The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
How our political debates over development focus on peripheral issues while ignoring the fundamental problems
THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda | I believe that human beings are inherently religious. We have axiomatic faith in particular beliefs based on our moral intuitions. These are kept alive through narratives. The great British economist, John Keynes, argued many public policy issues are complex. So, ordinary people handle complexity through narratives. These are readily digestible theories in miniature. Narratives spread easily, becoming public goods. But they can also stray far away from reality and produce “public bads”. For instance, the switch from the narrative of disease being caused by witchcraft to one that it is caused by germs is essential to improving public health. The reverse is true: if people think Ebola is a curse by angry gods, they may take little or no precautions to protect themselves.
This also applies to debate on governance in Africa. Africans are convinced the biggest cause of poverty in our countries is dictatorship leading to corruption and human rights abuses. We are constantly told that if we democratise, our economies will grow faster, and poverty will disappear. Yet there is no evidence for this argument. There is hardly any country in this world that began as a democracy and moved rapidly towards prosperity, the exceptions are Mauritius and Ireland. The rest of the richest countries of the world today developed before they democratised. Democracy was a consequence of development, not a cause of it.
The same applies to corruption. When all the rich countries of today were at the same level of development as our countries, they were run as autocracies and had high levels of public sector corruption. In all cases, corruption declined as these countries developed. Evidence suggests high levels of corruption is a characteristic feature of poor countries, not a cause of their poverty. Low levels of corruption are a characteristic feature of rich countries, not a cause of their current wealth. We mix cause and effect.
Why is this important? Let me first state a caveat, even though I know I will be misunderstood. My critics will say I am justifying autocracy and corruption because I am a friend of President Yoweri Museveni and get cheques from him.
As I await those cheques to flow into my bank account, I can state my moral intuition as well. I find corruption an unfair practice. It diverts resources meant for the many to benefit a few. And I am a liberal democrat by faith and occupation. I grew up on an intellectual diet of liberalism and democracy. And I earn a living by freely expressing myself. Without freedom to express myself, I would not be anything today. But one needs to separate their values and interests from their analysis.
This brings me back to the narrative that it is dictatorship and its corruption that perpetuates poverty in our part of the world. We have already seen above that this is a religious claim that is backed by faith but contradicted by history. China today is rapidly transforming as if on steroids while it is an autocracy and has rampant corruption. If autocracy and corruption are undermining development in Africa, we need to explain the specific features they take in Africa that makes them impediments to development.
However, the important thing is for us to draw lessons from the experience of rich countries. Two factors shaped their transformation from poor agrarian societies to advanced countries. The first is the terms of trade: the price index of their exports versus the price index of imports. When what they sold abroad fetched better prices than what they bought from there, they developed. The second is ownership of the commanding heights of the economy of the country by nationals. The two factors are self-reinforcing: when country’s nationals own the commanding heights of the economy, it will tend to add value to what they sell abroad and thereby improve their terms of trade through value addition.
It does not matter whether the government is a dictatorship abusing human rights and presiding over massive corruption. If the economy is owned by nationals and the price index of her exports is higher than the price index of exports (like China and Vietnam today, or the USA and Germany in the late 19th century), that country will develop. That is where the real battle for Uganda and Africa should be. Yet when you look at Uganda, the commanding heights of our economy are owned by multinational capital.
This leads to the second problem. As a rule, multinational corporations do not transfer the most valuable components of their business to their subsidiaries. Apple is not going to transfer the design and marketing of the iPhone (64% of total value) from California to Uganda. Basically, we don’t have multinational corporations but national corporations with multinational operations. Our everlasting faith in foreign direct investment as a panacea for our poverty is mistaken. I can hardly find a country that developed because its economy was dominated by foreign investment.
Meanwhile, the British introduced coffee and cotton seeds to Uganda in 1903. Today, 120 years later, we are still exporting raw coffee and raw cotton, and earning 2% of the international market price. The losses resulting from foreigners owning our economy and us exporting low value products are 1,000 times larger than any corruption by Anita Among and all the thieves in government. But no Ugandan has ever planned a demonstration against this massive robbery. The narrative that the hindrance to our development is the local thief is so powerful, it makes the biggest robbery of our nations go unnoticed in our public debate.
I suspect that the promoting of autocracy and corruption as causes of our poverty is a deliberately cultivated narrative to keep us fighting among ourselves as the real robbers help themselves at our expense. The swindle we suffer at the hands of multinational corporations through tax evasion, transfer pricing, huge tax exemptions, profit repatriation, lack of technology transfer, and debt service is 1,000 times larger than corruption by our politicians. And the losses we suffer from exporting unprocessed products are even worse. The policies that sustain this swindle have never caused much public anger leading to any popular protest. Why?
I end with a quote from the iconic Ngugi wa Thiongo: the white man came to Africa with his bible and found us with our land. He gave us the bible and asked us to close our eyes and pray. When we opened our eyes, we had the bible, and he had taken our land.
******
amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug
No way Mr Andrew M9, we don’t have to exactly follow the “organic” mode of development that the most advanced democracies went through to reach where they’re today; all we need is to deviate and use what little resources we have plus what we get from advanced democracies else where to somersault to development and advance in our fragile democracies rather than enslave our in the hopeless rhetoric that today’s advanced democracies and economies morphed from dictatorships and so must we too!!!
It’s a very redundant argument, there is positive dictatorships and negative dictatorship such that which was in Singapore between 1967 to late 90s which somersaulted the country from an agrarian to one of the most industrialized one (within just 35 years!!), unlike African autocracies that take indefinite years without much progress!!
Take the example of Tibuhaburwa’s autocracy almost clocking four decades but still in the same bracket as “heavily indebted poor countries”!!
It’s a very big shame Mr Andrea.
Otherwise you’ve a clear point when you state that you too feel democracy is the best thing to happen to any sensible society, but spoil it by justifying dictatorships and lootocracy as being “normal” in the process of development!
This makes an otherwise valid argument look so ridiculous. I rest my case.
A self-defeating argument, Andrew. One can even see that you are struggling to articulate your points on dictatorship and corruption. The flow of ideas in this article are not as natural as in other articles you have written.
So, two quick questions: 1) should we condone corruption, celebrate our corrupt officials, and encourage the corrupt officials to continue stealing public funds with reckless abandon? 2) should we condone dictatorship and encourage the abuse of rights of Ugandans?
You make reference to the rapid transformation in China. May I remind you that, in China, corrupt officials are jailed for long periods and potentially face death sentences.
Andrew, like Uhuru has stated, you are struggling to articulate your points this time round. All it takes is the moral conviction, at a personal level, to do the right thing, no matter the justification to do otherwise. All we need is people in high positions with high levels of moral integrity and with a burning desire to see Uganda develop; then and only then will they be able to channel resources where they will have the most impact. Our leaders’ problem is not a lack resources; rather, it is a selfish and self-centered mentality of wanting the finer things in life at the expense of the rest of the society. That is where Uganda’s problem lies; everything else is just background noise.