The Parish Development Model (PDM) is a government of Uganda strategy intended to organise and deliver public and private sector interventions for wealth creation and employment generation at parish level as the lowest economic planning unit.
According to government projections, this model aims to lift 39% (about 3.5 million people) of households from the subsistence to the money economy.
However, I can say it is not possible because the model is characterised by a lot of challenges that will make people poorer. For instance, the government didn’t carry out enough countrywide sensitisation to show citizens the programme benefits and how it takes root to the rural populations.
No wonder I have credible reports of some beneficiaries seen drunk after buying alcoholic brews using PDM money at their respective trading centres.
These would-be beneficiaries were captured even on national TV!
Theft and corruption cases have also been brought against the people that are expected to help the masses escape the poverty cycle.
I believe that dishonesty political leaders in the government reaching out to the people has made it worse than better. After mobilising the masses, I feel that the government should also entrust its citizens by making agreements with them instead of using its officials whose majority is fraudulent.
This will help the local citizens to gain more knowledge on financial literacy and be able to pay back on time.
I also think that in order to reduce corruption around the PDM programme, we need to involve a multi-pronged approach. Uganda should consider implementing transparent governance structures, strengthening anti-corruption laws, promoting accountability through independent oversight bodies, educating the public on ethical practices and ensuring fair and efficient judicial processes to prosecute corrupt individuals.
Additionally, fostering a culture of integrity within public institutions can also help combat corruption.
I insist that combating corruption requires a sustained effort across various sectors and a commitment from both the government and the citizens to create a more transparent and accountable society. We can copy and use China’s approach to tackle corruption. We can also use measures such as technology and innovation where we can leverage on technology for transparent and efficient service delivery, reducing the need for intermediaries and potential points of corruption.
China has implemented certain measures to address corruption, but it’s important to note that their methods might not be universally applicable or aligned with every country’s legal, social, or political systems.
China’s approach, characterised by strict enforcement, centralised control, and austere penalties for corruption, has been effective to some extent within their context.
However, this approach has also faced criticism for potential abuses of power, lack of transparency, and limited judicial independence.
Adopting a similar model would require careful consideration of the potential impact on individual rights, the rule of law, and the overall governance structure of Uganda.
Uganda might benefit from studying and adapting certain aspects of successful anti-corruption strategies from various countries, taking into account its own unique circumstances, legal framework, and societal values.
A tailored approach that combines effective enforcement, transparent systems, and respect for the rule of law might be more suitable for Uganda’s context.
China has made strides in tackling corruption, implementing various measures to address it. They’ve emphasised education, enforcement, and technology to curb corruption, aiming to foster transparency and accountability.
It’s an ongoing effort, and while progress has been made, the situation isn’t without its complexities and ongoing challenges.
The author, Mr Matia Kajura is the Bunyoro Regional Coordinator of Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), one of Uganda’s oldest political parties.
