Box 1.3: The Politics of Urban Governance in Kampala and Kigali
▲ Kisenyi, Kampala. ©Shack Dwellers International. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
▲ Kigali, Rwanda. ©Dylan Walters. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
This political manoeuvring has impeded effective urban planning and management in Kampala. By contrast, development has proceeded swiftly in Kigali in recent years in line with the city’s ambitious master plan. Tough zoning and permit laws are followed to the letter, with poor and rich held to equal standards, while city authorities are easily able to clear squatters off public land slated for approved projects. While the somewhat authoritarian nature of governance in Kigali has generated some controversy - and may ultimately prove unsustainable - the pace of urban development has been impressive, earning the city a UNHabitat Scroll of Honour Award in 2008. These different development trajectories
Sources: Green (2012); Goodfellow and Titeca (2012); Goodfellow (2012)46
are arguably the result of divergent political priorities. In Kampala, the government perceives itself to be politically vulnerable; thus catering to the interests of voting blocs is paramount. In Kigali, memory of Rwanda’s past violence and instability remains strong, and the government prioritizes the provision of stability and order. Its approach to urban planning is a natural outgrowth of this view. The lesson is clear: where the political interests of national governments are at odds with the objectives and efforts of city authorities, urban development is retarded. Where national governments offer support and autonomy to local authorities, rapid and significant change is possible.
THE STATE OF AFRICAN CITIES 2014
The significance of national political dynamics in shaping urban development outcomes is illustrated by an analysis of the divergent trajectories of Kampala, Uganda, and Kigali, Rwanda, in recent years. In Kampala, the planning and regulatory efforts of city authorities have been routinely thwarted by political intervention from above. It is widely recognized by the populace that the president is willing to interfere in the city’s affairs to secure political support. Projects have often been delayed or cancelled at the behest of groups who promise to deliver votes in return, and efforts to regulate the informal transport sector have consistently been thwarted by presidential interference.
29