This article examines the prevailing development paradigm in Uganda, characterising it as sterile, exploitative, and consumptive – a system that benefits a narrow political and economic elite while impoverishing the majority and degrading the nation’s ecological and social fabric.

Drawing on multivariate analysis of Uganda’s political economy, we contrast this with an alternative framework: eco-development. This approach recognises the dynamic interconnection between ecological-biological, socioeconomic, socio-cultural, and temporal dimensions of development.

We argue that Uganda’s current trajectory represents a continuation of colonial extraction through primitive accumulation, state capture, and the systematic erosion of community identities and institutions. The shift to eco-development cannot be postponed, as the costs of inaction mount through environmental degradation, social disintegration and entrenched inequality.

Recommendations include abandoning disciplinary silos in favour of team sciences (interdisciplinarity, crossdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and extradisciplinarity) and restoring the humanities and social sciences to their rightful place alongside natural sciences in development planning.

Understanding sterile, exploitative, consumptive development

When we speak of sterile, exploitative, consumptive development in Uganda, we refer to a system of accumulation that produces nothing of lasting value for the majority while extracting everything from them. This is development that consumes people, communities, and nature without regenerating them – hence “sterile.”

It is a model that treats Uganda’s resources – both human and natural – as expendable inputs to be exhausted for the benefit of a tiny elite.

Primitive accumulation and theft from the poor

The foundation of this system lies in what Karl Marx termed “primitive accumulation” – the original theft that precedes capitalist exploitation. In Uganda’s case, this is not a historical phenomenon confined to colonialism but an ongoing process. The deceptively rich have acquired their wealth not through hard work or productive enterprise but through the systematic theft of public funds.

As we have documented elsewhere, Uganda loses approximately Ush10 trillion ($2.7 billion) annually to corruption. This is not petty crime but organised plunder orchestrated by men and women of power who occupy state institutions.

These primitive accumulators are indistinguishable from the political class. They use state security and surveillance institutions not to protect citizens but to shield themselves from the wrath of the people and to safeguard their loot. The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), the police, and intelligence agencies are increasingly deployed to protect elite interests rather than national sovereignty.

Politics of self-service

The political process has been captured to serve these interests. Laws and policies are crafted not for national development but to facilitate continued accumulation by the ruling elite. The Mining and Minerals Act, 2022, for instance, prioritises state (elite) interests over local land tenure systems, particularly customary ownership. Article 244 of the Constitution vests all mineral rights in the state, granting sweeping control over resources at the expense of landowners and communities.

Yet those in power pretend to be committed to freedom, democracy and justice while actively undermining these virtues. They speak of transformation and progress even as they reinvent the colonial economy – extracting raw materials, exporting them un-processes, and importing finished goods.

Uganda continues to export raw coffee, minerals, and cheap labour while richer countries sell finished goods and control the rules of trade.

Assault on identity

A particularly insidious aspect of this system is its systematic undermining of the various identities of the people and their communities. The powerful argue that identity does not matter – only interests do. But this is deception. By eroding social identity, ecological identity, spiritual identity, economic identity, environmental identity, cultural identity, lingual identity, moral identity, intellectual identity, ecosystem identity, agro-ecological identity and even academic identity, they serve their own interests while destroying the collective identity of Uganda and Ugandans.

This is not an accident. A people without identity cannot organise collective resistance. A people who do not know their worth are easier to exploit. When the powerful dismiss identity as irrelevant, they are really saying that the particular identities of ordinary Ugandans must be subordinated to the singular identity of the ruling elite and its interests.

Mechanisms of Control: De-intellectualisation, de-radicalisation and de-politicisation

To ensure that people do not express their disapproval, the system has perfected mechanisms of control. De-intellectualisation proceeds through the systematic neglect and underfunding of education, particularly the humanities and social sciences. Universities have muted these disciplines, silencing critical voices and disconnecting academia from society.

De-radicalisation ensures that any questioning of the fundamental order is suppressed before it can take root. De-politicisation reduces citizens to passive recipients of government programmes rather than active shapers of their destiny. Bantustanisation – the fragmentation of the national space into ethnic enclaves – keeps people divided and focused on localised grievances rather than national questions. Militarisation ensures that any remaining dissent can be crushed. The military now permeates civilian institutions, with military officers holding key positions from Foreign Service to ministerial portfolios and government parastatals.

