Uganda Forum Against Corrupt Entities

Fight corruption in your community

Uganda’s affirmative action policies are unfair and misguided because they require equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities

by · Published · Updated

corruption in parliament

Inequality is dangerous for any Society whether democratic or not because it creates divisions, resentment and eventually hatred between citizens of the different economic or political classes. Those that have little will feel disfavored by the state and feel that the state is controlled by the rich whom it favors. According to George Packer inequality undermines democracy partially because it hardens society into a class system, imprisoning people in the circumstances of their birth. Ordinarily the state has two options, it can attempt to ensure that every individual has the same outcome regardless of their circumstances or it can ensure that every individual has the equal opportunities regardless of their circumstances.

The concept of equal outcomes describes a state in which all people have approximately the same material wealth and income, or in which the general economic conditions of everyone’s lives are similar. That means we all earn the same, live in the same conditions and enjoy the same services. For example in respect of voting there is equality of outcomes if members of different races and other classes if we can all go to the ballot box at the same rate. However, there is equality of opportunity if members of different races have the same opportunity to vote, but go to the ballot box at different rates. In the former example the state must ensure that all races vote at the same rate but in the later example, the state must ensure that it provides equal opportunities to vote and it is up to the members of those races to take up the opportunity. An example of a law that creates unequal opportunities is one that produces or provides different voting opportunities across races by establishing rules and conditions of political participation that are less favorable (or advantageous) for one racial group than for others. Such a law does not create equal opportunities for citizens because it makes it harder for citizens of one race than of others to cast a vote.

We are all created unequal in terms of gifts such as skills, talents, beauty, intelligence, height, health, genes, and other characteristics. So why should we demand equality yet we are naturally unequal. It is impossible to create real equality because we are naturally unequal but states strive for equal protection of the law rather than actual equality. Even the Bible commands that, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Communists argue that this does not imply strict equality of things, but that means that people require different things in different proportions in order to flourish. Democratic states on the other hand apply a limited version of this whereby equal protection of the law at times requires provisions of accomodations to those who are disadvantaged so as to enable them to enjoy services at the same level as those with more ability. For example, accomodations can be given to persons with disabilities to ensure that they enjoy services at the same level as other members of the population.

Very few people dispute the need to provide equal opportunities to every one but what most people dispute is an attempt to create equal outcomes for every one regardless of effort and ability. For example Friedman wrote that striving for equality of outcome leaves most people without equality and without opportunity. Other scholars argue equality of outcomes is not beneficial overall for society since it dampens the motivation necessary for humans to achieve great things, such as new inventions, intellectual discoveries and artistic breakthroughs. According to this view, economic wealth and social status are rewards needed to spur such activity and with these rewards diminished, then achievements which will ultimately benefit everybody will not happen as frequently. For example, Rawls claims that all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. Rawls argues that the inequality between a doctor’s salary and a grocery clerk’s is only acceptable if this is the only way to encourage the training of sufficient numbers of doctors, preventing an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care (which would therefore disadvantage everyone. Equality of outcome would dictate that a store clerk who most likely did not put in any effort to get an education or make any sacrifice to better himself or herself should earn the same as a doctor who endured years of study and personal sacrifice to become a skilled physician. Such an outcome, will discourage individuals from investing the necessary time, effort and sacrifice to attain skills or innovation since at the end of the day they can attain the same compensation and reward without the extra effort. You would think that such a state of affairs would not be attractive to any one given the scientific and economic regression it would cause for society but the hypocritical liberals Advocate for exactly that. They claim that an innovator who has sacrificed his time and effort and endured personal sacrifices to innovate something should be stripped of most of the income deprived from the innovation and the income be distributed to those who spent their time having fun, drinking, dancing, partying and procreating.

What makes Uganda’s affirmative action policies so unfair is that they discriminate not only against men but also against the women themselves. For example female representatives in the parliament of Uganda are supposed to ensure that there are a substantial number of women in parliament because women have historically been under represented in parliament but nothing is done to address the structural issues such as poverty that led to this scenario. Policy makers assume that it is just sexism that is responsible for the under representation on women. So now you find previledged women who grew up at the high end of the wealth spectrum purporting to represent the every day woman who is overworked, poor and over burdened by unpaid work and child bearing. Even if we assume that it is legitimate to give women special representatives, which it is not, unfair districting has led to unequal treatment of other tribes and regions in Uganda. Since most districting has occurred in Buganda and Western Uganda, most of the female representatives in Uganda represent only two regions out six regions in Uganda.

The state instead of ensuring that each person regardless of sex and religion can be nominated for public office, participate in compaigns and be elected by his or her peers, chose to create equal outcomes for both women and men by guaranteeing one seat per district for women and one seat for a woman in every special interest group represented in parliament such as workers, youth, person’s with disabilities and the army. So each of these women get elected to parliament not for any other reason but because they are women and women must be represented by women in parliament yet the same women chose another person to represent them in parliament. So if the normally elected representatives in parliament represent all their constituents including women and men, why does the woman deserve special representation over and above what a man gets.

Women were historically discriminated in education in Uganda and to solve this inequity, the state decided that girls must be given a numerical advantage to join high school and university. Obviously this doesn’t ensure equal opportunity because the law shamelessly provides a girl with a clear advantage just because she is a girl regardless of whether she needs it or not. The girl can be born with a sky high intelligence and to wealthy parents but she will be awarded this numerical advantage to ensure that the number of boys and girls that join high school and university is at par or equal. A law providing equal opportunity would ensure that every disadvantage that prevents both boys and girls from joining high school and university is eliminated so that they both have an equal opportunity to join high school and university. It should not matter that the girls tend to be more ambitious and focused than boys and thus more of them successfully join high school and university provided that they both have an equal opportunity to do so. To the contrary, the situation in Uganda is such that a boy born in a vulnerable household and handed a bad hand by life is ignored to fend for himself whereas an advantaged girl who is borne in a wealthy family and given every opportunity that is humanly possible is given an unfair advantage over both the vulnerable boy and girl.

Read More

Uganda Forum Against Corrupt Entities does not condone or tolerate or encourage discrimination against anyone on the basis of sex, tribe, religion, view point and other characteristics

Tags:

Administrator

Our collective efforts in combating corruption in Uganda will create the corruption free society that we love and want. Do not wait for the government to combat corruption because it will not do so since many people that serve in the government benefit from the corruption.

You may also like...