General
Decentralisation – A Condition, Process or Mystery?
Decentralisation is a term that has been flung around governance circles so frequently that the last thing you would expect to find is an almost-packed Makerere University Main Hall in the midst the busy season of tests. On 4th November 2014, the University Forum on Governance (UNIFOG) in partnership with the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) organized a panel discussion on Seventeen Years of Decentralisation: Opportunities, Challenges and Outlook for Uganda and at the close of the day, the audience left with a greater sense of appreciation of what they thought they knew but actually knew not.
“Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung’s interest in decentralisation in Uganda stems from our own political background where Germany’s decentralised system of governance was established in 1949 by the Allied Forces after World War II. Nevertheless Federalism has turned out to be the most valuable assets to Germany for on the good side it has increased accountability but on the negative side, slowed down legislation” said Ms. Maike Messerschmidt, KAS’ Programme Officer for Uganda and South Sudan in her introductory remarks.
KAS’ activities in Uganda are focused on strengthening the multiparty democratic system through the promotion of good governance and leadership. Ms. Messerschmidt noted that decentralisation as a process of redistributing power from the centre plays a crucial role in the development of any country and hoped that the day’s panel discussion would greatly contribute to the ongoing debate on the same.
Any system that aspires to have nationwide impact ought to be supported in its operations by a cohesive force of both volunteers and societal leaders at all levels. As such, the Uganda Local Governments’ Association (ULGA) was established in 1994 as the National Association of Local Governments of Uganda; a private non-profit body. To review Uganda’s decentralisation framework as well as share challenges and opportunities the structures present, UNIFOG invited ULGA Secretary General Ms. Rose Gertrude Gamwera, whose presentation painted a vivid picture of the actual situation on the ground.
“Good afternoon Councilors” she greeted, with the audience reluctant to respond, thinking that maybe she was addressing the wrong forum. They would however soon learn that everyone above eighteen years is a Local Government Councilor and that the Village Council is the primary platform to promote citizen participation in democratic control and decision making, “you can see that you have already been given the opportunity at village level 1. It is time for you to take the reins and utilize that platform,” challenged Ms. Gamwera. She nevertheless noted that Decentralisation had empowered Local governments to build economic bases so as to become financially independent, “These structures have been empowered to come up with their own budgets, generate and collect more revenue and in addition to that, they receive a stipend through Central government transfers to run services, although I hasten to add that we are becoming more dependent on that.” Ms. Gamwera also noted that Local Government structures open up room for employment and provide an avenue for Government to conduct its oversight function on national programmes.
Decentralisation has however encountered its fair share of challenges, the biggest arising from the creation of new districts. “This resulted in increased Administrative costs and some local governments could just not be operationalised,” shared Ms. Gamwera. She also cited failure to effectively conduct elections due to high expenses associated with the process, low caliber of political leaders due to the absence of a minimum qualification limit, conflicts arising from different multiparty dispensations, and poor remuneration as challenges that continued to dog decentralisation. She however noted that Uganda’s decentralisation drive was progressing well despite these challenges “as long as we are committed, decisive and there is good will on the part of policy makers, decision makers and implementers, we can make it” she resolved.
With the audience now fully aware of what was on the ground, Dr. Yasin Olum, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Administration, CHUSS presented the academic side with the aim of providing possible policy options to improve the decentralisation system. Starting off with the concept and theory of decentralisation, Dr. Olum questioned “Is it a condition or a process? There are those that see it as a process and others as a condition, which presents us with an area for debate” said Dr. Olum. Touching on the forms of decentralisation, he also pondered which one was most suitable for Uganda, “is it De-concentration, Devolution, Delegation or even a fourth which is subject to contest-Privatization”
Dr. Olum further expounded on the three theories of decentralisation as; Liberal, Public Choice-the views of economists on decentralized state and Marxist-the analysis of the state at the local level. “From my assessment, Uganda seems to be unconsciously implementing decentralisation by applying either the liberal and partly the public choice and not the Marxist” he noted. He however suggested that the Marxist theory be used to understand and propose an alternative to Uganda’s decentralisation because the practices as shared by ULGA necessitated that decentralisation be located in a much wider economic and political setting in which Local Governments are situated.
