The Democratic Party (DP) Secretary-General, George Nyamweya swore an affidavit on 11th January 2008 submitting a document called ‘Executive brief on the positioning and marketing of the ODM presidential candidate’ as evidence of ODM having prepared the post-election mayhem in advance. I am supposed to have been at the center of this diabolical arrangement. IT IS A LIE, PURE AND SIMPLE. Conceived in September last year by PNU, ignored by us then as a worthless endeavor, it continues to be spread via the internet to tarnish my name. I am now compelled to dismiss it following Nyamweya’s
attempt to lend it credibility.
The unfortunate current state of our nation requires that every bit of effort should be directed only at the single most important course – finding lasting peace that will return this nation to the path of prosperity for all. Peace, as we in ODM have said many times since the beginning of this current crisis, and indeed in earlier days, will only be realized when the full truth is told and justice is done. No justice can be done if we allow our political culture to be driven by baseless propaganda. Â
But there are people like Nyamweya given to distractive and dangerous gossip and rumour mongering which know no bounds of times and conjectures in the history of our country. Such are the people responsible for producing this document. It bears the word ‘confidential’ and the date of 8th September 2007. The intention of this desperate propaganda material is cheap and clear. It is crafted to hoodwink Kenyans that the ODM campaign strategy in the last elections entailed the use of violence and whipping up ethnic tensions alongside other aberrations in decent politics. Â
This is neither the first nor the only output from the ‘dirt unit’ of the forces pushing against the people’s popular drive for change under the leadership of the ODM. Yet it is the mention of the names of individuals in the party leadership as well as other known personalities in various sections of the Kenyan and international society that compels us to set the record straight. Never mind that the authors of this fabrication had no capacity to even establish the correct full names and titles of some of the public figures named in this disgusting failure of political intrigue.
The contents of this fabrication are at variance with the facts of the ODM campaign strategy as well as the events and entities involved in our campaigns. For instance, as Secretary-General of the party, I did not attend any meeting of a party organ on 8th September 2007. On that date, as the records in my office will show, there was no party organ that met as alleged in the document. Moreover, any inspection of all ODM campaign material will reveal nothing close to this dirty language.
This weak arsenal from the enemy’s armoury must be dismissed as a futile attempt to defend the indefensible. It is the work of persons who live under the illusion that truth and fiction are indistinguishable in politics. These are people who continue to live in an island of self denial. They are unable to rise above their prejudices and help us build democracy in our nation.Â
Â
Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o
Secretary-General, ODM
Sent by George. Unedited by Jaluo Press.
Review of the 2003/04 Uganda Budget and its Relationship to the
Poverty Situation in Uganda
In spite the Uganda government’s commitments to poverty eradication as stated in the
budget speeches and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) seem not to correspond
with the adequacy of committed resources for the same critical areas or for taking a
skewed view of funding within the same critical areas.
Uganda Debt Network (UDN) carried out a review to assess the relevance and
effectiveness of 2003/04 Uganda national budget to poverty reduction. The objective of
the study was to comprehensively review and analyse the prioritization in budget
allocation to critical poverty reduction areas and to determine its relevance and
effectiveness to poverty reduction.
The paper analyses the current budget policies conform to the poverty eradication
policies as enshrined in the revised Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP); identifies
divergences in the intended budget proposals as contained in the Budget speech, the
background to the budget and the Medium Term Expenditure framework (MTEF);
outlines the deficiencies in the budget proposals in view of the government’s declared
policy of operating Performance Oriented Budget.
Despite the government’s stated macroeconomic achievements household incomes have
remained low. Though there was a reduction in levels of absolute poverty from 46% in
1996/97 to 34% in 2000, the recent trends indicate deepening poverty with 38% of the
population leaving below the poverty line in 2003 with 90% of the poverty being
contributed by rural households. Other worsening indicators show that 62% of the poor
are; HIV/AIDS and malaria remain the most serious health hazards. This is serious
challenge for Uganda with respect to PEAP targets and Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs).
Ugandan government has undertaken various bold steps to deepen the budget preparation
process and improve the level of participation of various stakeholders through the Sector
Working Groups (SWGs), Public Expenditure Reviews and Local Government Budget
Consultations. However, the participation has not reflected prudent management of the
national resources.
