In September of 1972, Idi Amin, then ruler of the nation of Uganda, gave his memorable declaration demanding the country’s ethnic minority vacate their property and leave the country.  Amin’s statements were those of anger and resentment, directed at communities that had prospered economically but were ethnic minorities with limited political power.  For much of its post-colonial history it had been ethnic minorities that were the “backbone” of Uganda’s economy.  What was immediately felt by Ugandans upon expulsion of close to 50,00 Asians and many other ethnic minorities was an immediate decline in the nation’s economy.

Following the end of Amin’s rule, many of the ethnic minorities returned, but stable economic growth has been hard to maintain. Since 1986, under the rule of Yoweri Museveni, Uganda has reformed its currency, raised producer support prices in exports, and raised prices for its petroleum products.  Such economic policies aim to control inflation and dampen the effects of poverty.  Yet the reality for many Ugandans is that close to 35% of them are still below the poverty line, while the top 10% of the population controls over 21% of the nation’s wealth.  In the general economic picture it shouldn’t come as a surprise that 80% of the population still resides in the agricultural sector: coffee exports and mineral deposits still remain the primary means by which most Ugandans make a living.  

Recently, both the issues of ethnicity and the economic progress of Uganda have come to clash over an attempt by one of the nation’s most successful business companies, the Mehta Group, to set up a sugar plantation in Central Uganda.  The proposed site is the Mabira forest, which many environmentalist claim to be home to a wide variety of exotic wildlife that are threatened by the establishment of the sugar plantation.  Protests against the allocation of land to the Mehta Group were underway yesterday but grew to chaotic proportions when violent clashes led to the death of three Ugandans.  Many in the community have pointed an accusing finger at the nation’s minority groups, in this instance the Asian community, and retaliated for the attacks by vandalizing a Hindu Temple and beating to death a civilian of Asian descent.  Such actions cannot fail to stir memories of Idi Amin’s fateful proclamation in 1972 and the general plight of much of the population in Uganda.  

Why this event is important in the context of development strategies is that nations such as Uganda must adopt growth strategies that aim to both reconcile ethnic divisions and lead to the improvement in living conditions of all of its citizens, most notably those living below the poverty line.  At this point I would like to draw on an article by prominent development economist, Edward Miguel entitled, “Ethnic Diversity and Poverty Reduction.”  In this piece Miguel essentially argues that ethnic diversity need not be an obstacle to development; in fact, via a case study of Tanzania he forcefully argues that highly diverse nations that adopt particular nation building policies can foster development and improve standards of living.  It is with this perspective that I wish to look at the case of Uganda and draw from conclusions Miguel reached about ethnicity and economics.  

Two prescriptions are in order, both of which play favorably in Tanzania’s success at overcoming ethnicity as a barrier to economic growth: adoption of nation-building policies by the central government, and a coordinated attempt by leaders of different ethnic groups at reconciliation.  Policies akin to Amin’s forceful removal of ethnic minorities are not only morally outrageous, but economically unjustifiable because of their negative effect on growth.  In modern-day Uganda it is clear that ethnic divisions have not disappeared, but the need for more central direction in designing nation building policies should be designated a high priority on government agendas.  Further efforts at power sharing and other mechanisms by which the politically underrepresented are brought into political decision-making can be beneficial to a nation.  But as Miguel remarks, “it is unclear whether power-sharing actually overcomes the underlying causes of negative ethnic diversity effects in practice…”. Thus other avenues must be opened by which politics and economics are harmonized.  

Thus the central tenets of ethnic division and economic improvement must be addressed, but it is only through successful development strategies that one will not serve to ignite the other. One element that has failed to gather notice in much of the discussion is the role of history and modern-day perceptions as they are created out of past experience.  Uganda still needs to overcome past biases and move forward if it wishes to embrace development.