Destruction of social organisation

The system is deliberately destroying clan-based social organisation and the extended family system, which offered obvious economic and social benefits to local communities. In their place, imported blueprints are imposed. The sterile culture of money is emphasised over communal solidarity.

Programmes such as Emyooga, the Parish Development Model (PDM) and Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) target individuals rather than whole communities. They are environmentally, ecologically, morally, culturally and ethically empty. As we have argued elsewhere, these programmes are exercises in futility designed to deceive and mislead millions of citizens. Operation Wealth Creation, managed by the military, side-lines professionals and has become a money-making venture for military elites. PDM, launched with great fanfare, faces the same challenges of corruption and implementation that doomed its predecessors.

Mafia and deep state

To enhance their own sovereignty and liberation from the people, the ruling elite have introduced alien cultures. The Mafia culture – networks of power that operate outside formal institutions to serve private interests—now permeates Ugandan politics and business. Gold, now Uganda’s largest export, is controlled by such networks. Gold-producing regions such as Busoga and Karamoja receive no benefits from this extraction – the situation is worse than under colonial exploitation.

The deep state – security and bureaucratic apparatuses that operate beyond democratic control – protects these arrangements. General Muhoozi Kainerugaba’s rapid ascent within the military and his political manoeuvrings exemplify the blurring of lines between state, party, and family interests. The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, allowing civilians to be tried in military tribunals, further subverts constitutional order.

Conceptual framework

In contrast to this sterile model, we propose eco-development – an approach that harmonises economic and social objectives with sound environmental management. Eco-development is not merely “sustainable development” as conventionally understood; it is a fundamental reorientation of how we understand the relationship between human societies and the natural systems that sustain them.

Four dimensions of environment

Eco-development begins with the recognition that our environment consists of four mutually inclusive, dynamically interconnected, and interacting dimensions:

Ecological-biological dimension

This encompasses the physical environment, ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources. It includes the soils, water systems, forests, wetlands, and minerals that form the material basis of all economic activity. Crucially, it includes the ecosystem services – pollination, water purification, climate regulation, nutrient cycling – that make human life possible but are invisible to conventional economic accounting.

In Uganda, this dimension is under severe threat. Wetlands are drained for agriculture and industry. Forests are cleared for charcoal and timber. Soils are degraded through continuous cropping without regeneration. Mineral extraction proceeds without regard for environmental consequences.

Socioeconomic dimension

This includes the systems of production, distribution, and consumption; the institutions of economy and governance; and the material conditions of people’s lives. It encompasses employment, income, infrastructure, and technology.

The socioeconomic dimension in Uganda has been captured by elite interests. Production is oriented toward export rather than local needs. Distribution is grossly unequal. Consumption patterns among the elite mimic those of rich countries, while the majority struggle for basic necessities.

Socio-cultural dimension

This comprises the institutions, values, knowledge systems, and practices that shape how communities organise themselves and relate to their environment. It includes clan structures, traditional governance systems, indigenous knowledge, language, and cultural practices.

This dimension is under direct assault. The extended family system, which provided social security and economic cooperation, is being destroyed by individualistic programmes. Indigenous knowledge of environmental management is displaced by imported blueprints. Languages and cultural practices are devalued.

Temporal dimension (time)

This is perhaps the most neglected dimension. It encompasses intergenerational equity – the obligation to leave future generations the capacity to meet their needs. It includes the long-term consequences of today’s decisions, the pace of change, and the historical context that shapes present possibilities.

The current development model ignores this dimension entirely. Non-renewable resources are exhausted without provision for the future. Environmental degradation is passed as a cost to coming generations. The long-term consequences of decisions – whether mineral extraction, wetland destruction, or soil mining – are discounted to zero.

Dynamic interconnectivity of dimensions

These four dimensions are not separate spheres but mutually constitutive. They interact dynamically, and changes in one ripple through the others. Understanding these interconnections is critical to eco-development.

Consider a concrete example: the extraction of gold in Northern Uganda. The ecological-biological dimension is affected through land degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss. The socioeconomic dimension is affected as benefits accrue to elite-controlled mafias while communities remain impoverished.

The socio-cultural dimension is affected as indigenous land tenure systems are overridden, communities are displaced, and social fabric is torn. The temporal dimension is affected as non-renewable resources are extracted now, leaving nothing for future generations.

