Professor Augustus Nuwagaba urged the nation to reflect on the gap between political and economic independence. He emphasized that independence goes beyond local political leadership.
As Uganda prepares to celebrate its 62nd independence anniversary, the journey to true economic self-reliance remains a significant challenge, despite decades of political freedom shared by Uganda and many other African nations.
While Uganda has had its own leaders since 1962, the country has struggled to achieve the level of economic transformation citizens had hoped for at the time of independence.
In an interview, economic expert Professor Augustus Nuwagaba urged the nation to reflect on the gap between political and economic independence. He emphasized that independence goes beyond local political leadership.
Many Ugandans had expected that political independence would lead to improved standards of living, better welfare, and increased economic opportunities.
Uganda’s leadership has often cited colonialism as a key reason for the country’s economic struggles, arguing that the systems left behind were not designed for sustained development. While Nuwagaba acknowledges colonialism’s impact, he believes it is no longer a valid excuse after 62 years of independence.
Excerpts;
Why has the pursuit of economic independence been so difficult for Uganda and other African nations?
It’s crucial to acknowledge that while Uganda, like many other African nations, has been politically independent for decades, the journey to economic independence has been far more complex.
When we talk about independence, it encompasses more than just political leadership. True independence means self-reliance in various aspects, including economics, science, technology, culture, and social development.
If we look back from October 9, 1962, when Uganda achieved political independence, there have been both successes and setbacks. On the political front, Uganda has had its own leaders for the past 62 years.
However, having local leaders is not enough. People had expectations that independence would lead to tangible improvements in their lives, especially in economic terms. They expected a higher standard of living, improved welfare, and economic opportunities that would make life better than it was under colonial rule.
But economic independence hasn’t been fully realized. Over the years, Uganda, like other African nations, has faced numerous challenges, some of which are rooted in the colonial past, while others are homegrown.
One of the biggest obstacles has been political instability and conflict. At the time of independence, there was hope that the country would stabilize and build strong political institutions, much like what happened in some Asian countries, such as South Korea and Singapore, which gained independence around the same time. These countries managed to develop strong political and economic systems that propelled them forward.
In contrast, Uganda has struggled with political instability, especially in the first two decades after independence. The lack of robust political structures and democratic institutions has been a major factor in this instability. Without these structures, it has been difficult to create the kind of environment that supports sustainable economic growth and development. The story is similar across much of Africa, where many countries have faced significant challenges in building stable political systems.
Another key issue that has hindered economic independence is greed and poor governance. In many African countries, leadership has been characterized by corruption and a focus on personal gain rather than the public good. Greed is insatiable; it cannot be satisfied, and it has been one of the root causes of Africa’s slow economic progress. Leaders in many African countries have blamed their economic failures on colonialism, arguing that while political independence was granted, the economic systems left behind were not sufficient for sustained development.
Many African leaders have indeed pointed fingers at colonialism, claiming that while they were granted political independence, they were left without the tools necessary to build their economies. How much truth is there to this argument, especially after 62 years of independence?
While it’s true that colonialism left African countries with economic systems that were not designed for self-sufficiency, this argument can not only hold so much weight, especially after six decades. The colonialists indeed set up systems that served their interests rather than those of the local populations.
However, Africa is not the only region that was colonized. Many countries in Asia and Latin America also experienced colonization, yet some of them have managed to overcome those initial challenges and build strong economies. For example, the United States was once a British colony, but after independence, it crafted a system that enabled it to grow into one of the world’s largest economies.
African countries, including Uganda, need to take responsibility for their own development. Blaming colonialism indefinitely does not lead to progress. It’s important for African nations to own their mistakes and find ways to address them. The reality is that many African leaders failed to build robust systems after independence.
For example, in Uganda, one of the major unresolved issues from the colonial period was the land question. The British colonialists gave land to local collaborators who helped them maintain control, and this created deep internal contradictions, especially in regions like Buganda and Bunyoro. These contradictions have persisted and have not been fully addressed, even after independence.
Uganda has had almost 40 years of relative stability, with over 20 years of uninterrupted peace. Why hasn’t this stability translated into greater economic development?
Stability is a necessary condition for economic development, but it’s not sufficient on its own. Uganda has indeed enjoyed a long period of relative peace and stability, especially since the 1980s. However, translating political stability into economic prosperity requires more than just the absence of conflict.