The domestic revenue to GDP ratio for 2001/02 increased to 11.8 percent, from 10.8
percent in 2000/01. Non-tax revenue remains below 0.5 percent of GDP compared to
Kenya 11% and Tanzania 9%. This is inconsistent with the growth rates in revenue in
terms of GDP experienced in the mid-1990s. The shortfalls in revenue collection have
been attributed to the poor tax administration, corruption, non-compliance, un taxed
informal sector, granting of value added tax (VAT) exemptions, and the lowering of
import duty rates.
2
Due to low domestic revenue, Government has been supporting public expenditure by
attracting substantial aid inflows. Donor support accounts for about 55% of the total
national budget and more that 85% of the Development Budget. The failure to increase
enough revenue has always necessitated corresponding reduction in government
expenditures in key poverty reducing sectors.
Uganda prepared its first PRSP or Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) in 1997,
which was revised in 2000 and under revision now. The PEAP is widely praised as a
comprehensive yet realistic poverty reduction strategy grounded in a Medium-Term
Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Spending on key poverty-reducing activities, such as
Primary Health Care, is protected through the Poverty Action Fund (PAF), ensuring that
policy promises are backed up with financial resources. This year’s budget theme of
“increased production for increased exports and the eradication of absolute poverty†can
not be achieved with the current rates of growth. For Uganda to reach its poverty targets,
the economy will need to grow by 7% per annum; at present, the growth rate is 4.5%.
The trend of the sectoral budget for key poverty reducing sectors indicates allocation
shares that have not been improving that much. Further analysis of government recurrent
budget shows a resource allocation ranking that puts public administration and defense on
top. The implication is that public administration and defense top the priority listing in
budget allocations.
The performance of individual sectors varies significantly, with some sectors consistently
diverging from their pro-rata budgets. In particular, the security sector and public
administration always perform above their sector ceilings. The budget is not fully
implemented as planned, due to requests for supplementary expenditures, most notably
by the security and public administration sectors, and higher than budgeted domestic
interest payments.
The Poverty Action Fund (PAF) was established in 1998 as a response to concerns over
accountability and reorientation of the budget, given additional resources from HIPC and
other donors, toward pro-poor expenditures. PAF expenditures constitute over 36% of the
discretionary budget expenditure. The PAF has been instrumental in introducing
mechanisms for promoting budget allocations to sectors with strong pro-poor
perspectives.
In addition to growth of budget allocations, there is significant evidence of lack of budget
discipline as the spending on public administration has consistently exceeded its budget
allocation over the past five years. The operation of a hard budget constraint by the
government means that overspending by the public administration sector has direct
negative effects on other sectors.
An additional objective of MTEFs is to deliver greater budget predictability in terms of
the match between budget execution results and approved budgets and MTEF
projections. Uganda’s budget tends to be unpredictable due to the existence of budgetary
overruns and reallocations after the budget has been passed.
3
Given that there is no standard process for costing interventions included in PEAP, it may
be difficult to monitor outcomes and impact. Therefore, there is need for CSOs to
actively participate in the SWGs and budget consultative meetings. CSOs need to
increase their advocacy on linking budgets with PEAP priorities and ensuring value for
money in provision of public services.
Inclusion, Uganda’s budget tends to be unpredictable due to the existence of budgetary
overruns and reallocations. This phenomenon undermines the credibility of the budgetary
process and budget discipline.
KENYA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS (KIPPRA)-Kenya Case Study
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) was founded in 1997 in response to a felt need, by the government, to strengthen its policy making process by having a sustainable policyanalysis capability in Kenya. The Institute started its operation in 1999 under the leadership of its first Executive Director, Prof. Mwangi Kimenyi. It was mandated to provide quality public policy advice to the government of Kenya and to the private sector through policy research and analysis. In this regard, the institute research agenda is driven by fundamental issues in policy environment and makes it relevant in the achievement of national long-term development objectives.