Conventional development planning would consider only the economic dimension – how much gold is extracted, how much revenue is generated. It would ignore the ecological costs, the social disruption, and the intergenerational theft. Eco-development insists that all four dimensions must be considered together because they are, in reality, inseparable.

Core Values of eco-development

Eco-development rests on a set of core values that contrast sharply with those of the sterile exploitative model:

Integrity refers to the wholeness and health of both ecological and social systems. An ecosystem has integrity when its structures and functions are intact. A society has integrity when its institutions serve the common good and its members act in accordance with shared values. The current system lacks integrity on both counts.

Solidarity is the recognition that our fates are intertwined – within the present generation, between generations, and with the other species that share our planet. The current model promotes individual accumulation at the expense of others. Eco-development insists that no one should benefit at the cost of another’s essential needs.

Sustainability means meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. This requires living off the “interest” of natural systems rather than depleting the “capital.” It requires that renewable resources be used no faster than they regenerate and that non-renewable resources be used only to create lasting value that benefits future generations.

Accountability means that decision-makers must answer for the consequences of their actions – to affected communities, to future generations and to the ecological systems they affect. The current system is characterised by impunity; those who steal public funds or degrade the environment face no consequences.

Transparency means that decisions and their bases should be visible to those affected. Secrecy serves elite interests. Eco-development requires openness about what is being done, by whom and at whose cost.

Cohesion refers to the bonds that hold society together – shared identity, mutual obligation and common purpose. The current system deliberately undermines cohesion by dividing communities, eroding identities, and promoting individual over collective advancement.

These values are not abstract ideals. They are practical requirements for a development model that can sustain itself over time. A system without integrity collapses under its own corruption. A system without solidarity generates conflict that destroys the conditions for development. A system without sustainability consumes its own foundations.

Why the shift cannot be postponed

The transition from sterile exploitative development to eco-development is urgent for several reasons:

First, the ecological foundations of development are collapsing. Uganda’s wetlands, forests and soils are being degraded at rates that threaten future productivity. Climate change, to which Uganda contributes little but suffers much, amplifies these threats. Every year of delay makes ecological restoration more costly and less feasible.

Second, social cohesion is fraying. The systematic erosion of identities and community structures leaves people atomised and vulnerable. Without the extended family, without clan structures, without shared identity, people face economic shocks alone. The resulting desperation fuels conflict and instability.

Third, inequality has reached dangerous levels. The primitive accumulators have concentrated wealth and power to an extent that undermines any pretence of democracy. A small elite controls the economy, the state, and the security forces. The majority are excluded from meaningful participation in decisions that affect their lives.

Fourth, the opportunity cost of inaction is immense. Resources that could be invested in education, health, agriculture, and infrastructure are instead stolen or wasted. Every year that Uganda continues on its current path is a year of lost potential – for children who remain uneducated, for communities without clean water, for farmers without inputs.

Fifth, the window for transformative change is narrowing. As the system entrenches itself, as the Mafia and deep state consolidate power, as the militarisation of politics proceeds, the possibility of peaceful transition diminishes. The 2026 elections and beyond will be critical; without a fundamental reorientation, Uganda risks descent into military-bureaucratic autocracy.

Recommendations

Abandon Individualistic and Disciplinary Approaches

The sterile development model is both individualistic in its targeting and disciplinary in its planning. Programmes target individuals rather than communities, fragmenting social solidarity. Planning is done in sectoral silos – agriculture here, health there, and environment somewhere else – ignoring the interconnections that actually determine outcomes.

Eco-development requires integrated planning that addresses the whole system. This means moving from projects aimed at individuals to programmes that strengthen communities. It means creating horizontal authority able to overcome sectoral approaches, concerned with all aspects of development while always taking into account the complementarity of various measures.

Restore the humanities and social sciences

The systematic underfunding and marginalisation of humanities and social sciences in Uganda’s universities serves elite interests. These disciplines produce critical thinkers who can question the prevailing order. They preserve the cultural knowledge and historical understanding that sustain identity. They provide the conceptual tools for understanding complex social-ecological systems.

Eco-development requires one science that integrates natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. There is a symmetry between the possible contributions of ecology and social anthropology to planning. Understanding ecosystem dynamics requires understanding human dynamics, and vice versa. The humanities provide the ethical frameworks without which technical solutions become instruments of domination.

