The Cost of Ignoring Dissent: Critical Reflections on Uganda’s UCDA Debate

By Sebaggala Richard

In the recent discussions around the proposed dissolution of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA), I have had the opportunity to listen to various stakeholders: Government officials, parliamentarians, academics, farmers, leaders from the church and traditional institutions and esteemed Ugandans. One might expect that such a wide range of perspectives would influence the government’s stance. However, the prevailing opinion seems to be a resolute determination to pass the National Coffee (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and there is little evidence of openness to alternative viewpoints. This observation prompts us to examine more deeply the nature of our political and policy-making processes.

James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock’s seminal work, The Calculus of Consent (2004), offers valuable insights into this phenomenon. The authors examine the complexity of collective decision-making and emphasize the importance of reconciling individual preferences with collective choices. They argue that decisions are only truly representative if the process takes into account different points of view and strives for consensus. In the context of the UCDA debate, the apparent exclusion of dissenting opinions raises questions about the inclusivity and legitimacy of the decision-making process.

A recurring theme among government officials and politicans has been  a 'know-it-all' ” attitude that effectively sidelines opposing views. This behavior is consistent with the observations of C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite (1956), in which he notes that elite groups often assume that they possess superior insight, which they use as justification for ignoring dissenting popular opinion. While it is true that some degree of elitism is common in many countries and that elite consensus can be beneficial, over-reliance on elite decision-making can have unintended, even harmful, consequences. In the case of Uganda coffee sector, this attitude is particularly worrying as  the choice decision at stake  could significantly affect the livelihoods of nearly 10 million Ugandans who depend on the coffee sector.

In a mature political environment, one would expect an issue of this magnitude to invite open, inclusive debate, ensuring that different viewpoints are not only heard, but actively considered in the formulation of policy. Interestingly, in many economics and political science courses, students are taught that “doing nothing” is sometimes the wisest policy response, especially when it comes to “pockets of effectiveness.” The premise here is that if effective results are already being achieved in certain institutions, forcing change may inadvertently harm what is working well. The adage “the devil you know” is particularly relevant here. It suggests that in some cases it may be wiser to preserve a structure that works than to risk its success with reforms that have history of failure in many countries.

The government’s persistent push to dissolve the UCDA despite significant opposition provides an insight into the dynamics of public choice theory. This theory states that policy makers, much like individuals in markets, often act out of self-interest. This can lead to decisions where political or personal goals take precedence over the common good. As a result, public policy becomes a commodity — a tool to promote individual goals rather than the common good. This commodification may explain the persistence behind dissolving the UCDA, as policymakers may be influenced by factors that are not fully aligned with the broader public interest. When policy is commoditized in this way, it can have serious consequences: reduced policy effectiveness, increased risk of policy failure, and erosion of public trust. To address these problems, mechanisms are needed to align the incentives of policy makers with the public good, ensuring that decisions truly meet people's needs and aspirations.

An apt example of the consequences of policy commodification are the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the 1980s and 1990s. Mandated by international financial institutions, these programs required developing countries, including Uganda, to undertake far-reaching rationalization measures such as the privatization and dissolution of state-owned enterprises. In Uganda, as in many other countries, the government implemented these reforms despite widespread public concern and opposition, often ignoring dissenting voices.

The implications of this approach were profound. While the SAPs achieved certain macroeconomic goals, they also brought with them significant social challenges. The rapid privatization and downsizing of public services led to job losses, reduced access to essential services and increased poverty. Today, the proposal to dissolve the UCDA as part of ongoing rationalization efforts is reminiscent of these reforms of the past. Various stakeholders — farmers, church leaders, politicians, academics and traditional leaders— - are expressing concern about the potential negative impact on the coffee sector and related livelihoods. The adage "experience is the best teacher" seems to be almost disregarded in this context. I have read and heard Ugandans who were involved in the SAP reforms express concerns rooted in the hardships and lessons they have learned through these experiences. They recall the reasons for setting up agencies such as the UCDA as safeguards for vulnerable sectors. However, the government’s steadfast adherence to this policy despite significant opposition raises important questions about the inclusivity and responsiveness of the decision-making process.

Looking at Uganda’s experience with SAPs, it is clear that the exclusion of public input can lead to policies that are economically rationalized but do not serve the broader public interest. When policy decisions prioritize economic metrics woven in polictical at the expense of societal wellbeing , they risk alienating the public they are supposed to benefit, undermining trust and leading to unintended negative outcomes. To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, it is imperative that the government engages in genuine dialogue with all stakeholders. This will ensure that policies are not only economically viable, but also socially just and reflect the needs and aspirations of the people they are intended to serve.

Institutional dynamics play a crucial role in shaping policy outcomes. It is often driven by the tendency of organizations to pursue policies that mirror those of their supposedly successful counterparts — a concept known as institutional isomorphism. In the case of Uganda, the drive to streamline public entities, including UCDA, may have been influenced by external pressures, similar to SAPs. However, history shows that blanket approaches can be problematic and often act like squared pegs in round holes. They tend not to take into account local contexts and the unique economic, social and cultural forces at play.

Should we continue to uncritically follow external advice, disregarding our own history, experience and the valuable insights of those directly affected? Rationalization is of course essential — no one disputes that it is important to improve efficiency. But meaningful reforms need to be tailored to Uganda’s unique socio-economic context and truly responsive to the voices of the people they will affect. The importance of contextualizing reforms cannot be overstated. Without it, we run the risk of repeating past mistakes that erode trust and compromise policy effectiveness.

The debate on the dissolution of the UCDA reminds us of the complexity of policy making and the importance of anchoring reforms both in the local context and in inclusive processes. In The Narrow Corridor:How nations struggle with liberty,  Acemoglu and Robinson (2019) argue that effective institutions emerge from a balance between state and society that evolves through constant negotiation and co-evolution, rather than rigid, top-down imposed reforms. They suggest that development is a journey along a “narrow corridor” where state and society must constantly adapt to each other. From this point of view, the dismantling of the UCDA should not be a unilateral decision. It must involve all stakeholders to ensure that it meets the needs of those who are most directly affected.

James Scott, in Seeing Like a State: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, highlights the dangers of centralized reform efforts that overlook local knowledge and informal systems. Scott's beautfully written book uncover why states so often fail--sometimes catastrophically in grand efforts to engineer their society. He notes that development projects often fail when they ignore the practical ways in which people organize themselves and solve problems independently. In the case of Uganda, rushing to dissolve the UCDA without fully understanding the intricate relationships and practices within the coffee sector risks destroying the systems that have driven the coffee sector to the level admired by everyone.

The foregoing above remind us that we need to reevaluate our decision-making frameworks to ensure that they are inclusive, transparent and aligned with the common good. By considering diverse perspectives and fostering genuine dialogue, Uganda can develop policies that not only address immediate challenges but also lay the foundation for a more equitable and prosperous future. With these considerations in mind, the government would do well to reflect on whether the dissolution of UCDA is really in the best interest of the country. A thoughtful, inclusive approach could ultimately lead to a decision that is not only economically viable, but also socially responsible — one that takes into account the voices of those whose lives are most directly affected.