The Politics of Being Non-Political: Human Rights Organizations and the Creation of a Positive Human Rights Culture in Uganda

Abstract

This article focuses on what role human rights organizations (HROs) actually play in the development of a rights-protective regime and a rights-respective society in Uganda, given structural, internal, and regime limitations. We argue that Uganda HROs are significantly limited in their ability to help create a positive human rights culture in Uganda by historical/structural legacies that have created a culture of political apathy and fear amongst the general population. Regime repression of vocal "political" non-state actors and foreign donor-implicit acceptance of regime human rights transgressions in light of neo-liberal economic reforms reinforce this fear and political apathy. Ugandan HROs, not willing to risk state repression or lose foreign aid, thus resort to non-contentious human rights issues that do not engage the regime or test the resolve or interest of society to demand for human rights for all.

The Political Economy of Transnational Regimes: The Case of Human Rights

“…Thus, the dependency of NGOs on external funding helps shape almost every aspect of human rights work, including the agenda of rights NGOs, their modes of operation, and the victims of violations with which they deal. Different aspects of this claim coincide with the findings of scholars who have conducted research in other regions such as Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the United States (e.g., Brenner 2003; Dicklitch and Lwanga 2003; Ghodsee 2004; Habib and Taylor 1999; Igoe 2003; Jenkins 1998; Klees 1998; Klein 2007). Steven Klees (1998, 50) goes so far as to claim that: “In many countries…those that succeeded [in receiving funding] were too often those which took a more compromising, apolitical stance, if not openly right‐wing, and those which met the development agenda of their funders, or, at least, did not directly challenge it.” While we do not necessarily subscribe to all of Klees’s conclusions, our findings do suggest that donors have an impact on the critical stance of rights NGOs, which affects, in turn, their relationship with the recipient state.…”

“…The relationship between donors and NGOs has been a topic of scholarly interest for some time now. Over the past two decades scholars have shown how external funding affects relief and humanitarian NGOs as well as NGOs that concentrate on development and democratization (e.g., Cooley and Ron 2002; Dicklitch and Lwanga 2003; Edwards and Hulme 1996; Helms 2003; Henderson 2002; Hulme and Edwards 1997; Petras 1999; Wedel 2001). They have also studied the impact of external funding on social movements (e.g., Bartley 2007; McAdam 1982; Sperling 1999) and on non‐profit and philanthropy organizations (e.g., Barman 2006; Gronbjerg 1993; Kiger 2000; Powell and Friedkin 1987).…”

“…In Uganda, for example, donors refrain from funding overtly “political” NGOs for fear of annoying the government and support instead NGOs that run civic education, election monitoring, and constitutional development programs. In other words, they shy away from associating with NGOs deemed too critical of the regime or “too political” (Dicklitch and Lwanga 2003). Even more relevant to our case is Brian Smith’s (1990) study that shows that there is a difference among donors that contribute to NGO work in Colombia, with U.S. donors more likely to support relief work, while Canadians and European donors tend to support NGOs that place more emphasis on technical aid and institution‐building.…”

“…Yet, most pressing needs in the rural areas, where almost 80% of the population live, are social and economic rights issues. (Dicklitch and Lwanga 2003, 507)…”

“…While other scholars have argued that the impact of rights NGOs on authoritarian regimes differs from their impact on democracies and that authoritarian regimes dramatically limit the work of rights NGOs (Beetham 1999; Howard and Donnelly 1986), very little has been said about how the donor state and the donors themselves set out different objectives for rights NGOs according to the regime type of the state in which the NGOs operate (the dotted line from the recipient state to the donor). For instance, frequently rights NGOs in authoritarian regimes are under donor and government pressure to adopt an incremental approach rather than a strategy that aims to achieve far‐reaching immediate change (Dicklitch and Lwanga 2003).…”