The EAC is sickly, why doesn’t anyone want to help out?

Perhaps more than at any other time in its relatively short history, the East African Community is staring at a financial crunch that is bound to adversely affect the integration agenda, affecting both national and multilateral projects in the region.

Partner states have fallen behind in their remittances to the regional body’s secretariat, hindering its activities as well as those of EAC Organs and Institutions. This sorry state of affairs has led to the scaling down of some activities and the cancellation of others.

While this may have been necessitated by financial difficulties faced by the partner states, it is also a statement of the lacklustre manner in which integration is considered by bureaucrats in the region’s capitals. It speaks volumes about the non-prioritisation of the regional agenda, even as leaders pay lip service to this at every summit of heads of state and other high-level engagements.

While Uganda seems to be ahead of the pack, having given most of its contribution, the other partner states lag far behind, with Burundi having paid nothing at all. Yet, the list of activities to be accomplished grows longer every year, requiring funds to make integration a reality.

But the falling interest in matters to do with this regional organization could also be the result of frustration at the slow pace of activities. Beyond endless workshops in posh hotels, there has been little to show by way of tangible progress in recent years. In fact, whatever little progress is made tends to be almost immediately scaled back in an almost predictable and choreographed manner.

This is the only explanation why non-tariff barriers (NTBs) remain a permanent feature on the agenda of every summit meeting. As old barriers are tackled, new ones inevitably spring up, creating a sense of inertia and frustration.

Member states must of necessity decide whether they are really interested in the whole integration project. If not, it becomes a waste of time and resources to keep on discussing about the same issues every year, with each partner state keen to protect its interests.

Essentially, integration means opening up to each other completely in the hope that the gains from a regional market will outweigh any disadvantages that any partner state may face. Continuous exclusions and NTBs are doing great harm and contributing to the climate of mutual mistrust among member states.

 It must equally be remembered that it will be impossible for the Community to move beyond the first two pillars of the integration process – the Customs union and Common market – unless these issues are resolved. The third pillar – Monetary union – will remain unrealistic and unworkable until the first two pillars are fully operational. Yet, these cannot function without the countries agreeing to allow unfettered movement of capital, labour, goods and services.

So long as there remain reservations and suspicions on various issues – land and work permits, for example – then it will be impractical to move on with the integration project. This leaves countries that have committed themselves to this agenda in a limbo – they can’t just move out, and they don’t really believe in the whole project.

In fact, a huge chunk of regional integration activities is funded by donors. While help is welcome, an agenda as important as this one should attract greater ownership from the participating governments. When almost everything is being funded externally, is it any wonder that bureaucrats at regional organizations have transferred the fraud and mismanagement that is so rampant in their own countries to supranational institutions?

When one critically examines the level of corruption and sheer wastage of public resources in most of the member states, it becomes clear that the EAC is not underfunded for lack of funds. In fact, the region can easily do much less donor support, or none at all. However, it will be difficult to attain this when there is no concerted effort by member states to stick to agreed protocols and open up their economies fully to one another.

But if reducing funding to a mere trickle is meant to enable partner states to sit pretty without having to make a serious decision one way or the other, this is a reckless move that indicates a lack of statesmanship. It reduces the whole integration agenda to a wasteful enterprise meant to fool citizens. Why not simply make the hard decisions and fund the effort, or – God forbid – decide to go our separate ways?