Uganda’s government by loot

Why we need to rethink the ethics of our inherited state institutions and the democratic politics that underpin them.

THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda | The revelations of massive abuse of public resources by our legislators led by the speaker, Anita Among, continues to animate public debate on social and traditional media. People are angry, very angry. Many would like to see President Yoweri Museveni apprehend the speaker and send her where she belongs – jail. Yet it is very unlikely he will. I am surprised people are surprised by the theft. Corruption is the way our political system works, not the way it fails. Among has only taken it a notch higher.

I always try to keep my feelings, hopes, aspirations and even values out of my analysis of politics. I believe values cloud judgement of politics. I begin with four questions: if corruption on the scale Among has taken it is a gross moral wrong, why is there no effort in parliament from both NRM or the opposition to censure her? Second, is the anger on social media widely shared by our citizens across the country? Third, do the people of Teso where Among hails from see her acts of self-enrichment as immoral? Fourth, do many voters make a distinction between the private resources of the speaker and the public resources of the state of Uganda?

Let us look to our more democratic neighbour, Kenya where William Ruto was elected president. He had been reviled by the international and local media as the most corrupt man in Kenya. He was accused of having amassed a large personal fortune in hundreds of millions of dollars. Stories were written about him calling every procurement officer in every ministry and government department to get a 10% cut on every deal. He ran against Raila Odinga, a rare politician in Kenya who has not been involved in any serious case of corruption. Raila lost and Ruto won. Why?

From my experience, there is a big gulf between the ethics of the state we inherited from colonial rule and the moral attitudes of ordinary voters. The more corrupt a politician is, the higher are his or her chances of being reelected. Why? Politicians who loot public resources enrich themselves. But they also share this loot with their constituents: they contribute generously to community functions such as funerals, weddings, church services, fundraisings for churches, mosques, hospitals and schools in their constituencies. They also pay school fees, medical bills, and meet funeral and other expenses for the people in their communities.

Do the beneficiaries of such acts of private generosity extended at public expense feel that those contributing are acting unethically? For we must remember that the ultimate judge of the work of an elected politician in a democracy is the voter. In my experience, these acts of kindness and generosity are politically profitable – they cultivate a large following. This is in large part because the voter in Uganda unlike her counterpart in the UK or Denmark, does not distinguish between the private resources of the politician and the public resources of the state. Elections in our part of the world reward the thief and punish the honest.

There is another problem in most of Africa: identity politics. Our countries are multiethnic. This creates its own dynamics. For instance, if Museveni arrested Among today, he would face a political backlash in Teso, her home region. Many people outside of Western Uganda would see such detention as politically motivated. This is partly because people, rightly or wrongly, think Museveni’s close family and tribemates have stolen a lot of money from the state and gone unpunished. The arrest of Among would be politicised as an attack on the Teso people. Museveni can as well get the deputy speaker and other westerners including his fellow Bahima and throw them in jail to demonstrate ethnic even handedness. But many Ugandans, especially in Teso, would not buy into it. Instead, they would see it as an attempt to use these few co-ethnics to disguise his intention to just punish an Atesotl

Many of my intellectual friends in both the domestic and the diplomatic community accuse me of justifying this corruption. Maybe I am guilty as accused. Yet that is not my intention. Far from it, I am inclined to believe that many people tend to moralise rather than analyse politics and corruption. While my arguments come across as justifying it, and perhaps they do, I am driven by the desire to explain it. Across many poor and even many rich countries, this is how politics is played and has been played for ages. This is especially so for democratic politics where politicians need votes from ordinary people to gain and retain public office.

Some argue that these acts of corruption undermine democracy. I would argue that they are manifestations of democracy in a poor country. In fact, as democracy has deepened in Uganda, so has political corruption. The American philosopher, Will Durant, said that there are three forms of government known to man: aristocracy, rule by birth; theocracy, rule by religion and democracy; rule by money. I agree. As democracy has deepened, money has become increasingly central to our electoral process. Americans would agree.

Take India for example; the most consistent democracy in a poor setting. In 2015, the Carnegie Endowment produced a study that showed that, in every election there, the share of criminals elected to parliament increases by 2%. These are the men and women willing to use all sorts of means to raise money to get elected. In 2014, one third (167) of elected MPs in India had a criminal charge, of whom 33 were elected while in jail.

Over the last 30 years of increasing political contestations in Uganda, we have witnessed the progressive attrition of public-spirited persons in our politics. In their place we have seen the gradual and consistent growth in the share of crooks elected to public office. This is the more intriguing because Uganda has a very high anti-incumbency bias. Only 30% of incumbent MPs get re-elected. In the current parliament, only 105 out of 556 of MPs were in the last parliament. In the U.S. and the UK, only 10% of incumbents lose their seats in any election. In Uganda, those who don’t steal enough to placate the myriad needs and demands of their constituencies lose. The more corrupt a politician is, the higher the chances of getting elected. Among will be returned with an even higher vote share at the next election. Cynical, pessimistic, depressing, yes. But it is also a realistic assessment