Examining the methodological issues of understanding decentralisation, Dr. Olum noted that the terms centralization and decentralisation had left nation like Uganda that practices a mix of both with no middle term to describe the present situation. He further noted that the absence of indices to measure the efficacy of certain practices presented a challenge. “How do you measure decentralized power? There is a tendency to compare two different countries simply because they are implementing decentralisation or indeed comparing one country based on a single time period as if these different eras at the time of comparison are the same. I think we need to be a little bit careful” he advised. He also noted a problem of differential deficiencies-the difficulty in differentiating the degrees of decentralisation within a single country at a given time. “Are the districts being compared the same in terms of resources or geographical size?” he pondered in a bid to further clarify his point.
In an analysis of the conditions for successful implementation of decentralisation, Dr. Olum asked participants to ponder whether the spaces created for citizen participation were actual or pseudo and furthermore reflect upon whether there was political and civil will for decentralisation at the various levels. “Do leaders have the commitment to participate simply because you have established the structures or would they rather engage in their own activities and not go to this forum?” asked Dr. Olum. He further warned all stakeholders not to “romanticize decentralisation as if it was the best thing that ever happened.” With regard to proposing possible policy option, Dr. Olum agitated for the political-economy approach that guaranteed a clear understanding of the local, national and international terrains in which decentralisation is supposed to operate.
He called for an examination of the ecological surroundings that addresses inequalities in urban and rural areas to enhance the construction of local democratic states. “We should also look at the political constraints that may affect the process of governance. We are in the era of corporatization and so we have to be very careful if we are to talk about decentralisation in a climate where the country is emphasizing marketization and corporatization.” He stressed the need to conduct empirical research on decentralisation of power with a view of unearthing whether it has led to a change in the behavior of actors rather than the formal organisational relationships. “We need to ask; has decentralisation made people better, has it changed their behavior or are they still living as the centralized?” pondered Dr. Olum.
The historical perspective of any matter always provides valuable input into any debate. Contributing to the discussion, Dr. Simba Kayunga Ssali, Lecturer-Department of Political Science, CHUSS noted that “When you look at the history of centre-local government relations, an interesting phase could be traced to the early 1940s when the British Government started the so-called indirect rule. Any good student of Uganda’s centre-local government relations will note that Uganda was operating a very detailed decentralized system of government between 1955 and 1965.” Dr. Simba decried the lack of willingness by the current policy makers and implementers to examine the challenges faced by decentralisation then so as to better implement it today.
He supported Dr. Olum’s proposal to use the Marxist theory to better evaluate the notion that the cause of underdevelopment is over-centralization Dr. Simba noted that “Decentralisation understood the causes of underdevelopment from an organisational perspective; that we were underdeveloped because of our internal crises, hence excluding the global factors which have led us into poverty” he said, further adding “And as long as we carry on with a development paradigm which excludes our global connections, that paradigm cannot lead us into economic transformation.” Dr. Simba however took difference to the earlier suggestion that low levels of education were a hindrance to effective service delivery. Quoting from the 17th Century French revolution, Dr. Simba observed that “’There is no correlation between high attainance of education and sensitivity to people’s needs.’ The fact that you are more educated does not mean that you are more sensitive to the needs of the people” summed up Dr. Simba.
The notion of decentralisation as an answer to underdevelopment once again resurfaced in the panel discussion when Dr. Sarah Ssali, Senior Lecturer-Department of Women and Gender Studies, CHUSS took to the podium. “Were the donors thinking the same thing when they pushed decentralisation as a conditionality for aid and as a way of reducing the powers of the state to impact on the local level?” she pondered. She also wondered whether the politicians and donors were posing these questions from the same source of inspiration and whether the eventual beneficiary community did not just see it as another opportunity to secure jobs for their children. “My considered opinion is that we are talking about different things although they are all thoughts about decentralisation as a system of governance” she added.
