel that resources within the geographical region they inhabit are not being used for their benefit. But above all, some groups just want to retain their own identity. In that regard, federalism is the solution, not the problem. That is, there shall be less, not more disagreements between groups of people who live in different geographic regions. And that shall mean less tribalism in Uganda. Shall Federalism break up our country? No. Federalism grants subunits definitive rights against the central [federal] government. It allows the units to maintain different norms, or policies, from those of the central [federal] government without breaking up the country. Given the differences in Uganda over basic disagreements, and long-standing civil conflicts, federalism is the more practical solution under these circumstances in that it may help the country to manage civil conflicts better. Therefore, rather than break up the country, federalism will actually help Ugandans to confront and contain the major sources of our political conflicts. And that should strengthen Uganda. The simple answer is yes, a qualified Acholi economist or statistician should have no trouble working for the future State Ministry of Finance in Buganda, and vice versa; a qualified Muganda, Adhola, Munyankole should have no trouble working for the State Ministry of Finance in Gulu or in other States within Uganda. If a White, Ghanaian, Kenyan can work in Uganda, likewise, highly specialized Ugandans irrespective of State of origin or abode, should be able to find positions elsewhere within Uganda. Of course there are many Acholi, Banyankole, Adhola, Samia and others who are legally residents of Buganda. Many were born there so even if the very restrictive criteria of certain jobs going to people from within state, such Ugandans shall be able to find employment within the State system. The same will apply to Baganda, Basoga, and others who were born in Mbale, and they too should have no trouble finding positions in Eastern State's civil service. It is also true that most states may employ people from within state for certain job levels, some states may even demand it, which should not be seen as discrimination. Federalism is not about embracing mediocrity either, so Buganda and other states for that matter would want to have the best qualified people in their state bureaucracies/agencies. It would not make sense to let positions go unfilled simply because there are no qualified locals from within state. Federalism may involve certain restrictions but Ugandans irrespective of state of birth or abode shall be free to apply and compete for positions elsewhere. For that matter there must be written regulations against discrimination by any province on grounds of nationality. Most federations have similar laws, usually within the constitution, stating that any citizen of the federation is a full citizen of the province where he resides. Thus a provincial government could restrict certain privileges lawfully, for instance, some scholarships could be restricted to students who have resided in the province for a year (a common practice by American states and Canadian provinces), but such restrictions could not include race or ancestry. The informal aspect to the question is that today we have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination by nationality, and we know just how ineffective they are. Therefore, more important than the written laws is an atmosphere of trust and co-operation between Uganda's peoples, something that has been totally neglected to date. Creating such an atmosphere requires many endeavors on many fronts. Setting up a federal constitution would be one of those fronts. Do federal governments cost more to run than unitary ones? What determines the size of government, that is, expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not the system of governance, but rather the stage of a nation's economic development. US, Canada, Britain, Germany and other developed nations spend less on activities like infrastructures such as bridges, highways, schools, hospitals than China, Brazil, South Africa or Uganda. Why? Because over the years the former have spent substantial sums of money on these productive infrastructures, which are now already in place. The costs incurred in repairing them are not as high as the costs involved in constructing new ones from scratch. You are therefore likely to find that South Africa, Brazil, Russia, China spend far more than the US, Canada, France or Britain, irrespective of the system of government. There are unitary governments in developed countries that spend less than emerging or developing federal governments. On the other hand are developed federal governments that spend less on public expenditures than unitary governments. To wit, the cost of public expenditures [costs] as a percentage of GDP depends on the stage of economic development, and NOT on whether a country is