By Arthur Nuwagaba

Yesterday, I had lunch with colleagues at CJ. One of them is an American who was born in Uganda. During our conversation, he asked me: “What has happened to the intelligent and competent people in Uganda?” I gave him my own reasons for why it sometimes feels as though intelligent and competent people have disappeared from the places where their knowledge is most needed. Uganda still has highly educated people, experienced professionals, and people capable of understanding and solving complex problems. But many of the people who once spoke confidently about what was wrong and what needed to change seem less visible today. Some have withdrawn into their own professional spaces. Others have chosen to keep their opinions to themselves. Some have learnt how to work within the system. As our conversation continued, however, I began to think that perhaps my friend was pointing to something deeper.

In Uganda today, many competent people have become careful about what they say. They know what is wrong, but they also know the consequences of saying it openly. Civil servants have become careful about the advice they give. Professionals have learnt to choose their battles. Academics have become hesitant to challenge policies or decisions. People who have the knowledge to question a bad decision first have to consider who made it and what might happen if they challenge it. Over time, this has changed how people behave. It is not that they have become less intelligent; they have simply become more conscious of the environment in which they operate. They have learnt that being right does not always bring the same rewards as being agreeable, and that telling an uncomfortable truth can sometimes carry a personal cost.

This is how institutions in Uganda have lost one of their most important assets: people who are willing to tell them the truth. In many cases, the people closest to a problem know exactly what is going wrong. They see the figures, they see what is happening on the ground, and they often know what needs to be corrected. Yet the information reaching the top is often softened along the way. People have become reluctant to bring bad news. Meetings have become exercises in agreement rather than opportunities to question whether something is actually working. Institutions have become better at hearing what people want them to hear than confronting what is actually happening. That is why mistakes are repeated, programmes continue to fail, and public resources are lost-not necessarily because nobody knew there was a problem, but because those who knew were not willing to say it.

  Perhaps my friend was right about something important; the real danger is not that Uganda has lost its intelligent people, but that some of its intelligent people have learnt to survive by hiding the very qualities that make them valuable. A country cannot benefit fully from intelligent people if its institutions make them afraid to think, question, and speak.