Involvement of political decision makers:The Ugandan experience

By

Margaret KakandeMinistry of Finance- Uganda.

Introduction

Political decision makers are at the apex of government operations at all levels

Policy making processes, and budgeting are all political processes

Political decision makers have constituencies- and thus the clientilistic tendencies

Political decision makers usually operate within “ short-term” horizons

MfDR Concepts dependent on political decision makersCountry ownership for control and

sustainabilityCountry priorities

Key questions?How do we define country ownership?Who determines the country

priorities?

Uganda’s Political structure

The PresidencyThe ParliamentThe Prime Minister’s officeSectoral ministriesLCV- DistrictLCIV- MunicipalityLCIII- Sub countyLCII – ParishLCI -Village

Political involvement into policy formulationFormulation of PEAP/PRSP was very

participatory for technical staffSome district political leaders were

consulted National political leaders were

consulted after draftingThe president signed the Foreword of

the PEAP document

Challenges and Lessons learnt

Late involvement of political leaders can be disadvantageous

Difficult to consult political decision makers at all levels

Need for effective communication about policy choices and strategies for addressing issues that are nor prioritized nationally

Political involvement in M&E

Most national political decision makers were not directly involved in M&E

The parliament has initiated a community assessment mechanism for feedback about results

At district level, the Resident District Commissioners are mandated to monitor government programmes

Institutional mandates

Reconciling mandates with roles and responsibilities under MfDR

Feasibility of using results for learning and decision making- issues of Clout

Key concerns

-where are the carrots?

-whose has the sticks?

Implications for MfDR

The political setting has to be receptive to the notion of MfDR and therefore its concepts and principles

-Defining clear results provides better targets for change

Effective integration of the short-term concerns of political decision makers will make MfDR feasible

-Using the results chain to depict cause and effect relationships

Implications for MfDR cont.

The institutional arrangements should allow for effective communication

-Keeping measurement and reporting simple

Using results for learning and decision making

-Using results for accountability with levels of accountability for the actors

Implications for MfDR.Establishment of incentives to

generate and use information generated

The need to have good indicators along the results chain to convince those interested mainly in the short-term results

Implications for MfDR cont

The institutional arrangements should be harmonized to avoid duplication (Example of M&E in local governments in Uganda)

Capacity building efforts must target both technical and political decision makers- to have a “common language” so that the answer to “ why are we doing this? Is similar for all

Distinguished participants

Like farming with a rudimentary hoe,-----MfDR without the political leaders will be an uphill task .

I thank you for the attention.