The broad new reform agenda for development -2

The second reform agenda, after democratisation, may concern development and what it means to Ugandans.  As a student of development, the most frustrating thing to grasp remains the meaning of development and its multiplicity.

 What is clear though, is that there is disillusion with development that in turn manifests in the democratic process as issues for debate. 

In many ways, what we saw as nearly ‘violent’ opposition to the NRM in general or President Museveni in particular, and desperate hope for change that threatened to put an end to President Museveni’s 35 years in power in the January elections was symptomatic of years of simmering discontent. I say violent because government said so. 
Depending on how we look at development, a lot of it has happened over the years. Even though there is ‘no change’ in head of government, a lot has changed. 

Following President Museveni’s campaign trail, it was impressive seeing the many projects and the account of one development milestone after another.  

We saw the signs in big infrastructure projects like roads and electricity.  Ideally, we should say we developed.  It reminded me of the divide in notions of development that focus on either ‘digging holes’ or ‘capital flows’. 

Todd Moss and Danielle Resnick who authored the book, African Development, say those who see development as digging holes think about development as organising a series of activities such as digging wells, building schools, or teaching children how to read and grow new crops. That means for a ‘hole digger’, development is about delivering services, executing projects, managing logistics, and imparting knowledge. 

The capital flows viewpoint is that promoting development is about creating an enabling environment so that people do such things, naturally. 

By this perspective, promoting development is not so much about what you do for other people but rather what you help to leave behind.  While much has happened, the contradictions have been ably captured in the book, Dynamics of neoliberal transformation which helps us to understand the desire for change. 
 
In one of the chapters, Prof Godfrey Asiimwe suggests that part of the contradiction involves how the dynamic interplay of the imperfect market favoured few players, who became winners, while the poor who were the majority, were marginalised. 

It is little wonder, some pro change manifestos focused on a ‘New Uganda’ (National Unity Platform) and ‘Building a New Uganda’ (Forum for Democratic Change) premised on gaps in development distribution.

It is time to honestly ask ourselves who are the beneficiaries of the current development agenda? What are the things standing in the way of development? And how do we deal with growth in the face of sustained inequality and poverty?

There is need to focus on distribution of development outcome and the resultant inequality, persistent poverty and perceived marginalisation evident in various reports. 

It may seem, we have been largely driven by the ‘digging hole’ perspective of development, and done quite some digging if the projects launched during campaigns are anything to go by.  

The irony is that people eventually want more than just roads, wires and pipes, especially when they are unlikely to use them. Ultimately, people care more about getting health services,  quality education, accessing the markets and making good returns on their investment. 

Many of these things beyond digging holes are invisible priorities. In the long run, people want to participate in making choices about their own future as opposed to being secured a future. People tend to quickly push issues of freedom and participation to western notions not relevant for complex societies like ours. 

However, even poor people eventually learn that the rich need them in order to stay rich. People understand their place and are not without power, as the World Bank study published as ‘Voices of the Poor’ tells a rather interesting story of how poor people see the world. 
Thus, failure to recognise this turns into discontent. 

 I couldn’t find better words to rephrase Moss and Resnick, who note that ‘development is ultimately not about bricks and budgets but about social change’.  If we are to adopt a capital flows perspective , we need to create an enabling environment, only possible in a reasonable democratic environment. 

Ms Maractho (PhD) is the head and senior lecturer, Department of Journalism and Media Studies at UCU.  [email protected]