First, there needs to be a clear vision and strategy for economic development, backed by strong institutions.
For instance, countries like South Korea and Singapore were able to use periods of stability to implement effective economic policies, invest in education and infrastructure, and foster industrial growth. In Uganda, while there has been some progress, particularly in sectors like agriculture and infrastructure, the country has not fully capitalized on its stability to drive widespread economic growth.
One of the reasons for this is that Uganda, like many other African countries, still struggles with governance issues.
Corruption remains a significant problem, and it undermines efforts to improve public services, attract investment, and stimulate economic growth. Moreover, the country has not done enough to build a diversified economy. Uganda’s economy is still heavily reliant on agriculture, which is vulnerable to external shocks such as climate change and fluctuating commodity prices.
Additionally, there are deep-rooted structural issues in Uganda’s economy, including limited industrialization, high unemployment rates, and a growing population that is putting pressure on resources and public services.
While stability has created an environment where progress is possible, without addressing these underlying challenges, it’s difficult to achieve the level of economic independence that many Ugandans hoped for at independence.
You mentioned earlier that the colonialists exploited internal contradictions, especially in region s like Buganda and Bunyoro. How have these internal contradictions continued to affect Uganda’s development?
The colonialists were very strategic in how they governed their colonies. In Uganda’s case, they used a system of indirect rule, relying on powerful local leaders to help them maintain control. This created what we call “domestic imperialists,” where local elites were given power and resources, often at the expense of other regions.
For example, the British allied with Buganda and rewarded the Buganda kingdom with land and political influence. This created long-standing tensions with other regions, particularly Bunyoro, which had been subjugated.
These internal contradictions have continued to play out in post-independence Uganda. For example, the land question remains a contentious issue, particularly in regions that were marginalized during the colonial period. The failure to resolve these historical injustices has contributed to political instability and hindered economic development.
Furthermore, these contradictions have led to a politicization of ethnic and regional identities, which has often been exploited by leaders for political gain. Instead of building a united national identity, Uganda has struggled with divisions that have made it difficult to implement cohesive national development strategies. Until these historical issues are fully addressed, they will continue to impede the country’s progress toward economic independence.
Why have Uganda’s internal contradictions remained unresolved after 62 years of independence? Is it because of the nature of our politics, which seems to encourage these contradictions?
Uganda, like many other post-colonial nations, has faced significant challenges in managing internal contradictions that date back to colonial times. One of the biggest issues is land.
The colonial legacy created an unresolved “land question” where people were awarded land based on perceived loyalty or collaboration.
Today, 99% of court cases in Uganda are civil land disputes, not criminal cases. The land market is heavily constrained, meaning people often don’t own the land they occupy. This creates inefficiencies in land utilization and prevents people from using land as collateral for borrowing, stifling economic growth.
The issue is not unique to Uganda. In Bunyoro and other regions, the colonial administration gifted land to some chiefs without considering the long-term economic impact.
In fact, this pattern is visible even in Buganda, where agreements like the 1900 Buganda Agreement allocated land arbitrarily, leading to ongoing conflicts between tenants and landowners.
This situation has created an economically constrained land market where the land cannot be utilized effectively, and access to land is difficult. Countries like South Korea faced similar problems but managed to overcome them. Uganda’s challenge lies in its inability to transcend these contradictions, largely because of political leadership that exploits rather than resolves them.
What impact does land ownership have on urban development in Uganda, particularly in the central region?
The contradictions in land ownership are particularly evident in urban areas, like Kampala. If you compare neighborhoods like Kasubi or Kawala, where land is owned by the kingdom, to more affluent areas like Nakasero and Kololo, you’ll see stark differences.
The latter areas are planned, with proper infrastructure like sewerage systems, and attract foreign direct investment. In contrast, areas with unresolved land ownership issues tend to have unplanned and temporary developments, which ultimately stifle growth.
Why has Uganda struggled to resolve its internal contradictions, while other countries have done so within the same timeframe?
Many countries, including the United States, have faced their own internal contradictions and are still working through them.
However, Uganda’s leadership over the years has often exploited these contradictions for political gain rather than addressing them objectively.
This has perpetuated cycles of instability. For example, during the Obote and Amin eras, leaders used ethnic and political alliances to secure power, deepening internal divisions.
