What do ordinary people think of EAC?

Opinion and Analysis

By COLLINS ODOTE

The collapse of the East African Community in 1977 was sad and dramatic. By the time of its collapse, the leaders of the Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania were not on talking terms.

Since they were the drivers of the integration process, their differences meant that East Africa had differed. They were the Community. This was not only unfortunate, it was also erroneous.

When efforts were made to revive the community, lessons from the past collapse meant ensuring that the integration process was more participatory. Towards this end the Treaty of the East African Community provided that the EAC was to be people centred and private sector led.

This meant that in all its decisions, the considerations required to be whether ordinary people were going to benefit from these initiatives.

This is what informed my visit to Mutukula last week. For those who are not too familiar with Geography, Mutukula is at the border between Uganda and Tanzania. We stayed at a motel called Happiness.

While officially the Hotel is on the Ugandan side of the border, we were informed the rooms are on the Tanzanian side. Payments for services were in both Uganda and Tanzanian shillings.

For the three days at Mutukula, we not only observed the EAC working but also had conversations with local authority representatives, clearing and forwarding agents, small scale traders, local administration officials and ordinary people on their knowledge and experience with the Community.

During these conversations I was amazed at how much the people knew about the community, its developments and bottlenecks. They were also very clear on what they expected from regional integration. I came away convinced that it is the elite who are derailing regional integration.

During a conversation on the Common Market Protocol and the four freedoms of free trade in goods, free trade in services, movement of capital and free movement of labour and right of establishment and residence the participants asked very pointed questions.

One of the most interesting discussions related to land. In most instances land as a factor of production is a key element of a Common Market. In the East African situation owing to sensitivities, we left it to be dealt with by national legislation.

Despite this there was heated debate as to why we could not include land as part of the Common Market as it was hindering right of establishment.

Despite the great hurdles and unmet expectations, I was convinced from my stay in Mutukula that the Community is alive and beneficial to the citizens of East Africa.

However a key challenge is to ensure that the discussions and adoption of policies do not remain at the conceptual level.

They have to be translated to tangible benefits for ordinary people. In Mutukula being a border town this was easy to observe.

The question, though is for those in rural and far-flung areas like Garsen, Asumbi or Elgeyo Marakwet what can we tell them is the EAC about? This is about ensuring we move from theoretical policy discussions to practical issues.

With the 2nd Devolution Conference just ended in Kisumu we can also borrow a lesson from Mutukula. We have to continuously focus in every county on tangible things that are making a difference to the lives of Kenyans.

Whether it is a new tarmac road, supply of water, better health facilities or improved education.

This is what should concern us as we move to the third year of implementing devolution in Kenya and to adoption and implementation of a monetary union in East Africa.

Dr Odote is a senior lecturer, University of Nairobi.