Evaluating the progresses and regresses as a result of decentralisation, Dr. Ssali noted that “All those who have looked at service sectors of health and education have come up with simple before and after study reports and no one is wondering where funding to put up these buildings is coming from! If you can find a building that has been put up by the district I think you will be very lucky” she challenged. She observed that most of the infrastructure had been developed as a result of conditional grants from government or partnerships with other donors. Still in line with finance and revenue, Dr. Ssali noted that “85% of district revenues come from the centre in form of conditional grants and no district; apart from Kampala can raise more than 5% of its revenue, implying that they are all dependent on the centre.” She therefore wondered whether we were talking about actual decentralisation as a country.
She also called for an evaluation of the distinct gap in knowledge and skills between the highly-educated technocrats who run the districts and lower qualified leaders who constitute the councils “And so you are promoting the elite capture from the urban to the rural areas. But elite capture is not just about educated people because we have the rural elite who are likely to secure the position by virtue of their family status. Will these then relate with people for purposes of self aggrandizement or will they work for public good?” she wondered out loud. She noted that this could lead to a perpetual source of disappointment between councilors and their electorate. In conclusion she noted that whereas decentralisation had created an opportunity for several players other than that state to contribute to political debate, it had also provided a way for donors to directly access the people thereby leading to a question of who actually owned and run the process.
The day’s moderator Mr. Maurice Mugisha-Nation Media Group (NMG) then opened up the debate to members of the audience. Contributors then raised issues ranging from; structures without actual power at decentralized levels, the high cost of public administration especially at newly created districts, political differences interfering service delivery due to lack of consensus, the absence of sound revenue bases implying that districts implemented very little of planned projects, all the way to lack of substantively appointed officials at the District level. In the responses that followed, Ms. Gamwera noted that ULGA and the government are coming up with statutory instruments to complement the Local Government framework and help implement devolution of power and capacity building for Local Government leaders. She also noted that interviews were ongoing to recruit Chief Administrative Officers to fill the vacant positions at Districts. Dr. Sarah Ssali noted that decentralisation had empowered people to demand for accountability despite the fact that their power to implement is hampered by delayed transfer of resources from the centre and lack of capacity to raise their own revenue.
With regard to the evaluating the level of decentralisation of power, Dr. Yasin Olum advised assessors to examine the extent of either De-concentration, Devolution or Delegation of power in the Financial, Political and Personnel aspects of governance. He urged participants not to look at either centralization or decentralisation as the cause of underdevelopment but rather consider other global factors. Regarding the complexities presented by multi-ethnic 
districts in that there was no unifying local language to guide debates, Dr. Simba Ssali noted that knowledge or lack of knowledge of the English language had no bearing whatsoever of one’s being knowledgeable or not; emphasizing that knowledge existed outside formal education systems. He urged Local Government Authorities to localize decentralisation concepts so as to prevent all attempts at programme implementation being shunned as elitist by rural populations.
At the conclusion of the session, UNIFOG’s Executive Secretary Mr. Bruce Kabaasa thanked all the panelists and participants for the lively debate, “I want to encourage you to pay as much attention as possible and also look forward to many such debates in the future in order to broaden your knowledge of the very issues that surround us in society,” he said. Mr. Kabaasa also thanked Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung for not only going beyond their original scope and supporting more engagements than initially agreed upon but also promising to make future engagements more engaging. He prayed that all stakeholders would continue to find these panel discussions as valuable avenues of knowledge generation and sharing.
Article by Public Relations Office
The Makerere University Vice Chancellor, Prof. Barnabas Nawangwe has today, Friday, 26th June 2026 handed over the CCE (Complex) Hall of Residence Site to National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Managing Director and CEO, Lieutenant General James Mugira for renovation and overhaul works. The UGX 12billion Government of Uganda-funded works, expected to be completed within a year, are the fourth project to be undertaken by NEC. They were preceded by; construction of the University Perimeter Wall, Renovation of Lumumba Hall, and Renovation of Mary Stuart Hall.
