By Mahir Balunywa
Center for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis
Never has any debate in the 11th Parliament proved as contentious as the Coffee Amendment Bill 2024. The chaos that erupted brings to mind the Luo tale of Labong and Gipir, two brothers whose rivalry eventually divided them. Their father, sensing his death was near, bestowed upon Labong a spear for defense and upon Gipir beads for blessings. When an elephant invaded Labong’s yard, Gipir borrowed the spear to stab the elephant, which fled with it. Labong demanded the return of the original spear, not a replacement, forcing Gipir to retrieve it in anger and frustration. Later, when Labong’s daughter swallowed one of Gipir’s beads, Gipir, in a similar demand, compelled Labong to cut open his beloved daughter to retrieve it. Realizing they could no longer coexist, the brothers parted ways—Gipir moved west to the West Nile region, and Labong settled in northern Uganda. This story mirrors the current discord in Parliament, where MPs from coffee-growing regions like Buganda and Bugisu clashed with colleagues from livestock-based regions, ultimately leading to a fractious vote of 159 to 77 in favor of coffee producers.
On October 24, 2024, tempers flared. MPs from coffee-growing regions could no longer tolerate the perceived indifference of those representing pastoralist areas. Even MPs from newer coffee-producing regions like Acholi supported the bill. President Museveni, a steadfast supporter of the bill, dismissed opposing views and emphasized the importance of rationalizing the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) as an NRM initiative, asserting that what the NRM proposes, no one should question.
In 2015, my article titled “Revisiting Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s Theories: The Role of the State in a Free Market Economy” explored the intellectual traditions of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who advocated for limited state intervention. They argued that the market, rather than the state, should allocate and distribute resources, with the state only providing infrastructure that supports market operations. In this view, the UCDA should retain some autonomy, as it already serves the government’s interests. Why discard it as if it were a disposable tool?
Uganda’s governance, however, is steeped in Keynesian welfare state principles, which advocate for government intervention and redistribution. Keynes argued that government spending and deficit could stimulate the economy, but Peter Drucker dismissed this as a flawed orthodoxy. Unfortunately, Uganda’s policymakers remain loyal to Keynesian principles, believing that consumption drives capital formation, saving threatens economic health, and government deficits fuel growth. This philosophy, however, risks underestimating the coffee farmers’ autonomy.
The debate over the Coffee Amendment Bill brings to light issues surrounding property rights. In Uganda’s free-market economy, where liberalism supposedly prevails, Adam Smith’s concept of “laissez-faire” ought to guide policy in the coffee sector, restricting unfair interference. Coffee belongs to the farmers, not the government. Forcing government oversight on coffee would infringe on farmers’ property rights and economic freedoms. Farmers support the UCDA because it protects them from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (MAAIF), which they see as predatory.
The coffee subsector should operate in a liberalized market economy. Uganda is not a command economy where decisions descend from a central authority. Let the coffee boom benefit the farmers rather than curse them. The ongoing power struggle between the executive and Parliament endangers the farmers’ livelihoods. When these “two capitalists”—the executive and Parliament—fight, farmers lose; when they conspire, the farmers also suffer. Carl Polanyi calls this alignment between state power and capitalist interests “globalized fascism,” while James Scott, in “Weapons of the Weak”, highlights the various forms of peasant resistance against capitalist oppression, from petitions to revolutions.
Opposition to the current Coffee Amendment Bill can thus be seen as another form of resistance against capitalist interests. While the UCDA was created under the NRM regime, coffee itself is a colonial introduction, historically used to exploit labor and increase taxation. Hopefully, this is not the government’s intent.
As Uganda entered the BRICS economic bloc, the stakes in the coffee sector grew. In February 2024, the government awarded Pinnetti’s Uganda Vinci Coffee Company (UVCC) monopoly powers to buy and export coffee, 27 acres in Namanve, tax exemptions, and UGX 17 billion in taxpayer funds. More recently, the Chinese construction company signed an MOU to buy Ugandan coffee, adding another layer to the complex coffee economy. Additionally, the government recently approved UGX 5.5 billion to bail out Great Lakes Coffee Company, a struggling foreign-owned entity. These investments make it clear that Uganda’s coffee industry stands at a critical juncture, with both risk and opportunity at the door.
The Coffee Amendment Bill should not be debated in isolation from the government’s previous coffee-related actions. We need a holistic approach to debate and reason beyond what is currently on Parliament’s floor.
Conclusion
Do we need a referendum on the Coffee Bill? Is it worth resorting to bribes, division, and chaos in Parliament over this? Can we avoid politicizing and tribalizing a crop that belongs to farmers of all backgrounds? Can we learn from other nations with autonomous coffee export institutions like Costa Rica, Brazil, Colombia, Madagascar, and Kenya?
Let the debate over coffee be a step toward strengthening Uganda’s market economy rather than a divisive, exploitative struggle.
