Involvement of political decision makers : The Ugandan experience

1. This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation • In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button • Select “Meeting Minder” • Select the “Action Items” tab • Type in action items as they come up • Click OK to dismiss this box • This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered. Involvement of political decision makers:The Ugandan experience By Margaret Kakande Ministry of Finance- Uganda.

2. Introduction • Political decision makers are at the apex of government operations at all levels • Policy making processes, and budgeting are all political processes • Political decision makers have constituencies- and thus the clientilistic tendencies • Political decision makers usually operate within “ short-term” horizons

3. MfDR Concepts dependent on political decision makers • Country ownership for control and sustainability • Country priorities Key questions? • How do we define country ownership? • Who determines the country priorities?

4. Uganda’s Political structure • The Presidency • The Parliament • The Prime Minister’s office • Sectoral ministries • LCV- District • LCIV- Municipality • LCIII- Sub county • LCII – Parish • LCI -Village

5. Political involvement into policy formulation • Formulation of PEAP/PRSP was very participatory for technical staff • Some district political leaders were consulted • National political leaders were consulted after drafting • The president signed the Foreword of the PEAP document

6. Challenges and Lessons learnt • Late involvement of political leaders can be disadvantageous • Difficult to consult political decision makers at all levels • Need for effective communication about policy choices and strategies for addressing issues that are nor prioritized nationally

7. Political involvement in M&E • Most national political decision makers were not directly involved in M&E • The parliament has initiated a community assessment mechanism for feedback about results • At district level, the Resident District Commissioners are mandated to monitor government programmes

8. Institutional mandates • Reconciling mandates with roles and responsibilities under MfDR • Feasibility of using results for learning and decision making- issues of Clout Key concerns -where are the carrots? -whose has the sticks?

9. Implications for MfDR • The political setting has to be receptive to the notion of MfDR and therefore its concepts and principles -Defining clear results provides better targets for change • Effective integration of the short-term concerns of political decision makers will make MfDR feasible -Using the results chain to depict cause andeffect relationships

10. Implications for MfDR cont. • The institutional arrangements should allow for effective communication -Keeping measurement and reporting simple • Using results for learning and decision making -Using results for accountability with levels of accountability for the actors

11. Implications for MfDR. • Establishment of incentives to generate and use information generated • The need to have good indicators along the results chain to convince those interested mainly in the short-term results

12. Implications for MfDR cont • The institutional arrangements should be harmonized to avoid duplication (Example of M&E in local governments in Uganda) • Capacity building efforts must target both technical and political decision makers- to have a “common language” so that the answer to “ why are we doing this? Is similar for all

13. Distinguished participants Like farming with a rudimentary hoe,-----MfDR without the political leaders will be an uphill task . I thank you for the attention.