To truly resolve these contradictions, Uganda needs to move beyond ethnic and parochial nationalism and build a sense of national identity.
Countries like Norway, Denmark, and even Tanzania have succeeded by developing a shared national ethic and value system that unites their people. Uganda, too, must create a national ethos, a unifying force that transcends ethnic and regional differences. Without this, Uganda will struggle to build a cohesive nation.
Could you explain the message of the gospel in the context of economic development?
The gospel is about investment and improving your welfare. The church has always emphasized unity and focused on three main areas: schools, healthcare centers, and hospitals.
Look at the hospitals we have today—some of the private non-profit hospitals offer better services than even government hospitals. For instance, in Kabale, our church has started businesses, and we are building a mall.
We’ve already raised over 3 million. This shows the church’s commitment to self-sufficiency rather than relying on outdated notions that only the poor will enter the Kingdom of God. The Bible says that those who don’t work shall not eat.
Is the idea of economic independence part of the colonial legacy?
No, it’s not. I don’t want people to interpret the Bible incorrectly. I am a child of the East African Bible movement, deeply rooted in the church, and I understand what the church stands for. I have been involved in the construction of many churches and am familiar with the message of the gospel.
The Bible emphasizes self-reliance, not passivity. You cannot sit idle and expect God to feed you like the ravens fed Elijah or manna fell from heaven for the Israelites.
How do Bible teachings relate to investment and welfare?
Out of the 31,102 verses in the Bible, about 7,500 focus on wealth, money, and investment. This shows that about 25% of the Bible is dedicated to the importance of financial responsibility, welfare, and caring for your family.
Can you explain the rise of the prosperity gospel?
The prosperity gospel has grown significantly, and I am happy to see that many countries have embraced it. However, it has its challenges especially where it keeps people in churches 24/7 without encouraging them to work. Governments need to regulate such movements to prevent exploitation.
Economic liberalism has limited government intervention, but nationalist economics argue that governments must play a role in ensuring responsible economic growth.
Where does Uganda stand in terms of achieving economic independence?
Economic independence is not a result of magic or witchcraft. It requires deliberate actions and a sense of responsibility. Uganda needs to recognize that making independent economic decisions is essential, but we are far from achieving that due to our reliance on external funding.
For example, our national budget is Shs 72.4 trillion , but we can only generate 31 trillion in domestic revenue. The rest comes from debt, which means we cannot make independent economic decisions. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is currently 52%, meaning we owe more than half of our GDP.
But other countries like the US also carry significant debt. How do they manage it?
Yes, the US has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 125%, and Japan’s is even worse at 220%. However, these countries have established systems and strong economies that allow them to carry such debt without compromising their independence.
Uganda, on the other hand, is not in that position. We rely heavily on external loans, and until we can raise enough domestic revenue, we will continue to face challenges in achieving economic independence.
How does Uganda’s debt compare to other countries like Japan or the US?
Uganda’s debt-to-GDP ratio is about 52%, which is much lower than Japan’s 215% or the U.S.’s 125%. However, Uganda faces a unique challenge. When we borrow in foreign currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, we face significant losses when repaying the debt due to currency depreciation.
For example, if we borrowed $1 million 20 years ago when the exchange rate was 1,200 per dollar, today, with the rate at Shs 3,700 , the same $1 million debt has effectively tripled to Shs3 billion.
What steps should Uganda take to achieve economic independence?
First, we must take responsibility for our actions and stop blaming external forces. Second, we cannot solve today’s problems using the same methods that caused them. Lastly, we must shift our focus from growth to transformation.
I have written a book on transformative economics, which advocates placing individuals at the center of wealth creation instead of relying solely on government programs.
How do programmes like the Youth Livelihood Fund and Women Entrepreneurship Fund contribute to economic independence?
These programs are part of the solution, but they are not enough. Countries that achieved economic independence focused on empowering individuals through education, training, and skill development.
In China, for instance, every individual is skilled, which drives economic activity at the household level. We need a similar approach in Uganda—empowering people with skills and providing access to affordable capital.
How can a capitalist approach support individuals in wealth creation?
Capitalism can work if individuals are given the skills and capacity to participate in the economy. The government doesn’t necessarily need to provide money but should create an environment where people can access affordable capital and other factors of production, like land.
When people are trained and skilled, they can become producers, contributing to the economy and attracting foreign investment, just as China has done.