federal or unitary per se. But if countries at the same economic stage are considered, federal governments spend less than their unitary counterparts. Who is to manage the implementation process, what powers would he/she have? The federalism implementation process should be managed by all stakeholders - National and State/Provincial government representatives; Civil Society; members of the Constitutional Review Commission and political party representatives among others, to operationalize what would have been agreed on during the negotiations phase. Each interested party shall nominate its representatives to the transitional Commission - a commission with the power to implement whatever decisions shall have been agreed on, and deal with any contentious issues that may arise. Why
different forms of federalism? Because
we cannot tell in advance how far Ugandans shall be prepared to concede
[massive] powers to the Central/National government. What
is the classical and decentralized model of federalism? It
is the form where watertight compartments between federal [national] and
state/provincial responsibilities exist. It means that federal and
state/provincial responsibilities seldom overlap. It ensures that the
federal [national] power to negotiate treaties could not be used to
extend its authority into areas of state/provincial responsibility. What
is Cooperative/Collaborative federalism? It
is when both the federal and state/provincial governments share
responsibilities in certain areas/services to ensure national programs
throughout the country. It renders the "water tight
compartments" model of federalism obsolete. Examples include:
health, education, and others through the sharing of costs between the
central and state/provincial governments. Proponents of this model argue
that many roles cut across jurisdictional lines, hence interdependence;
overlapping, and sharing of responsibilities should become the hallmark
of [modern] federalism. How
is cooperative/collaborative federalism implemented? Usually
through the "federal spending power" where the federal
government enjoys unchallenged ability to spend money even on matters
that lay within state/provincial jurisdiction. The national government
in return may or may not retain control over personal (PIT) and
corporate (CIT) income taxes. Where
is cooperative/collaborative federalism practiced? Australia
and Canada among others. Australia is another example where the federal
government retained control over both personal and corporate tax rates;
whereas Canada is an example, where both federal and provincial
governments levy personal and corporate taxes. What
are the pros and cons of cooperative/collaborative federalism? Pros:
Cooperative/collaborative federalism has the potential to promote
national standards, and minimize the escalation of inter-regional and
inter-governmental conflicts. Collaborative federalism represents de
facto concurrence in areas of state/provincial jurisdiction. Cons:
Retaining control over personal (PIT) and corporate (CIT) income taxes,
as is the case in Australia, is tantamount to centralizing policy based
on the mistaken belief that only central governments can play the
meaningful role of nation building. What
is Competitive federalism? Promotes
governing as a partnership between the center [federal] and units
[states/provinces]. It involves strong pressures decentralization of
powers; expansion of levels of government into new policy fields in the
form of "competitive expansion". It involves state/provincial
building versus nation building. It allows levels of government to
mobilize their populations around competing images of federalism and how
it should work. USA is the leading example where competitive federalism
is widely practiced. Yes, federalism will definitely lead to more jobs in Uganda. Empirically, Federal governments have had higher economic growth rates than the rest give or take, so a higher gross domestic product GDP should translate into a better job creation record in Uganda. Moreover, given the competitive nature of federalism, states compete in a healthy way to draft better policies to attract investment, which should be a boon to economic growth and thus more jobs. Today the unemployment situation is very bad because the national government is indifferent to the plight of the unemployed youth. Federalism will make it harder for state governments to neglect sound economic growth; that by itself is a good thing for job creation in Uganda. Additionally, today the government has undertaken very
destructive, or rather anti-job policies in Uganda. The former
industrial centers are dead because of government indifference. Recall
the example of Jinja and how the Busoga and Buganda governments may
have done something to save the town. They may have offered government
loans, tax relief, employment support etc. to ensure that the industrial
base thrived, because they would recoup the money through other taxes.
