Oil is deepening divisions in Movement, says Prof. Mamdani

In 2009, commercially exploitable reserves of oil were discovered in western Uganda. In your view, what does this discovery mean for Uganda?

At a general level, oil is not very different from any other natural resource, whether game parks or forest reserves or gold, whether above or below the ground. In every case, some basic questions arise: How open, transparent and democratic are the processes through which they are disposed? Who will benefit directly from the disposal and what will be the implications for the wider society?

At a specific level, the stakes involved are higher because oil has a high market value and because its extraction requires a labour force that is much smaller compared to what was required to extract resources like coal or timber.

The temptation is for governments to import this small and skilled labour force. The result is that with the flow of oil money, these governments tend to depend less and less on their population for the tax revenue and more on oil companies for governmental revenue.

The temptation is for the government to see its population as nothing but a hindrance. When government no longer sees the population as a source of tax revenue, it looks at the people as nothing but a group of claimants making demands. In this kind of situation, it is difficult to build democratic institutions that can hold accountable those who govern. The tendency is the opposite: those who govern lord it over the governed; corruption grows on a large scale. In the worst cases, high oil revenues go with corruption on a big scale. As the extraction of oil leads to the devastation of the surrounding environment, it undermines existing ways of making a living (like fishing, farming and herding). At some point, poverty translates into popular resistance. The response is either reform or militarised repression. This is the lesson of the Niger Delta, of the Cabinda Enclave in Angola.

An American think tank recently proposed the distribution of oil rents to the Ugandan population through cash transfers. Your thoughts on this idea?
I consider this idea counter-productive. This is not a new idea. It has been part of the neoliberal ideological kit for a long time. The receipt of oil revenue is an opportunity to invest in economic and social infrastructure, from roads and rails and cheap energy to quality education and health care services.

All of these require investments on a large scale, beyond the capacity of any individual household, even beyond the capacity of individual communities. If you distribute oil revenue to individual households, it will be spent on direct consumption, most likely of imports. The benefit of the oil boom will go to countries that export these goods to us than by ourselves.

What in your view would be the more applicable way of sharing oil wealth?
In my view, a more balanced policy is called for, one that will ensure a countrywide development of economic and social infrastructure, a diversification of livelihoods in the oil-producing region in particular, and an increase in individual household incomes. For this to happen, information needs to be public, from agreements with oil companies to decision-making about how to utilise revenues from oil. The decision-making process needs to involve all levels of government, from Parliament to local levels of government.

Western countries have not openly shown deep interest in Uganda’s oil potential as has been the case, say in Libya or in Iraq, yet Tullow, CNOOC, Total represent corporate interests and by extension national interests of countries of their origin. What in your view happens when such companies with vast experience and resources at their disposal sit out to discuss investment issues with countries like Uganda?
Two things happen. One, they spend money on large and experienced research teams and benefit from their advice. We tend to respond in a more artisanal fashion, each to his or her own, learning by doing, which means learning by making mistakes. Second, they work as a team, study our strengths and weaknesses, including who in our team is susceptible to corruption. Thus they negotiate both at team and individual level, both openly and clandestinely. Most of all, they seek to evade the rule of law inside the oil-producing country, seeking a situation where disputes are resolved mainly in their home courts.

Speaker Rebecca Kadaga grudgingly recalled Parliament from recess to debate the oil sector following a petition signed by half of MPs across the political divide. Given the deeply polarised Ugandan political scene, what do you make of this development?
As a first step, it bodes well for us. I salute the courage of the Speaker and the resolve of a large number in this new Parliament to stand up for its independence regardless of party affiliation.

With lawmakers united on this front, is this a sign that the ruling party no longer has a stronghold on the legislature? It would appear there is a full scale rebellion going on in the NRM party, how else would you explain why ruling party MPs are openly defying their party?
Yes, it is a sign that the ruling party is divided. This is likely for a variety of reasons. Since it is time for a change in leadership, there is division among senior members of the party, especially those who see one another as competitors for the top job. But at the same time, we see evidence of those in the younger generation taking a longer term view, and acting in response to what they perceive as a larger issue.

The country was stunned by revelations in Parliament of massive oil bribes to senior members of President Museveni’s cabinet including Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi, Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kutesa and former Energy Minister Hillary Onek. Your thoughts on this developing story?
I am also stunned!

What is your take on demands that the accused ministers step down from office to pave way for investigations?
This is what would be expected in a representative democracy.

