Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Caption for the landscape image:

The schema of political order

Scroll down to read the article

Author: Moses Khisa. PHOTO/FILE

I want to pick from where I left off a fortnight ago – understanding the foundations of political order. Political order is an arrangement or state of affairs that guarantees a country’s long-term stability, security, and prosperity. At the core of this arrangement is the quality of government and capacity of the state.

A high-quality government and strong state system make possible the provision of critical public goods and services like roads and railways, garbage collection and clean streets, public health, safe running water, and properly managed sewer systems, etc.In many countries, governments privatize the supply of these goods and services. Private companies provide them at market prices or subsidised fees, but it is the government or local authority ultimately responsible as the regulator and the provider of last resort. By contrast, law and order, justice, security, and national defence are services that nearly everywhere in the world are the exclusive business of the government and State.

Professional and competent police forces, military assets and capabilities, courts of law, prison services, and intelligence apparatus form the coercive cluster of a State. They represent the most important measure of the quality of government and State strength.

The point here is not merely academic or abstract; rather, it is practical and concrete. The quality of government, the degree of governance and capacity of the State to manage public affairs is an irreplaceable necessity without which it is impossible to have peace and prosperity.

As I previously noted, a American political scientist Francis Fukuyama summarised the foundations of political order into three pillars, a three-leg schema: State, rule of law and institutions of accountability. A State denotes the broad institutional apparatus for managing public affairs, especially the coercive arsenal mentioned above, but also the overall bureaucratic and administrative infrastructure necessary, for example, for tax collection that funds other State activities.

The rule of law refers to the legal codes and body of laws, the court system, and the prosecutorial processes for ensuring order and dispensing justice. Rule of law depends heavily on the State. The Judiciary and court system function independently, but their work relies on the police, intelligence agencies, prisons, and in some cases the army. Institutions of accountability, to take a democratic system as one way (not the only as there are other alternatives), provide the mechanism for deciding who governs and exercises authority on behalf of the public.

Through processes of accountability, we decide the chief executive officer for a country – a president or prime minister. Representatives that comprise the Legislature as the people’s House – Parliament – come through, but also form part of, accountability institutions. The three legs of political order – State, rule of law, and accountability – form a combination, deeply interwoven and interconnected. Each leg supports the others. All three, depend on each other. The functioning of institutions of accountability requires a strong State.

For example, to conduct elections for a chief executive and elected representatives, there must be a State apparatus, including the bureaucracy, law and order agencies, etc. Laws and courts too are necessary. In turn, through accountability institutions, we get a government and leadership, both elected and appointed, the Executive and legislative branches of government that make laws, policies, and programmes and implement them.

The Executive and Legislature enable functioning of the court system. They also preside over the State and direct its activities. A country’s chief executive is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and appoints heads of nearly every State agency or organ. This symbiotic relationship makes the three legs inseparable. The absence or weakness of one is a problem.

For example, pursuing accountability through elections and other democratic processes without a strong and functional State is a recipe for chaos. A strong State without laws and independent courts means state actors and agencies can abuse their powers with impunity.

When there is a strong State and rule of law but no institutions of accountability or a rigged system, citizens lack voice and representation, thus can rise up in protest or rebellion. Striking a fine balance between the three, having the right amount or appropriate supply of each is difficult, and remains elusive in many countries around the world.

Instead of a three-legged stool, however, political order actually is four-legged, the fourth pillar being national identity. Just as important as a strong State, is a deep horizontal sense of comradeship and common belonging. Nation-ness is necessary for political order. Accountability institutions and rule of law cannot thrive unless there is a shared national frame, standout symbols, and cultural repertoires.

There are countries that score poorly on accountability and rule of law but are strong on national identity and have a decent level of political order – Tanzania is a good African example. China is weak on rule of law and accountability, but has a very strong State and national identity; it is the world’s second-largest economy, a threat to the historical global dominance of Western powers. The implications of the above schema of political order for Uganda are enormous, to which I shall turn next.