“So far like the present period”
Very superficially, Zimbabwe and Uganda
have a lot in common. Both (with some politically driven exceptions) are
quite close to the UK in cultural and society terms; and both are striving to
retain or retrieve a reputation for growth, strength and stability. Less
superficially, they are also forms of a political mono-culture, increasingly
built around the personality of either a very small group, or more especially
one person. Both countries are of interest to the UK, and to other –
allied – donors and like-minded countries and organisations; and both seek to
balance “traditional” donor and investment interests with those of
“non-traditional” partners such as China, Malaysia and Turkey.
But clearly the two countries are also
very different. Zimbabwe is a form of pariah where even the
non-traditional partners seem amenable to more “western” rhetoric about rule of
law and stability (in part because not even they have been able to profit from
their investments there). Uganda apparently enjoys diverse international
investment and hosts a range of donors with relatively well funded programmes.
Beneath these apparently different
veneers run similar issues, just at different stages of gestation. In
each case, the governance culture (and the benefits it returns to ordinary
people and international partners) is arguably in post-peak decline. And
both either face or have made choices which have cemented this downward
trajectory. Both face future choices which offer the chance to either
arrest the decline or to embark on a new, more positive, path. Or not.
“The spring of hope or the winter of
despair”
In the case of Zimbabwe (where
the decline is marked and advanced), proximate choices over future leadership
will set the tone for the near future and ordinary people will be in for a
rough ride in the near term. The options appear to be spiralling off a
cliff edge or bumping along the bottom whilst the political classes work
towards generational change.
In Uganda (which is
still riding relatively high), the choice appears to be between an exclusive
and increasingly self-interested political class and managing a transition over
time which allows a younger generation to stretch their wings.
“We had everything before us; we had
nothing before us.”
In Zimbabwe, a sense of
wary fatigue seems to pervade donor counsels. The next steps are all in
the hands of the political elite and they must make their choices and live with
the consequences. There is a need to help ordinary people manage the
change which affects them, but donors are not yet planning for this kind of
future. They are likely to do so, but probably too late to be really
effective.
In Uganda, where donors are
clearly repositioning themselves to work around an immutable political culture,
the opportunities are more (but not completely) concrete. For some
donors, the entry point may turn out to be managing local tension in areas (the
north and the west) which host significant refugee communities. Others
are seeking much larger and broader programmes of support to the north with a
focus on infrastructure and services. But most acknowledge that
governance will be an essential part of any larger package.
No comments:
Post a Comment