The logic of political decay and reconstruction in Uganda and Zimbabwe

Civil war, authoritarian rule, falling incomes, poverty, widespread corruption has made life for many Africans difficult today than it was at the end of colonial rule. This long-term crisis generated a sequence of theoretical discussions and policy responses. But the African crisis is ongoing.

Responses to the African crisis have ranged from debates over socialism versus capitalism in the 1960s to the use of market models during the 1980s and a focus on ‘good governance’ during the 1990s. But the resulting changes in national and donor-driven development programmes have not produced the progressive transformations achieved in comparable East Asian states.

Research from the Development Studies Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science, in the UK, attempts to shed light on this problem, drawing on case studies from Uganda and Zimbabwe. The study examines four kinds of transition that have occurred in both countries since independence: from colonialism to independence, from structuralism to liberalisation, from success to failure, and from failure to success. It suggests that success or failure is not explained by the use of structuralist or liberal policy regimes by itself, but the willingness and ability of the regime to impose effective controls on officials and private firms.

Examples of the findings include observations that:

• A successful programme of economic reconstruction and liberalisation has accompanied democratisation and reconstruction in Uganda since 1986, after 20 years of authoritarian rule and failed structuralist policies.  
• The use of state power to keep the ruling elite in place, along with civil war, aid dependency and growing corruption, could however undermine political stability and growth in Uganda.   
• Independence was initially well-managed using structuralist and liberal policies in Zimbabwe until 1997 – resulting in economic growth, an emerging African middle class and an expansion of education and health services.
• The political instability generated by liberalisation led Mugabe to introduce populist economic policies to improve political support after the 1996 elections.
• This resulted in decreasing exports, a shortage of foreign exchange, rising unemployment, food shortages and declining access to social services leading to today’s political and economic crisis.

The research concludes that, in Africa, the attempt to create democratic capitalist states is taking place before most people have adopted the individualistic value systems required by free economic and political markets and where modern capitalist firms hardly exist. This has created weak states and economic crises. Changing the formal economic and political rules alone will not solve these problems. Liberalisation and democratisation in the absence of improvements in the capacity of social and political movements, and of adequate economic support are likely to lead to crises and breakdowns.

Embedded within the conclusions are several recommendations for policymakers, donors and academics. These include:

• questioning the simplistic equation of democracy, accountable governance, economic liberalisation and development
• developing pluralistic and flexible solutions that can be adapted to fit local circumstances
• recognising that economic and political failures can produce encouraging political changes (such as the opposition movements that eliminated the Obote regime in Uganda in 1986 and those which have struggled against the Mugabe regime)
• considering that the pluralistic combination of market, civic and state agencies in Uganda could serve as a future model for Zimbabwe
• avoiding overly optimistic or overly pessimistic explanations for the African crisis.

Overall, the study confirms the importance of localised political and social variables in explaining political and economic failure.

Source(s):
‘State Failure and Success in Uganda and Zimbabwe: The Logic of Political Decay and Reconstruction in Africa’, Journal of Development Studies, 44 (3), pages 339 to 364, by E. A. Brett, 2008
Further details about this research project on the Research for Development Portal Full document.

Funded by: UK Department for International Development; London School of Economics Development Studies Institute (DESTIN)

id21 Research Highlight: 29 April 2009

Further Information:
E. A. Brett
Crisis States Research Centre
Development Studies Institute
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London, WC2A 2AE, UK

Tel: +44 1273 563953
Fax: +44 20 79556844
Contact the contributor: e.a.brett@lse.ac.uk

Crisis States Research Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK