KRC: CSB in Uganda

Publication date: Wednesday 28 September 2005

What are the particular preconditions in your country that enable or obstruct civil society building strategies of your organisation?

Based on your experiences, how do initiatives and strategies of your organisation contribute to improving the responsiveness and performance of the state?

Conditions that enable or obstruct civil society building strategies

Introduction/Background
Uganda has gone through drastic socio-economic and political changes since the National Resistance Movement government captured power through a protracted guerrilla war 1981-1986. The NRM government main political concern was restoration of democracy and fundamental human rights for the people of Uganda. This was manifested in the 1995 constitution that was quite elaborate on a lot of political issues including term limits for the presidents to avoid emergency of dictators and abuse of power by leaders. The provision on term limits of the 1995 constitution is a fundamental block for a stable and democratic country.

The current situation depicts a total shift of the very leaders who had vested lots of energy in the 1995 constitution where they promulgated that:

“Recalling our history which has been characterised by political and constitutional instability; recognising our struggles against the forces of tyranny, oppression and exploitation, committed to building a better future by establishing a socio-economic and political order through a popular and durable national Constitution based on the principles of unity, peace, equality, democracy, freedom, social justice and progress……”

The very leaders are now using if not, more energy to undo what they look at as stumbling blocks in their quest to remain in power. The political environment is worsening as the transition process seem to be taking a centre stage in a rather weak and vulnerable society that has no capacity to determine the future of the country leaving it in the hands of the political elites who have got their own agenda. It is important to note that what could now look like enabling factors for NGOs, that are embedded in the 1995 constitution could change any time as the political environment is threatening the stability of the constitution.

Enabling factors
The Civil society and mainly NGOs are playing a complimentary role to government efforts for eradication of poverty to fulfil vision 2015 and the UN millennium goals. This has given NGOs the impetus to participate in the processes of Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). The framework lays out four major pillars; improved quality of life of the poor, increased income, Good governance and security, conflict resolution and Disaster Management.

Existing Gap
The NGOs over time have concentrated on service delivery programmes which directly target the poor and disadvantaged groups and leaving a very crucial role of monitoring government performance. This has led to weak institutional building processes, most especially portrayed by the reluctance by the government to appreciate the role of CSOs/NGOs in monitoring and influencing government policies. Government considers CSOs engaged in policy advocacy more of opponents than partners in development process.

Obstructive Issues

The Political transition process from one political system to multi party system is creating a challenging environment for policy advocacy NGOs. Most times, issues related to the amendment of the constitution have made advocacy NGOs take a similar stand with the opposition as is the case with lifting of the presidential term limits.
The current Proposed NGO bill gives government too much control on the activities of NGOs. Some of the proposals by the state/government in the NGO bill for example; if an NGO is against government policy, government has the power to deregister that NGO. Operational permits will be issued annually and Intelligence organs will be represented on the Boards of the NGOs.
Top-down hierarchical culture and lack of institutional building capacities; In the first instance, it has been/is tradition for the governments in Uganda due to policies instated by the donors like the World Bank (Washington consensus of structural adjustment programmes) to approach development work, from a perspective of top-down approach with little knowledge of the local context. This culture has transformed and instilled into structures of the government, with most government technocrats not conceptualising the context in which they work.
Political immaturity has led to a culture of intolerance as those who weld power find it extremely difficult to tolerate divergent views. This has created an intimidating environment for policy advocacy by NGOs like KRC as the movement cadres quickly associate our activities with the opposition.
International -donors (external)

Disempowering donor policies have created weak CSOs that are donor driven and in most cases, work to fulfil donor interests with less effort to be accountable to their people. Many of the projects are designed and determined by donors who are interested in specific short term projects, that do not reflect the integration concerns on the ground and this has made it difficult for NGOs to engage government in meaningful policy issues.

Responsiveness and performance of the state
Apparently, there is realisation by the civil society that Government is the biggest actor in development, first because it collects taxes and accesses basket funding to facilitate development projects and programmes and is expected by its citizens to deliver services given the set commitments. This more often is affected by high levels of corruption due to the fact that the civil society monitoring role was not high emphasised.

In a way the people have been looking at government as their boss who is the great provider as they wait to receive and this has enhanced the culture of political patronage and manipulation. The community especially in rural areas have not been exposed to understanding their rights and obligations in questioning and monitoring government programmes. This has led to unsustainable community development efforts.

The KRC Approach
KRC is striving to improve the responsiveness and performance of the state that is advocating for social participation in issues of governance and economic emancipation of Ugandans. The focus is on the involvement of the local communities in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of government and civil society programmes in Policy development and review. This is being done through; Poverty Resource Monitoring and Tracking (PRMT); A model designed by KRC for the communities to be able to monitor and influence government policies and seeking for transparency and accountability, increased participation of the citizens in policy formulation and reviews, harmonisation of policy procedures of government and civil society through dialoguing-(an important emphasis) for instance on programmes of eradicating poverty, new technologies like GMOs and Organic farming.

Synergy for net working to advance formidable civil society structures
KRC encourages inter-regional collaboration and networking for the integration of macro social and economic issues of conflict and economic developments in development processes. All the programmes of KRC are strongly advancing an empowering process to development where the rural communities are at the forefront as participants rather than benefactors and other actors giving the appropriate support for positive change. The Participatory Action Learning Sustainable System (PALS) approach has contributed greatly in strengthening a culture of responsibility and ownership among the rural communities in the Rwenzori region.