NEC’s Record Lauded
Prof. Nawangwe in his remarks at the handover ceremony lauded these projects. “The quality of work done by NEC makes us proud because we can finally say that we have Ugandans who can do the things, which we previously depended on foreigners to do.” He therefore thanked the Government of Uganda for fully funding the projects and the First Lady and Minister of Education and Sports, Hon. Janet Museveni, whose visit set the renovation projects in motion.
The Vice Chancellor added that as the Alma mater for most members of both the Contractor and Project Management Teams, this was a moment of great pride as their expertise and skills have saved the country billions of taxpayers’ money. “Thank you for being patriotic”, he commended.
Prof. Nawangwe concluded by noting that CCE Hall, by virtue of its location, provides a first impression of Makerere University as a whole. He therefore urged the contractor to ensure that upon renovation, CCE Hall would create a memorable and lasting first impression, exceeding even that of the renovated Mary Stuart Hall.
A Project Fueled by Nostalgia
Speaking of impressions, Lt. Gen. Mugira, with nostalgia recalled that close to 42 years ago, he not only attended his first lectures in Hall 1 of the CCE Complex but also, on a more personal note added, “my wife was a resident, and so I have every motivation to put in a lot of effort and make sure that I deliver more than was done with Mary Stuart and Lumumba.”
He therefore extended heartfelt appreciation to his Alma mater Makerere University for the trust and confidence bestowed in NEC, which underscored their ability to deliver. “Trust is earned through performance, through integrity and consistency, and your decision to engage us motivates us to work even harder to exceed your expectations.”
In his remarks, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Finance and Administration) Prof. Henry Alinaitwe reechoed the need to ensure that the project is executed with adherence to the cost, quality, specifications and safety related issues as earlier shared by the Acting (Ag.) Chief Engineer of Estates and Works, Eng. Ezra Sekadde.
“NEC has already demonstrated this (with previous projects), and that is why we have all the confidence that you can deliver this project within 12 months” remarked Prof. Alinaitwe. He equally lauded the Project Management Team (PMT) led by Arch. Dr. Kenneth Ssemwogerere whose supervision ensures timely project completion.
Relatedly, Arch. Dr. Semwogerere was on 25th June 2026, the eve of the handover, promoted to the rank of Associate Professor, a milestone Prof. Alinaitwe attributed to his track record as Head of PMT. He therefore, on a light note, urged him to keep up the good work as this could equally contribute to his promotion to the rank of full Professor.
Also present at the handover ceremony was the Principal, College of Education and External Studies (CEES) Prof. Anthony Mugagga, whose unit will be greatly affected by the renovations. He nevertheless welcomed and reiterated his full support for the project, noting that just as renovation of Lumumba and Mary Stuart Halls had resulted in many alumni revisiting, the CCE Complex would upon renovation attract former residents and teaching professionals to give back or forge new partnerships.
Student Welfare at the Forefront
On her part, the Dean of Students Dr. Winifred Kabumbuli lauded the renovations of Halls of Residence as a clear demonstration of Government’s dedication to the improvement of student welfare, and creating an environment conducive for nurturing responsible citizens who can contribute to national development. She pledged her Office’s and the Student Leadership’s readiness to ensure that the renovated facilities used responsibly for the benefit of future generations.
As a resident of the recently renovated Mary Stuart Hall, 92nd Guild President H.E. Kadondi Gracious could not help but appreciate how impactful the renovation of CCE Hall would be to student welfare. “The female students will be very excited (to occupy CCE Hall) but the male students will be left complaining – so we shall be expecting more renovations, not just for the female but also the male students,” she amiably concluded.
General
Makerere University Leads EU-Funded MAGNETISE Project to Strengthen Gender Equality in Higher Education Across Sub-Saharan Africa
A consortium of African and European universities has intensified efforts to mainstream gender equality in higher education through the MAGNETISE project, with Makerere University taking a leading role in hosting a high-level workshop that brought together policymakers, researchers, and gender experts to reflect on institutional progress, persistent gaps, and future strategies.
