|
|
Sloppiness Breeds Poverty
[Sunday
Monitor June 2002]
Question on Late FM show by Presenter: "Do you love the woman?"
Answer by Caller: "Okay, sort of, like that."
A baffling answer, you would agree, and even more so if you consider
that the caller's intention was to request the presenter to sweet
talk the lady in question on his behalf. Well, one could say that
in matters of the heart things are seldom black and/ or white
but are many times a murky mix. In Uganda, the murky mixture of
black and white suffuses everywhere. We just love the smoggy and
blurred in which we all move forward (or is it in circles?).
This love for unclear and blurred can be illustrated in our verbal
communication habits. While we are good at banter, when it comes
down to articulate formal speech many of us are lost for words.
Try getting to the crux of the matter with somebody who doesn't
know what they are saying or who has something to hide. Instead
of a simple succinct statement, they will elude you. Even if you
tried to zero them to yes/no answer, there would still come the
unintelligible answer (possibly put in very many words). Pressing
any further for an unequivocal response will certainly get you
an angry response and possibly another enemy; such persistence
is considered rude - it is "politically incorrect" in
any context. People would rather waffle than be forced into sense.
This waffling goes like: "Okay, blur blur blur..., okay,
blur blur blur and more blur. You get?" - smile. "You
get?" is an euphemism for "leave me alone now! Or else
the teeth shown by this smile will become weapons against you".
Actually any strict insistence on rules, procedures or order of
any kind can be disastrous. You must know of people who are in
disfavour at their workplaces or have lost elective office (despite
their efficacy for the job) because they insist on developing
systems or procedures to which they expect everyone to adhere.
In reference to a stickler for rules it is common to hear the
phrase "Akasajja katusobede" or "Katugyeko emireembe"
meaning the guy is infringing on our freedom.
The apathy for procedure is also reflected in the confused division
of responsibility in various organisations. Take the presidency
as an example. His excellency, either by design or accident, performs
a multiplicity of duties: globe trot, hear complaints right from
cabinet ministers down to LC I chairmen, offer a factory building
to a businessman plus set the criteria for staffing it, offer
a couple of millions of here, donate one heifer there. Then he
goes to more "official business" of browbeating parliament
to push a bill through (with all his favoured clauses intact)
which he will later sign into law. Because he appears to do so
much, people assume he is capable of doing anything and so pile
him with more problems. The President's duties are thus multiplied.
So he becomes an omnipotent amalgam of Chief Executive, Chief
Warrior, Head Legislator, All-round Sage and many others ad infinitum.
Sloppy division of responsibility exists in all sections of society
and this is whether one welcomes it or not. Just ask any MP whether
monetary contribution to a bereaved constituent's funeral fund
is not one of the major indicators of the MP's performance.
There is also sloppy patronage. This is the obligation those in
authority and with affluence feel to be generous even if it means
bending the rules or completely ignoring future consequences.
A lucid example of this is what happened to land in Kampala. Some
mailo landowners had huge unused tracts of land in the city, and
they would welcome any landless newcomers with the words "mwanawange,
ogira obera wano" (you can stay here for a while my son).
This no-conditions-attached statement encouraged more immigrants
and before the landowners could say "vacate!", the newcomers
had filled up the land. This initial casual attitude by the owners
significantly contributed to the squatter problems experienced
in the city today. In the work environment, this sloppy patronage
has borne a special phrase: "technical-know-who". Regardless
of qualifications, a person will get that well paying job or clinch
that juicy contract, so long as (s)he is related to the right
people. Thus, family, relatives, friends and in-laws get to partake
of the largest chunk of the cake. In the individual offices, the
blue-eyed junior will more often than not have a relative high
up in the ranks.
Lack of attention to detail could, by far, be the most audacious
manifestation of sloppiness in this country. The vast majority
of Ugandans in whatever profession or trade are guilty of the
crime of no-attention-to-detail. You find this in offices, restaurants,
bars everywhere, amongst any professionals or tradesmen you must
deal with. And what is even more atrocious is that it is generally
accepted: - this is Uganda, we say. The eye is always drawn to
that dirty speck on pure white. So every detail at every level
needs careful workmanship for a superb result to be realised.