The management of the institute is vested on a Board of Directors, comprised of government officials and representatives of the private sector, universities, and research institutes in Kenya. About half of the Board members are from the public sector. The Executive Director is charged with the day-to-day management of the Institute while the Board of Directors sets the policies that guide the operations of the institute.
KIPPRA operates on an annual budget of over $1,000,000. Its activities are financed from international donor support and the government. To ensure that the organization maintains its focus, a five-year strategic plan was prepared detailing the developmental path of the institute. This was prepared after three years of its operation and shared with the development partners who fund the institute and the government.
KIPPRA has established and maintained resourceful networks and partnerships in the policy arena. The institute has established a good working relationship with government technical officers and private sector managers, enabling it to effectively contribute to the policy process. The institute has a pool of associates from both local and international organisations, who are called upon to provide their expertise in research activities. In addition, the institute collaborates with peer organisations, both local and foreign, in research related activities. It is important to note that the institute research activities complement those of other institutes including universities and private research organizations.
The role of KIPPRA in the policy process has been growing stronger over time. As articulated in its strategic plan, penetrating the government sector has been very challenging, with no clear working modalities and entry points. However, the institute has overcome this to a large extent and at the moment, most of the government organs seek the institute advice on policy aspects. The effectiveness of KIPPRA in influencing policy process is enhanced by the quality of research output, highly trained and skilled research team, taking advantage of windows of opportunity, a supportive Board of Directors, participation in various government forums, and the credibility that it has cultivated among stakeholders, especially the government. In its strategic plan, KIPPRA observes that in order to effectively influence policy making it is important to instill confidence among the policymakers on quality of its products and objectivity of its advice.
It is also important to maintain a good working relationship with key government officers and private sector managers.
1.1 Origin/Year of Foundation/ Founder
The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) was the first public think tank to be established in Kenya. It has come a long way since 1990 when the thought was first floated by a senior government officer in the Ministry of Planning and National Development, then Director of Planning, Dr. Kang’ethe Gitu. This was on realisation of the need to build a sustainable policy analysis capability within Kenya. This, it was felt, would provide the technical assistance that the government required in articulating policy issues and make the policy process more effective in meeting the development objectives. KIPPRA was founded in 1997 with support of the former President, who welcomed the idea. It started its operations in 1999 with its first Executive Director, Prof. Kimenyi.
KIPPRA is an autonomous public institute established under the provisions of the State Corporations Act. The autonomy of the institute is mainly in its research activities. As a government organ, it has its mother ministry as the Ministry of Planning and National Development. The institute is mandated to provide quality technical public policy advice to the government of Kenya and the private sector. In this respect, KIPPRA works closely with policy makers who are the main users of its products, and provides necessary analytical support that may be lacking in the government officers and private sector managers. From the beginning, the institution has been involved with various government departments and has continued to support key government organs with policy advice. It is important however, to note that penetration into the government sector has been very challenging with no clearly spelt out modalities and entry points.
3
KIPPRA supports the private sector with evidence-based policy proposals enabling it to have objective policy advocacy. It has played a major role bringing together rival groups from the private sector and showed them how to articulate a policy issue more objectively.
Presently, KIPPRA has a five-year strategic plan (2003-2008) that spells out the developmental path of the institute. The recognises that in order to achieve its mandate there is need to: improve its working relationship with the government, establish an effective organizational structure, improve the institute’s capacity building activities for its staff and for government officers, implement strategies for long-term sustainability, and strengthen relationships between the institute, the private sector, and other stakeholders.
1.2 Governing Body/Internal organization
The management of KIPPRA is vested on a 12-member Board of Directors. The Minister for Planning and National Development appoints board members, while the President of the Republic of Kenya appoints the Chairman of the Board. The composition of the Board is well balanced with government officials and representatives of the private sector, universities, and research institutes in Kenya. About half of the Board members are from the private sector while the rest are from government related bodies. The composition of the Board enables the institute to remain on focus as far as the needs of both private sector and the government are concerned. It is important to note that policy-making process would be incomplete if we were to consider the government sector alone. Thus, the institute attempts to blend views of all stakeholders in the policy making process.