For some reason, almost the same names continue to crop up in reports of high profile corruption in the country. There was the Temangalo land scandal and Chogm for instance. Why these “usual suspects” or is that they are simply victims of character assassination?
Sustained attempts at character assassination is one possibility. The other is the sorry state of institutions and practices through which our leaders are supposed to be held accountable. The only way to find out is through transparency and public accountability. Make all information public, especially agreements with oil companies. Hold public hearings on these allegations.

Do these allegations confirm fears that windfalls from the oil sector will help oil the patronage networks to keep the NRM government in power?
When oil windfalls come seriously into play and fuel patronage networks, then our political landscape will also change. The NRM may retain its name, but it too will become a more efficient patronage network, and will no longer be recognisable.

What is the possibility of Uganda heading in the direction of countries where oil resources have bred conflict and turmoil?
That depends a lot on how we, those in leadership and those out of leadership, those in Parliament and those out of it, respond to the present moment. Nothing is inevitable.

Are there any parallels you can draw between the on-going oil “scandal” and Kabaka Yekka’s Daudi Ochieng’s (RIP) February 4, 1966 motion in Parliament proposing a commission of inquiry into allegations that Dr Obote and then Col. Idi Amin had smuggled gold, ivory and coffee from Zaire?
The 1966 event was presented by the powers that be as part of “the Buganda Question” rather than as a demand for democratic accountability. It fuelled a sectional conflict rather than a democratic movement. This is the language in which supporters of the former VP (Gilbert Bukenya) have publicly tried to discredit the case against him. Parliament’s willingness to cast the net wider, but not too wide, gives us a better chance today than in 1966.

Some, like Mr Mbabazi have been touted as possible successors to President Museveni. Do you think this oil debate is knitted in any way to the succession question in Uganda? If so, how?
Only those naïve would deny this possibility, and only those irresponsible would speculate about it. I believe this presents you and other newspapers with an opportunity for some serious investigative journalism.

You recently wrote an article saying you believe dark days are ahead for the African continent given the deeply divided societies herein. What does Uganda’s future look like?
Uganda’s immediate future depends on how we negotiate the present leadership transition. Even if President Museveni has not explicitly announced his intention to leave office at the end of this term, the active jostling for posts inside the NRM confirms that those nearest him are taking this possibility seriously and are indeed preparing for it. The more positive development is that many of the NRM representatives in Parliament are seeing this as an opportunity for reform. We still have some time before serious oil money comes into play, at least a few years, and before global developments begin to bear down on East Africa in a more direct way.

Museveni has made a lot of partnerships with the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians and Europeans. Are these the networks responsible for his longevity in power?
African leaders have drawn a lesson from the last Cold War. That lesson is not to choose sides. You can see this with the leadership in Ethiopia and Uganda. This time they are determined to play both sides in the developing contest between the West and the rising powers in the East.

But the situation has changed dramatically from the last Cold War when the Russians were mainly interested in developing a string of military bases and the Americans put economic development at the top of their agenda. Now, the positions are reversed.

It is the Americans whose top priority is the military, who seek to develop Africom to wage the War on Terror, and the Chinese who are criss-crossing Africa building its infrastructure and mining its natural resources. Africa can live with the Chinese and the Indians as business partners but I am not sure that partnership in a broadening War on Terror is the best way forward for Africa.

What sort of change can Ugandans aspire to given that the opposition here has shown there’s little it can do better than the NRM thanks in large part to internal weaknesses?
The last Parliament discredited both the NRM and the opposition. The public lost confidence in both as it saw both sides susceptible to corruption. The pendulum shifted with Walk-to-Work. The positive side of Walk-to-Work was that it shifted focus from parliamentary debate to direct but nonviolent action.

Its weak side was that it highlighted the activity of a few leaders and treated the vast majority of Ugandans as mere spectators. But its overall effect was positive, for the next round saw more organised action by organised sections of civil society.

Take, for example, the protests by Kampala City Traders Association (Kacita) and then by school teachers. These developments have educated many of the members of our new Parliament, many of whom have a background in the NGO movement.

The present situation also shows how secondary is the importance of party affiliation and party division in Parliament. The forces of reform in Parliament are not inside any single party.

They are inside every party. This is not a time to draw hard and fast lines based on yesterday’s alignments. It is a time for reaching out, for making new alignments. Oppositions are not born; they are made, through struggle, experience and then better informed struggle.

Prof. Mamdani is the director of Makerere Institute of Social Research at Makerere University.