The irony is that now with AGOA, the government is running around
looking for investors to invest in Nytil, ATM, and Lira spinners so it
can export textiles to the US to revive the very industries it helped to
kill! Furthermore, government today is indifferent towards farming yet Uganda's future lies in farming. If we hope to tame the high unemployment rate in Uganda, we must pay attention to the agricultural sector. Uganda has good land but that land is under utilized, and sadly the young people despise farming; only government can change that. But today the central Government is indifferent. If we had federalism, federal states shall offer incentives to promote farming. Without such incentives farming will remain neglected. I do not know whether the tea farms in Mityana/Namutamba are fully operational. The coffee sector in various parts of Uganda, the banana sector in Singo/Kiboga/Mityana/Bugerere. You should pay attention to the land acquisition in Ssese-foreigners are buying land at 25 dollars per acre (April 2002)! Look at Vanilla in Mukono and elsewhere, pineapple farming in Mubende/Namutamba etc. Look at the milk sector from Nakasongola/Lukola that goes to waste and the people that would be gainfully employed; yet we import powdered milk. We neglect local farming and the attendant jobs yet we import eggs and tomatoes from South Africa! We create jobs for South African egg and tomato farmers! How
shall the nation-centered view versus state/provincial view be mediated
and reflected? Through
constitutional federalism - where the nation centered view is reflected
in the National Constitution; to be enforced by the national institution
- The Uganda Supreme Court. The Province/State-Centered view shall be
reflected in the amending formula, to ensure a strong province/state
role in ensuring a workable partnership in the future. Constitutional
federalism shall guarantee the character of Uganda as a political
community - the role of national and provincial governments, and the
ability of the federation to accommodate the emergence of new identities
and interests. In practice, the dual dynamics of competition and
cooperation are more in evidence, as federalism is being advanced more
in terms of its implication for public policy and democratic values,
than in terms of competing visions of federalism. This has led to
convergence towards collaborative federalism in most federal
jurisdictions, and could as well be the case in Uganda. Is Uganda ready for Federalism? The answer to the question is YES. Federalism calls for a more radical examination of governance in Uganda. We seek to re-assure those that federalism in Uganda will and should not mean the disappearance of Uganda as a nation. To borrow from finance, all we are saying is that benefits from parts [states] will be greater than benefits of the whole [unitary]. Mr. Lungabo got it wrong when he claimed that federalism is tantamount to the disintegration of Uganda. Division of powers among states should not be seen as destroying Uganda. Uganda as a country is going nowhere, just the way Ugandans will be governed is what federalism seeks to change. Our role here as federalists is to allay the fears of those diehard unitarists that about change. Changes are not easy but Ugandans should be ready to embrace a combination of the traditional with the modern. Mr. Lungabo cites the EU, where different countries [some federal, other unitary] are coming together to form a union. In a federal Uganda, different states shall also come together to form a more vibrant and functioning state than what we currently have. We are saying that such reforms will create synergies within Uganda, through a culture of consensus and diversity; one that will allow change but maintain its survival. It
is not true that federalists don't care about Uganda, we do, that is why
we are suggesting radical changes to save it. given the incessant wars,
we better do it right or the war lords will create one. We have laboured
hard to say that while some issues are clear and straight forward,
others issues are complex and will have to be settled through the
anticipated federal constitutional conference. It will not be easy but
possible to find common consensus on fundamental issues. What is Federo's view on citizenship or nationality? "Would
the it be of legitimate interests for Nebbi Province to re-unite its
Alur people living in Nakaseke with the Alurs living in Nebbi Province
knowing that Nebbi does not adjoin Buganda? How would Buganda and Nebbi
negotiate over its peoples? Should this issue be addressed by the
provinces as regards their people not living in their native provinces?
Would it divide the country more? Would it create a loyalty problem?
Would it end up messing the country more than what the federo vision
hope to repair?" What differentiates decentralization from federalism? By all indications decentralization seems to be working just fine; what is the need for federalism? What differentiates decentralization from federalism? The difference is the ownership of powers. Under decentralization in a unitary state, all powers are owned by the central government and can be repossessed at will by their owner - the central government in Kampala. In the struggles that competition begets when the owners of power lose, they repossess some or all of those powers. In federal systems, some powers are owned by the center and some by the provinces, states, laender, and cantons (shared powers) that make up the federation. Therefore, unilateral repossession of powers is not possible. Given the competitive nature of intergovernmental relations, a central government in Kampala would find it difficult to resist the temptation to repossess a power it had hitherto decentralized if it found itself more or less continuously losing in the competitive struggle with more junior authorities [the districts in Uganda], a situation that cannot arise in federal states because in those states the division of powers is based on a constitutionally entrenched divided ownership of powers. The arrangement in a unitary state, which gives to the central government - the state - the ownership of all powers (responsibilities or functions) implies that the decentralization of powers is often unstable. That is not the case under federalism. |
| © 2002 Federo for all Uganda, All Rights Reserved | |