The board is the policy organ of the institute. It sets the broad operational procedures of the institute; it does not get involved in the daily activities of the institute. It also ensures that the institute keeps track of its mandate by approving the work programme and reviewing the quarterly reports. The Board is also responsible for recruitment of the Executive Director, approval of the annual budget, approval of recruitment of professional staff. In addition to making critical decisions at Board meetings, KIPPRA Board members support activities by participating in workshops and conferences organized by the Institute. The Board communicates to the staff through the Executive Director.
The Executive Director is charged with the day-to-day management of the institute. At the initial period, the Executive Director was coordinating research activities of the institute. However, with growing research activities, KIPPRA established a Programs Coordination office whose mandate is to coordinate research activities including workshops, seminars, and conferences and to liaise with the stakeholders. This office together with the Finance and Administration and Information and Documentation offices support the Executive Director’s office.
1.3 Funding/Research Activities/Researchers
a) Funding
KIPPRA operates on an annual budget of over $1,000,000. Of the total budget, 75% is international donor support from the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) based in Harare-Zimbabwe, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department for International Development (DfiD) and International Development Research Centre (IDRC) among others. Government funding covers 20% of the budget while internally generated funds make up 5%.
b) Research characteristics
Research activities are organized into 5 divisions, namely Macroeconomics, Productive Sector, Social Sector, Infrastructure and Economic Services, and Private Sector Development. The divisions have a head responsible for implementation of the approved work plans and coordination of research activities at the divisional level. During its initial years of establishment, research activities were concentrated on macroeconomics, productive sectors, social sectors and infrastructure and economic services. However, with the heightened role of private sector in the development process, it became necessary to understand the operations of the private sector. As a result the Private Sector Development Division was established.
The institute has a research committee that makes decisions on matters relating to research including content and timing of what is published.
Government relationship
PRA maintains a close working relationship with the government but has a high level of independence in its research activities. The institute draws its own work programme, budget and recruits employees independent of government. The government in some cases requests the institute to do some assignments or KIPPRA bids for government projects and such activities are done with a high level of objectivity; KIPPRA does not tailor its results to benefit either parties.
1 This is results oriented performance with clear definition of specific tasks, benchmarks and time frame. The targets and outputs/deliverables is what is monitored.
2 The basic academic qualification is a graduate degree in economics
KIPPRA researchers interact with the government in various forums including membership in government policy working groups, task forces and also having direct contact with government departments. In these forums, researchers provide technical backup. The institute also encourages researchers to participate in government-organized workshops, consult with government officers and private/civic stakeholders. Such forums serve as information and dissemination channels especially when KIPPRA researchers are invited to make presentations. The working modality between the institute and the stakeholders is clearly defined to ensure that KIPPRA role in policymaking is clearly understood. The institute ensures that it is not caught up in routine activities of the government department it is interacting with. It also ensures that it follows an agreed channel in disseminations of research results that may have contentious policy issues. In this regard, KIPPRA researchers organise discussions with the government officers to whom the policy issues fall and ensures that there is an objective understanding of the research results. This has ensured that KIPPRA is not caught up in a tag-of-war with the government in policy matters and increases the level of confidence.
g) Capacity building
KIPPRA plays a leading role in capacity building for government officers. Government officers participate in Young Professionals program and others join KIPPRA on secondment from the government. This has proved to be effective in equipping the officers with research skills necessary in policy formulation.
h) Relationship with the private sector
In working with the private sector, KIPPRA listens to policy issues that the private sector brings out. In some occasions KIPPRA has called those in private sector with different opinion on specific issue and provided advice based on fundamentals. It has also guided the private sector in propelling their demand to the government by providing an informed perspective.
Onyango,
Please refrain from sending long pieces as posts or (and especially) comments. We are unsure of why you sent us the information on KIPPRA. We do recognize, however, that KIPPRA is a perfect example of what we believe is the greatest threat to democracy–private public intersections. In fact, KIPPRA is a very blatant example of how the government has too much influence over nearly every aspect of Kenyan life. KIPPRA is anything but independent. It is clearly a government puppet agency. Otherwise, why would the President have a say in who is appointed as its Board chair?
Its slogan should perhaps be “KIPPRA, putting the dependent back in independent.”
Regards,
Jaluo Press