The initiative, focused on Mainstreaming Gender in Higher Education Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa (MAGNETISE), is supported by the European Union and implemented through a multi-country partnership involving institutions in Uganda, South Africa, and Europe. It aims to move beyond policy formulation to practical implementation, monitoring, and institutional accountability in gender equality.
At the heart of the discussions was a shared concern: while universities across the region have developed gender policies over the past decades, translating these frameworks into measurable, lived institutional change remains uneven.
A Consortium Approach to Gender Mainstreaming in Academia
Opening the workshop, held at Makerere University recently, the project lead, Professor James Acai Okwee who is also deputy Principal CoVAB, described MAGNETISE as a collaborative effort designed to strengthen institutional capacity for gender equality planning across higher education systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.
He explained that the consortium includes Ugandan partners such as Makerere University and Muni University, alongside South African institutions including University of KwaZulu-Natal, Rhodes University, and Nelson Mandela University. European partners include Katholieke Hoge school VIVES Zuid (VIVES) and KMOP Policy Centre from Belgium, as well as Research Innovation and Development Lab (ReadLab) and University of Peloponnese. The consortium also includes additional European academic collaboration through the University of Applied Sciences and related policy and research networks.
According to Acai, the core objective is not simply to produce policies, but to ensure universities develop functional gender equality plans supported by implementation tools, monitoring frameworks, and institutional accountability systems.
“We have had policies since the early 2000s, but the real question is: where is the implementation plan, and how do we track progress?” he noted. “If a policy says 40 percent representation for women in leadership, we must be able to measure whether that is being achieved.”
He emphasized that MAGNETISE would support training, capacity-building exchanges with European institutions, student engagement programmes, and the development of a digital knowledge hub for gender equality.
Makerere University’s Institutional Position on Gender Equality
Representing university leadership, Dr. Suzan Mbabazi of Makerere University’s Gender Mainstreaming Directorate reaffirmed the institution’s commitment to advancing gender equality across its academic, research, and community engagement mandate. She highlighted significant progress made over more than two decades, citing policies such as the Gender Equality Policy and the Regulations Against Sexual Harassment, alongside governance frameworks that have institutionalized gender equity. Makerere has also established key structures, including the Institute of Gender and Development Studies and the Gender Mainstreaming Directorate, to coordinate initiatives across faculties. Yet, Dr. Mbabazi cautioned that structural achievements do not erase systemic challenges. “Despite progress globally and locally, we must acknowledge persistent gaps, biases, and inequalities within higher education institutions,” she said, stressing the need to bridge policy and practice. She urged participants to prioritize awareness creation, institutional analysis of existing gaps, and deliberate action to dismantle structural barriers. Reaffirming management’s support, she called for continued collaboration among institutions and stakeholders to sustain momentum in gender mainstreaming.
Preliminary Survey Findings Reveal Mixed Progress
Presenting the initial findings of a university-wide survey, Dr. Peace Musiimenta of the School of Women and Gender Studies at Makerere University revealed that responses from 82 participants across various units highlight both progress and persistent challenges in advancing gender equality. While many acknowledged strides in gender mainstreaming, structural and cultural barriers remain entrenched. The study found that although gender policies exist, their implementation is often inconsistent, and initiatives risk being treated as isolated projects rather than integrated institutional practices. Dr. Musiimenta noted that some staff perceive gender programs as overly focused on women, fueling resistance and ideological tensions within academic spaces. She emphasized that the challenge is no longer the absence of policy but the need to ensure visibility, ownership, and effective application of existing frameworks to embed gender equality across the institution.
Gender Audit Highlights Structural Gaps and Progress
Expanding on the institutional audit, Dr. Florence Ebila outlined the methodology and preliminary findings of the gender audit conducted between May and June 2026.She explained that the audit examined institutional policies, governance systems, practices, organizational culture, and perceptions of gender equality.
