From the time President Museveni took power in 1986, he has been ambitious with several economic plans aimed at transforming Ugandans from subsistence to market-oriented production through poverty eradication programmes that encourage value addition. If indeed these programmes were implemented, Ugandans would have escaped the scourge of poverty.
From Rural Farmers Scheme in the early1990s, Entandikwa in mid-1990s, Bona Bagagawale in mid-2000, the youth capital venture that was later rebranded Youth livelihood, my own brain child emyooga, operation wealth creation, four-acre model, and the now Parish Development model, these interventions have posted very small or no success at all.
Even with all these programs in place, Uganda is still considered one of the poorest countries in the world with almost half of its population living on less than 2 dollars a day. This huge gap spells a vicious cycle of poverty, ignorance, and disease meaning that there is a lot to be done if the country is to move from low-income to middle-income status.
Despite all the failed initiatives, the government has continued to introduce new programmes with no clear future plan. Besides the usual systematic corruption, most of the money allocated to these programmes have been wasted at the top level due to administrative costs, useless seminars, bureaucratic tape, lack of financial literacy among the leaders and the beneficiaries, inadequate funding by the government and above all, political influence peddling.
Having been started in a high gear in 2021/22, PDM was a well intentioned initiative identified as a strategy for organizing and delivering public and private sector interventions for wealth creation and employment at parish level. This programme was intended to align with the National Development Plan III whose thematic focus was “sustainable industrialization for inclusive growth, employment and wealth creation.
At its inception, each parish was expected to receive substantial amounts but with a plan to increase the same to Ugx 100 million starting 2022/23 financial year. This in effect meant that the government was expected to allocate slightly above a trillion shillings to PDM within that year to cover the over 10,595 parishes across the country. On whether the money reached the ground, disbursed and was utilized for the right cause is a subject for another day.
The PDM program like many others failed government-led initiative was intended to transform subsistence households into the money economy and lifting households out of poverty but has so far not made any significant impact since its launch on 26 February 2022 by President Museveni in the eastern district of Kibuku. To the president, the PDM programme was a strategy to improve service delivery and alleviate poverty at the grassroots level.
Since its launch about two years ago, government has been sending money to the ground to benefit communities but sadly, less than a quarter of the targeted groups have received this money due to the usual bureaucracies, corruption and poor leadership. That explains why many of the PDM leaders have been apprehended and that is exactly one of the reasons why the President has been touring the country for an assessment.
Having visited many other parts of the country including Teso, Sebei, Bugisu and now in Bukedi enroute Busoga, the President has met several farmers in his assessment of PDM which he has been promoting for a while. The reasons why he later added the four-acre model can only be explained by his handlers but it is clear that he has been hoodwinked.
I am personally convinced that the Presidential tours were influenced by reports that there was no big impact on the ground since the PDM programme was launched and has only served to benefit a few people at the administrative level. For instance, in my native district of Sironko, the President was led to visit one model farmer in a village who was not a PDM beneficiary.
This therefore means that the President did not get a clear picture of the impact of PDM on the ground as no farmer in that category was visited. As is his usual practice during such tours, the president was expected to meet some beneficiaries, stakeholders, and technical staff but he instead focused his attention on addressing public rallies that many have looked at as a disguised early campaign as we draw closer to the 2026 general elections.
It is also clear that local leaders never give the President a chance to determine the people to visit during his assessment. The organizers particularly at political level selectively pick on the people that the President should meet during these tours to the chagrin of the vocal local leaders at the district, opinion leaders and grass root level leaders with the right information.
By the time the President leaves a district, he would have visited just one fake or stage managed farmer under the watchful eye of the Presidential Press unit. A what point does the President get a clear picture of the impact of the billions of tax payer’s money injected in the initiative every financial year, does the money ever reach the communities to serve the desired purpose?
If I were the President, I would not allow to be taken on a fishing expedition but use personal contacts to determine the people to meet. In his past tours, the President has been emphasizing the four-acre model and wealth creation to ensure Ugandans move from subsistence to commercial production. To him, the four-acre model and wealth creation is aimed at ensuring the communities join the money economy which has remained an illusion on the ground.
For instance, you cannot talk about the four-acre model and wealth creation in my district of Sironko due to land fragmentation and scarcity of arable land. In every 20 families, only 2 families can afford or own 2 acres of land meaning the four-acre model program was never designed to benefit communities with such serious land problems.
The only option available would be to enforce an integrated approach that involves mobilization communities and empowering them to amalgamate several pieces of land to form one large chunk if they must take charge of their own development. Otherwise, why was the programme called PDM when communities cannot work together to identify and prioritize their needs.
If I may recall, the PDM was anchored on the concept of the parish as smaller unit of government administration and service delivery. Each parish was intended to develop a Parish development plan that outlines the key development priorities and strategies for achieving them. Clearly such plans are imaginary and don’t exist in reality in many parts of the country.
Before the program was turned political, the Parish Development Model was based on seven fundamental pillars including Production, storage, processing and marketing, infrastructure and economic services, financial inclusion, social services, mindset change, parish-based management and information system as well as governance and administration.
The real truth on the ground is that whenever PDM money is advanced to the intended beneficiaries, a kick back of about have of the money is quickly collected through an undercover scheme involving the local managers of the scheme with a trail of district and political leaders.
A friend in my native village once told me that by the time Ugx1,000,000/= was advanced to him, he parted with Ugx400,000/= to those who helped him access the money and then used the balance to pay off his debts. This friend is certainly not alone, he represents thousands of many other Ugandans who have received PDM money and diverted it to other none developmental ventures and outside the original plan.
Whereas the original intention was for the PDM beneficiaries to pay back the money so that others can borrow the revolving fund, I can see the President writing off the debt during his 2025 campaign. The voters will then endorse Museveni as a thank you for his “kind heart”. As usual, the wealth creation program will like other previous initiatives go down as a missed call.
Happy New Year from me and the management of this platform.
The writer, Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal, and social issues. Wadroger @yahoo.ca
