Only a few Ugandans should be surprised at the recent trend in donor behaviour and in particular simultaneous announcements of financial aid cuts to General Budget Support (GBS).

In recent months the World Bank, Danish, Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch and now British governments have announced aid cuts to Uganda's budget to the tune of about 55 million pounds (approximately Shs165 billion) citing corruption, the deteriorating political situation, including the mismanagement of the current political transition.

The often touted concept of donors funding about 50% of our budget is quite deceptive since it is hugely an understatement of the real contribution donors are making to the economy and survival of the people of Uganda.

Many government agencies like universities, research institutions, hospitals, commissions, etc are all largely dependent on donor aid.

In short, donors are responsible for funding about 90% of Uganda's development budget and 50% of recurrent expenditures.

Besides, the government, donor aid to non state actors such as NGOs, faith-based organisations, political parties and other civil society organisations is enormous; sometimes as high as 98% of their annual budgets for many NGOs.

Looking beyond these direct beneficiaries of donor aid to the people who earn a living and spend as a result of donor aid makes the situation even more real.

Possible anarchy

If donors withdrew in their entirety Uganda would be plunged into total anarchy. Uganda's foreign reserves can not run the country for more than six months. Businesses would come to a standstill as there would be no purchasing power amongst the monetised Ugandan public who are either direct or indirect recipients of donor aid, government institutions would struggle to survive, and unemployment would almost double.

What would be the ultimate consequence of all this? Total anarchy!

It is for this reason that we should not underestimate the threats and messages being sent by donors, our allies for a long time.

Foreign aid has been a vital part of Uganda's good economic growth and development since 1986 and to me the debate shouldn't be about whether to cut aid or not, but what modality to use to channel aid to Ugandan citizens, for without foreign aid this government cannot run, and even the little that Ugandan citizens are getting from the government in terms of social services will be no more.

Government options

The government should realise that its honeymoon with the donor community has ended, and while they may still be married, the real challenges of a marriage are beginning to surface.

We are all beginning to realise that the marriage between the government and the donors was not a natural one. Donors were partly responsible for 'creating' the 'artificial' Uganda success story that has been touted the world over for the last decade, sometimes to justify donor policies and interests in the international aid business.

This is not to say Uganda has not been successful in restoring socio-economic order and made significant development progress, but that the achievements have been over exaggerated. It is only now that donors are realising the government of Uganda has been cheating on them, and have to painfully take the decision they are taking today. Any way out of this quagmire must be honest and seek to solve the underlying problems the country is facing.

The government should think about the long term future of this country, stop polishing the leather on its shoe when the sole is completely finished. During hard times like this one the government ought to redirect its financial priorities from short term political ends to more strategic and sustainable programmes.

It should significantly cut down waste in unnecessary public administration like overlapping commissions, RDCs, numerous Presidential Advisors; rationalise security agencies (ISO, DISO, ESO, FUSO, PGB, State House, etc) which are high expenditure areas but have low productive returns.

Reduce the size of Cabinet, Parliament, Local Councils and stop creating financially unviable districts and other expensive political structures such as regional tiers.

The government should shift its focus from simply fighting insecurity and instead ensure that there are no fertile grounds for insecurity; it's cheaper that way - as the saying goes "prevention is better than cure". It must rid itself of officers and men who are proving to be liabilities and a national shame to this country, especially in the military and police.

The government must be seen to take more firm and decisive action against agents of corruption, most of which have been unearthed within its own armpits. Arrest and prosecute those who have been implicated by the IGG in various reports already available, those found guilty of plundering the Congo by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, agents of ghost soldiers in the army and those found responsible for stealing the Global Fund for HIV/Aids, Malaria and Tuberculosis. So far there is a lot of incentive to be corrupt in Uganda and the mass accumulation of wealth by thieves is now a positive thing in the eye of the public.

General Budget Support as a principle is good, but it can only work in a situation where you can trust that a government will put the money to good use.

Aiding thieves

A corruption-ridden state like that of Uganda has failed on this front and is therefore undeserving of foreign aid. In fact foreign aid is a subsidy and incentive to continue stealing.

Donors should not withdraw aid but instead channel it differently. Programmes such as UPE, PMA, NAADS and other poverty reduction programmes under PAF are almost entirely dependent on donors. What would happen to them?

Donors should consider channeling aid through respected community institutions like churches for people-centred projects; they should support programmes such as civic education by civic organisations (including political parties) so that in the long-term, it's the Ugandan people who can hold their government to account or vote rogue governments out.

Finally, the donors have the option of redirecting their support through the UN System for Humanitarian Assistance and Relief as the UK government proposes to do. But noble as it may be, it will not tackle the long term problem.

To bring the war in Northern Uganda to an end and make the region productive again, donors can unite behind the UN to support a regional army or directly support the army of Sudan and Congo to launch a major operation to root out any remains of the LRA; this will not even take a month if done with efficiency.