The study drew data from multiple administrative units including human resources, academic registrars, estates and works departments, and student leadership structures. Ebila reported that Makerere University has made significant institutional progress, including the establishment of gender-focused units and integration of gender considerations into teaching, research, and governance. However, she identified persistent disparities in representation, particularly in science-related disciplines where male staff and students remain dominant.
She also highlighted infrastructural gaps, noting that while newer buildings are increasingly accessible, several older facilities lack adequate support for persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
Another concern raised was limited gender-responsive budgeting, with insufficient allocation of resources to sustain gender mainstreaming activities across all units. “The challenge is not just policy design, but operationalization at all levels of the institution,” she said.
Gender, Identity, and Institutional Culture: A Critical Reflection
A keynote reflection by Dr Josephine Ahikire introduced a deeper theoretical lens to the discussion, situating gender mainstreaming within broader questions of institutional power, identity, and cultural norms.
Ahikire emphasized that gender mainstreaming is not a technical exercise but a structural transformation process that challenges entrenched systems of privilege.
She used the example of Makerere University’s centenary monument, where a male graduate is prominently positioned in front view while a female graduate is placed at the rear, to illustrate how symbolic representations can reflect deeper institutional biases.
“What appears natural often hides embedded inequality,” she argued. “Even symbolic structures matter because they reflect how institutions imagine gender.”
Ahikire acknowledged Makerere University’s progress in policy development and institutional frameworks but cautioned that deeper cultural transformation is still required.
She emphasized the need to interrogate curriculum design, research systems, and informal institutional practices that may perpetuate inequality despite formal commitments to inclusion.
She further argued that gender discourse must retain its political dimension, noting that terms such as feminism should not be avoided but engaged critically in order to address structural inequality.
“Gender equality work is not about comfort,” she said. “It is about questioning established norms and rethinking how power is distributed.”
Institutional Achievements and Remaining Challenges
Across presentations, several common themes emerged.
Participants acknowledged that Makerere University has developed one of the most advanced gender mainstreaming frameworks in the region, including:
- A dedicated gender equality policy framework
- Sexual harassment regulations and safeguarding policies
- Institutional gender mainstreaming structures
- Student engagement programmes and gender clubs
- Scholarships supporting women in science and disadvantaged backgrounds
- Increasing integration of gender into teaching and research
However, speakers consistently highlighted persistent challenges, including:
- Limited implementation of gender policies at departmental level
- Uneven representation of women in senior academic ranks
- Infrastructure gaps affecting accessibility and inclusion
- Weak gender-responsive budgeting mechanisms
- Resistance and misunderstanding of gender equality concepts
- Fragmentation of gender work across isolated units
Towards a Comprehensive Gender Equality Plan
A key outcome of the MAGNETISE project is the development of a comprehensive institutional gender equality plan for Makerere University, supported by monitoring tools and a sustainability framework.
The plan is expected to consolidate existing policies into a coherent implementation strategy, linking institutional commitments to measurable outcomes.
It will also include a handbook for monitoring gender equality initiatives and a digital platform for knowledge sharing among students and staff.
Project leaders emphasized that sustainability will depend on institutional ownership beyond donor funding, particularly through integration into university governance systems.
A Continuing Institutional Journey
The workshop concluded with a shared recognition that gender equality in higher education remains a work in progress, requiring sustained institutional commitment, cultural transformation, and accountability mechanisms.
While Makerere University has made notable progress over the past decades, speakers agreed that the next phase of gender mainstreaming must focus on implementation, visibility, and structural change.
As the MAGNETISE project continues across partner institutions in Africa and Europe, it positions itself not only as a research initiative, but as a long-term institutional reform effort aimed at reshaping how universities understand and operationalize gender equality in higher education.
-
General6 days agoUndergraduate Admission Lists 2026/2027
-
General5 days agoMakerere Hands Over CCE Hall to NEC for Renovation
-
General1 week agoMakerere University Set to Develop Curriculum to Transform Graduate Supervision and Mentorship
-
General1 week agoFees Waiver Female Scholarship 2026/2027
-
Education1 week agoMakerere University Signs MoU with Fukui University to enhance Research, Teacher Development and STEM Education