The last one week has
been characterized by politicization of the now famous sugar deal between Kenya
and Uganda. Our primary problem as a nation is the rate at which we tend to
lace issues and matters of great importance with cheap politics that is only
full of propaganda. These political gimmicks and silly political games are
often orchestrated by the so-called political “leaders” whose aim is to further
their own interests by making vital issues to be nebulous. Before we delve into
cheap politicking and mud-slinging, I wish that we should have a clear
understanding of this sugar deal that is now aiding politicians to gain
political mileage to sustain and maintain their political lifeline.
The past regimes and
the present one have done very little to resuscitate the sugar sub-sector because
evidently all the government-owned millers are on the death bed. I have always
been hearing of the plan by the government to privatize these firms but the
pace at which this plan is being translated into action leaves a lot to be
desired. In any case, what is the economic role of the government in face of
state enterprises which aren’t realizing par performance? If privatization
would have taken place, at least it gives hope of having better management,
ceteris paribus.
But here we have the
sugar deal that has been the oven for all these hoopla and political
braggadocio. Before we criticize the agreement between the governments of Kenya
and Uganda, it is important to gain a meaningful understanding of the
fundamentals that underline this trade agreement. The first fundamental aspect
that we need to be aware of is the agreement and concessions regarding trade in
sugar among the COMESA member states way back in 2002. All the member states
were to eradicate the existing protectionist measures that would hinder the flow
of sugar from one country to another one. But the then government of the day
made a trade interception and pleaded for the continuation of the protectionist
measures and as a result in March 2002, COMESA granted Kenya protectionist
measures for one year so as to prevent cheap sugar from member countries from
entering Kenya.
However, in March 2003,
this deal concerning protectionism of the sugar sub-sector was extended for one
year and it was to come to a halt in March 2004. Seemingly this never happened
because in same month the protectionist measures were extended for the second
time to cover four years up to 2008. Come 2008, Kenya pleaded for another
extension which came to an end in February 2014. This expiry of the
protectionist measures gives rise to the question: is it economically correct
for Kenya to allow importation of Ugandan sugar? Certainly, the answer is yes
because both Kenya and Uganda are COMESA members and the protectionist measures
granted to Kenya by COMESA came to an end and this hence justifies importation
of Ugandan sugar.
The second fundamental
aspect that we need to look at is the need to curb the deficit in sugar
production that we experience as a country. Statistically, we have a shortage
of approximately 200,000 tonnes per year. Our consumption is definitely higher
than our rate of production. To be able to meet the quantity demanded then it
warrants the importation of sugar from whichever country and in this case from Uganda.
So, the question is: is it appropriate for Kenya to import Ugandan sugar? Of course
yes as our demand levels for sugar outrun the total output of sugar that is
produced. On a general scale, therefore, it is okay for us as a country to
import Ugandan sugar.
As a nation we also
ought to have taken advantage of the COMESA concessions to allow trade and free
flow of sugar among the member states to ensure that we strategically position
ourselves as a leading country in production of sugar. Kenya has the ability to
produce sugar enough to cater for her domestic consumption and export the
surplus. In fact, this should be the major issue of concern; why are we not
producing sufficient quantities to meet our domestic sugar demand and export
the extra quantities? This boils down to the inefficiencies that exist in the
sugar industry which are due to the high costs of production. For instance, the
cost of producing sugar in Kenya is Kshs.87,000 per tonne. This is considered
to be very high in comparison with other countries producing sugar like Malawi
whose costs of producing sugar range between Kshs.30,000 to Kshs.35,000 per
tonne.
These costs are
astronomical because of several reasons and key among them is the obsolete
level of technology that is employed. Research and development focusing on the
sugar sub-sector has not been carried out with the expected efficacy. This has
led to the planting of poor sugarcane varieties occasioned with the use of
traditional and odd methods of cultivation. The government should strive to
give subsidies to reduce these costs. In addition, the sugar firms have fallen
victim of maladministration and perennial mismanagement which is a primary
feature of government-owned corporations. This calls for fast-tracking the
process of privatization to salvage these firms. Mismanagement is the reason as to why
sugarcane farmers will always cry foul of delayed payments and other vices that
crop up. At the end of it all, it narrows down to the government to orchestrate
all the necessary strategies to revive this important agro-economic industry. This
is the bottom-line and there should be no debate about this.
What irks me is the
politicization of this matter as I stated earlier on. I suppose this is the Kenyan
brand of politics of seizing any opportunity that involves a national issue and
seeking and squeezing political rejuvenation and salvation from it. I register
my utmost displeasure with both the opposition and the government for engaging
in political side-shows as far as sugarnomics is concerned. It is immature and amateurish
for the Deputy President William Ruto and the opposition chief Raila Odinga to
engage in unending ranting and squabbling with each seeking to prove how
politically correct they are with regard to this sugar deal.
For Odinga and the
Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) to urge their supporters not purchase
milk and milk products from Brookside Dairies that is owned by the Kenyatta
family sounds sick and stupid. This depicts a lack of a clear development
agenda. William Ruto, on the other hand, is not different because it is during
his tenure as minister for agriculture that sugar cartels made colossal amount
of money and he never blew the whistle. His advisors and PR team should try to
advise him on how to portray an image of a leader who is way over and above
cheap politicking. It is nauseating for him to go from one political rally to
another one talking about the same issue. President Kenyatta talked about this
issue once if not twice. You can see the difference between these two leaders.
What really flummoxes
my inner-self are the political arguments that supporters from the either side
of the political divide are fronting which ooze a lot of ignorance. No politician
will ever knock on your door to give you food or wine. Why are we always
falling in the trap of these politicians? I understand that people will always
seek to be identified as supporters of certain politicians but we always follow
them blindly. The Kenyan political testament perhaps states that thou shall
religiously follow what hath been sayeth by the politicians. Let the political
leaders irrespective of belonging to the government or opposition show
initiative of coming to the rescue of the sugarcane farmers, otherwise a
delayed and effective intervention would lead the farmers to uproot the
sugarcane. Finally, the government should ensure that we import Ugandan sugar
and not sugar from Uganda. Get the difference and have a good day.