Understanding Kajura’s woes

Successful politicians are those who meet cultural obligations in their communities: attending religious services/ceremonies, weddings and funerals. Materially, they meet their constituents financial needs by paying fees and medical bills for some, contribute generously to funerals, weddings and to fundraisings for churches, clinics and schools. This is what legitimises wealth and income inequality in poor communities. And most critically it helps politicians cultivate a political following. One can pay for these expenses using personal income, which is expensive. When in control of the state, one uses public funds to meet them.

Our legislators are constantly inundated with myriad demands for financial assistance from their poor constituents. Ordinary people in poor societies have a concept of a leader as a person who helps the indigent. Therefore to lead one has to be seen as rich and generous. But such generosity also takes a large share of one’s income, thereby making it hard to save. To be successful politically therefore means to share your wealth with the people.

Our legislators cannot meet all these personal demands on their income. Neither can the state provide a large basket of public goods and services the electorate expects. This is because of the mismatch between people’s expectations and the resources available to the individual politician and to the state. During elections politicians borrow to endear themselves to voters by exhibiting exaggerated generosity, thereby accumulating debts. This is why over half of our legislators in Uganda do not earn any salary, their money being cut at source to pay off their loans.

Politicians expect to recoup this investment by being appointed to cabinet and using that position to make money via corruption. Alternatively they bet on being appointed to powerful oversight committees of parliament from whence they can get bribes from other thieving public officials in exchange for covering up their theft. (See how deluded we are when we expect parliament to act as a check on the executive). Yet not everyone can be appointed to cabinet or to an influential parliamentary oversight committee. Politics is therefore like any other business where investors make risky bets. Those who lose, or who win but fail to get “juicy” executive appointments or selection to powerful parliamentary committees find themselves unable to repay their debts hence bankruptcy.

To sustain a governing coalition and reproduce electoral victory, a president/ruling party has to create opportunities for his/its politicians to make money. Once appointed, one is expected to help his/her constituents find jobs (thereby undermining meritocratic recruitment); get government contracts for the businesspersons in his/her community (thereby undermining competitive bidding); and/or personally pay for constituents’ personal expenses, which requires the use official positions to make money – hence corruption.

These are not pathologies unique to Africa. They are actually the instruments governments in poor societies across time and space have used to consolidate power. One just needs to read the history of Europe and North America in the 19^th century to see this. Therefore corruption is the way the system works, not the way it fails. It is the instrument politicians use to build electoral and governing coalitions. In criminalising its patronage and clientelism, we have criminalised the only affordable ways of managing power relations in a poor society.

On the surface corruption seems an obstacle to the development of a modern meritocratic state. However, historically it has not (necessarily) stopped this process. Just like capitalism grew inside the womb of feudalism slowly tearing it asunder, modern meritocratic states grew (and still grow) inside the womb of [neo]patrimonial ones. But slowly, as the economy grows and society undergoes structural transformation, these changes tear the old system apart. Those looking for a quick transition to a modern meritocratic state will be frustrated. Evolution, not revolution, is what works.

****