This is definitely not the case in Uganda. Take any piece of furniture
(e.g. table, curtain-box, cabinet) made with local technology
- it will look glossy from a distance but closer examination reveals
several faults: certain areas are not at all vanished, maybe the
drawers are not opening, and what are supposed to be straight
edges are arched at various angles - the furniture piece is wobbly.
It is a tacky job. Most of the houses (even the very expensive
looking ones) constructed during this period of prosperity and
peace ushered in by the Movement, are sloppily constructed with
edges rarely being straight where they ought to, and with many
tacky details. In extreme cases, whole houses are leaking and
the poor tenants are forced into a little corner of the bedroom
as rain goes drip-drip, drip-drip everywhere - all thanks to sloppy
jobs.
With such sloppiness it is little wonder that all major consultancies,
contracts or any jobs that need precision in the country are entrusted
with foreigners. I suspect foreign investors are not flocking
into the country due to our sloppy work ethics and workmanship.
In any case, the majority of Ugandans will not trust other Ugandans
for certain jobs because we know we are all sloppy. Is the shirt
your wearing locally made? How about those shoes? Any Ugandan,
if they can afford it, will minimise the amount of locally made
furniture at home. And by the way, if Uganda ever makes it to
the World Cup finals, I bet it will be with a foreign coach. It
will not matter if such a coach will previously have been rejected
by relegation bound football clubs in his own country, because
in comparison to Ugandan alternatives, he will not do a sloppy
job.
Now the excuses for sloppiness abound. One of the common ones
is we are sloppy because we are poor (incapacitated by resources).
This sloppy result is the best possible given the resources budgeted
for the job: POVERTY BREEDS SLOPPINESS. No sir, the other way
round: SLOPPINESS BREEDS POVERTY. Poverty is not the cause; it
is the result of sloppiness. If we maintain the sloppy laws, the
sloppy institutional framework, sloppy workmanship, sloppy education
system, sloppy lopsided priorities, sloppy everything, we shall
surely sink to ever-greater depths of poverty. And manufacture
of that cherished pin will sure continue to elude us.
Oh by the way, we are not sloppy in all aspects. Given adequate
money, a Ugandan will dress very smartly indeed. This smartness
normally conceals the sloppiness that will almost invariably ruin
a job. So in many ways our smartness (in dressing) is a mere sham
- a false façade that will definitely not help develop this country.
This fascination with facades (façadism) other than fundamentals
is reflected in the ability to write very skilful project proposals
but which are never implemented fully if at all, mastering the
art of securing donor funds which rarely trickle down to intended
beneficiaries, impressive report writing skills to hide the actual
situation on the ground et cetera. We are efficient at keeping
up appearances. Appearances that do not go beyond skin deep are
sloppy.
Lack of consistent intense effort will never result in any meaningful
success – it can only achieve a veneer of success. The people
who sent the manned rocket to the moon did not just make a half-hearted
attempt that accidentally surprised them with success. It took
the kind of determined concentration that leaves absolutely no
room for sloppiness for the rocket to crystallise and make it
to the moon. Concerted effort breeds success. Pressure makes diamonds.
Without adequate pressure there will never be a diamond –
there can only be peat-bogs.
Some could argue that sloppiness represents an accommodating attitude
that is not strict and uncompromising; that the world is not black
and white - it is shades of grey. Yes, the world is shades of
grey. But sloppiness does not mix black and white to form grey.
No – it mixes black and white to form fragmented, intermingled
patches of black and white – a discordant murk. Getting
a desired shade of grey calls for a lot more skill than sloppiness
can ever offer. Black gives some, white takes some and vice versa.
The two are mixed skilfully to get grey. The grey is a result
of two parties, each with clear initial stands, saying: come let's
reason and work together for our common good. Well-blended grey
is a well-orchestrated compromise that begets synergy.
|
