There’s nothing wrong with ‘fishermen’ in Cabinet, for it is everyone’s turn to eat

Author: Daniel K Kalinaki. PHOTO/FILE. 

Much has been made about the calibre of some of the cabinet ministers recently appointed after an inordinate delay. The broad view is that some of its members are not the sharpest drills in the yard, to put it delicately – or in a way that those so affected will be unable to decipher. 

Even the appointing authority, after unveiling his final list of nominees, looked back and openly chuckled about his handiwork, saying he had gone for “fishermen” rather than elites.  

Some of the criticism is unfounded. There is, in my view, nothing wrong with first-term MPs like my former colleague, Agnes Nandutu, for instance, being appointed to Cabinet. It is also possible that, with very limited effort, new Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja can have a lot more impact than her predecessor ndugu Ruhakana Rugunda. 

Ndugu Rugunda was vastly experienced and amiable – a gentle giant who couldn’t burst a grape in a fruit fight – but also largely ineffectual; the most remarkable thing about his time in office is that nothing remarkable happened. This has little to do with Ndugu and other elite politicians before him and a lot more to do with how the country and society – and Cabinet – have evolved over the years.  

The size and choice of cabinet ministers reflects the political considerations of the day. At independence in 1962 Cabinet could fit in a matatu, as they were only 17 of them. The latest one, at 82, would require a bus (64-seater), a matatu and a sedan to move from one place to another.  

Early cabinets were elitist and, because they were small, could fit mostly the best and the brightest. It is hard to find seven football teams of brilliant people and put them in cabinet today. Many brilliant people, knowing the ineffectiveness of reasoned debate and policy making in a small and crowded stadium, will probably politely decline the invitation to the team. Fishermen on the other hand… 

Anyway, this tells us that the cabinet has evolved from a primarily policy-making body to the ultimate platform to reward key allies and accommodate potential dissenters. Getting into cabinet has become a means to an end and, in effect, an end in itself.  

The expansion of cabinet mirrors the expansion of Parliament and represents a wider expansion of the political elite without deepening their influence or real power. It works in two related ways. First, if you have just 20 ministers they are special and powerful by sheer dint of the exclusivity of their position. And because they are few, you are more likely to get high calibre folk, who are easier to compare, even favourably, with the principal.  

If on the other hand you have 50+ fishermen and other types who only recently graduated from the peri-urban pursuit and punishment of reptilian species, the light from the principal, however dim, will always shine brightest.  

This is a clever way of sharing the spoils of power without sharing power. Voters in at least 80 constituencies across the country will now boast of the visit of a ministerial convoy and have a big man or woman to give chits to in search for jobs and other opportunities. They feel close to power, even if their big men and women have very little real power. The voters smell the scent and hear the sizzle, but they never really taste the sausage. 

The cabinet composition also reflects the social and the political. Socially, we now have a half-baked generation of UPE graduates whose knowledge of the world is “as if, as if” and who are now the majority of the population. Even if one were to randomly choose cabinet from Parliament or even off the street, it is possible that one would end up with the same demographic.

Politically, the rise of the ghetto in recent years has also made the need to represent its constituents at the national dining table. Bobi Wine previously said that Parliament had refused to go to the ghetto and that, as a result, the ghetto had decided to go to Parliament by voting him, and others after him. His presidential run was fuelled by a similar threat to march the ghetto to State House. In that vein Cabinet represents us, as us, and “where we have reached” as a country.