Embrace team sciences

The complexity of social-ecological systems cannot be grasped through any single discipline. Eco-development requires multiple forms of collaborative inquiry:

Inter-disciplinarity involves integrating knowledge and methods from different disciplines to address common problems. Ecologists and economists, anthropologists and agronomists must work together from the start, not sequentially.

Cross-disciplinarity involves viewing one discipline from the perspective of another. Economists must learn to see what ecology reveals; ecologists must understand economic constraints and incentives.

Trans-disciplinarity goes beyond academic disciplines to include the knowledge and perspectives of communities themselves. Local farmers know their soils, their microclimates, their crop varieties in ways that outside experts cannot match.

Indigenous knowledge of environmental management embodies generations of experimentation and adaptation. Transdisciplinarity treats communities as partners in inquiry, not objects of study.

Extra-disciplinarity recognises that some questions cannot be contained within any disciplinary framework. They require new ways of thinking that emerge from engagement with real-world problems. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and social disintegration are such questions. They demand that we think beyond established categories.

The benefits of team sciences for eco-development are clear. They produce more complete understanding of complex problems. They generate solutions that work across multiple dimensions. They build consensus among diverse stakeholders. And they develop the intellectual flexibility needed to adapt to changing conditions.

Strengthen community institutions

Eco-development cannot be imposed from above; it must be built from below. This requires strengthening the institutions through which communities manage their affairs and relate to their environment. Clan structures, cooperative societies, local governance bodies, and customary land tenure systems should be supported, not destroyed.

The principle should be subsidiarity: decisions should be taken at the most local level consistent with effectiveness. Communities should participate in working out eco-development strategies – in defining concrete needs, identifying productive potentialities of their ecosystems, and organising collective effort for their utilisation.

Ensure that benefits stay with communities

A fundamental requirement of eco-development is that the populations who work for it should not be deprived of its results to the benefit of intermediaries standing between local communities and national or international markets. This means ensuring that mineral wealth benefits mining communities. It means supporting local processing of agricultural products so that value addition occurs where production happens. It means cooperative ownership of enterprises so that profits stay in communities.

Transform education

Eco-development requires education that prepares people for participatory planning and management. People’s attention must be drawn simultaneously to the notion of environment and to the ecological aspects of development. Education should foster respect for nature, understanding of ecological limits, and appreciation of cultural diversity. It should develop the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate development proposals and hold leaders accountable.

Address the structural drivers of the current crisis

None of the above is possible without confronting the power structures that sustain the sterile exploitative model. This means:

• Dismantling mafia networks that have captured state institutions and natural resources
• Demilitarising politics and restoring civilian control over all state institutions
• Ensuring accountability for corruption and human rights abuses
• Reforming the legal framework to protect community rights over resources
• Building independent media and civil society capable of holding power to account

Conclusion

Uganda stands at a crossroads. One path leads deeper into the sterile, exploitative, consumptive model that has enriched a few while impoverishing the many and degrading the ecological systems on which all depend. This path promises continued primitive accumulation, state capture, social disintegration and environmental collapse.

It is the path of the mafia and the deep state, of militarisation and Bantustanisation, of empty programmes that promise transformation while delivering only deception.

The other path leads to eco-development – a development style that insists on specific solutions to particular problems in each eco-region, taking into account ecological and cultural contexts as well as present and long-term needs. It believes in the ability of human societies to assess their own problems and find original solutions while drawing inspiration from others’ experiences. It is opposed to passive transfers and the spirit of imitation, insisting instead on self-reliance.

This path requires that we acknowledge how colonialism distorted our economy—not as an exercise in grievance, but to understand the problem correctly so we can design the right solutions. It requires that we reject the false universalism that would impose the same blueprint everywhere, recognising instead that each community, each ecosystem, each cultural context demands its own approach. It requires that we value what we think, invent, and create—not just what we extract from the ground.

The choice is ours. But the cost of postponement mounts daily. With each wetland drained, each forest cleared, each community displaced, each identity eroded, the possibility of eco-development recedes. With each year that the Mafia deepens its control, each election that entrenches the same elite, each programme that fails while promising transformation, the window for peaceful transition narrows.

We must choose, and we must choose now. Not development that consumes us and our children’s future. But development that regenerates – eco-development.

For God and my country.

• A Tell Media report / By Oweyegha-Afunaduula. The writer is a retired Ugandan scholar and elder who has witnessed and analysed Uganda’s political evolution from colonialism through independence to the present day.