The Political Context of Financing Infrastructure Development in ...

The Political Context of Financing Infrastructure Development in Local Government
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview of Local Governance
In Uganda, the system of local government has vacillated between tight and loose central
control. The central issue has always been which level of government to be responsible
for infrastructure development and general welfare of society/citizens. The Ministry of
Local Government (MoLG) (2006a) categorises these initiatives in three distinct phases
namely: 1955-1964; 1964-85; and 1987-2005. In the first phase of 1955-64, which is a preindependence
and immediate post-independence period, there was an attempt to create
strong local administration. The second phase of 1964-85, was a period when the central
government dominated and controlled local administration and severely weakened local
administration; while the 1987-2005 phase, was when the local governments were granted
even more significant powers over local development management than the first phase. In
all the three phases, the state was grappling with the challenge of how to balance central
authority against local dynamics in a way that would minimise conflict and maximise local and
national development.
In the run-up to independence in 1962, some tentative steps were taken by the colonial
government to promote greater democracy and effectiveness in local administration as
pointed out by MoLG (2006a). In this regard, the 1955 District Administrations Ordinance gave
significant responsibility over service delivery, allowed local administrations some latitude
to elect district council members and to collect revenue. Nonetheless, real power over
borrowing and expenditure remained with the central government while the local technical
officials continued to report to line ministries at the centre. Real attempts to devolve power
were made by the 1962 semi-federal constitution which gave some significant powers to the
kingdoms namely; Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro, Ankole, and the territory of Busoga.
However, the 1967 Local Administrations Act and the 1964 Urban Authorities Act Cap
27, recentralized most of the service delivery functions that had been assigned to local
administrations by the independence (1962) constitution. These Acts vested extensive powers
with the Minister responsible for local administration. These powers included determining the
number of local councils, approving council elections and byelaws, and even dissolving the
councils themselves. The Minister could even take over any local administration which in his/
her view was not functioning effectively. Financial, planning, and maintenance of law and
order powers were vested in the District Commissioner who was appointed by the central
government. With such institutional framework, local councils could not perform oversight
functions over infrastructure development. The local administrations were more or less simply
appendages of the central government.
2
Economic Policy Research Centre - EPRC