By Oweyegha-Afunaduula
In the world in general and Uganda in particular democracy is reduced to elections or, for that matter, political democracy. However, democracy has many dimensions, namely: political,spiritual, economic, cultural, ecological and environmental, to name but a few of them.Thus, we can speak of political democracy, economic democracy, spiritual democracy, cultural democracy, ecological democracy and environmental democracy. Let me say a little about each of these types of democracy before I address the topic“Environmental corruption is sabotaging environmental democracy in Uganda”..
Political Democracy
Political democracy is a system of government where citizens have a say in their political leaders through various methods, including voting, elections, and other forms of political participation. It emphasizes the principles of equal representation, fairness, and the protection of individual freedoms. At its core, political democracy is about “rule by the people,” meaning citizens have the power to influence government decisions. Political democracy, specifically, is achieved when certain political conditions are met. These conditions usually involve the adoption of a constitution and laws that give the people supreme power. In a political democracy, the people are the ultimate source of political power. However, in countries like Uganda, where military control of the actions and movements of the people is a critical issue in governance, rule of the people is just a dream.
Cultural Democracy
Simply stated, “Cultural Democracy” is the notion that everybody’s heritage and cultural expression is worthwhile and deserving of an equitable share of whatever resources are available (Botkin, 2010). Broadly speaking, cultural democracy emphasises active public engagement in all aspects of culture, from its definition and creation to its experience and access. It’s about shifting the understanding of culture to be more inclusive, participatory, and democratic, moving beyond a narrow view of culture as a product of elite institutions. Cultural Democracy requires a paradigm shift towards a process of continuous and intense community engagement, using culture as a catalyst for addressing social issues: art of the people, made by the people, and presented for the people (Botkin, 2010).
Spiritual Democracy
Spiritual democracy, as outlined by Rajaji and Gandhiji, emphasises personal and communal equality, aligns with Whitman’s vision of universal brotherhood, and upholds diverse spiritual expressions, transcending traditional political frameworks and structures. It is a concept believed by 19th century Indian intellectual, C. Rajagopalachari (popularly known as Rajaji) who was a prolific writer on wide-ranging and diverse topics, including world peace, disarmament, free enterprise, moral and ethical values in public life, religion, etcand 20th century father of Gandhian philosophy – Mahatma Gandhi (Gandhiji)-that emphasises freedom and equality at a personal and community level, transcending mere political structures. Remember that Gandhi’s philosophy encompassed a wide range of ideas including nonviolent resistance, truth, and self-reliance, which he applied to social and political life.
Ecological Democracy
Ecological democracy combines principles of democracy and ecological awareness, advocating for decision-making processes that prioritize both human well-being and the health of the planet. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of all life and recognizes the intrinsic value of nature, advocating for a system where all affected parties, including humans and the environment, have a voice in decision-making.
Environmental Democracy
Environmental democracy refers to the idea that public participation is crucial for making sound and equitable decisions regarding land, natural resources, and the environment. It’s based on the principle that citizens have the right to access environmental information, participate in decision-making, and seek redress for environmental harm. Environmental democracy has three pillars: transparency, participation and justice. WFD supports a democratic response to global environmental crises by working with parliaments, political parties and civil society.
Environmental democracy implies democratic environmental decision-making whereby public participation is emphasised. There is no environmental democracy if the public is excluded from environmental decision making.
The public needs to have a voice in environmental decision-making. This is the foundation of “environmental democracy”, a concept that united open government approaches following the Chernobyl Disaster in 1986 and the 1992 Rio Summit for the Earth. In response, governments strengthened right to information laws, created pollutant registers and implemented environmental impact assessments (EIA) and other public oversight processes.
Leopold-type matrices have been the most commonly used EIA methods in the EIA industry. However, EIA Networks have also been used. The first EIA network was developed by Sorensen in 1971 to aid planners reconcile conflicting land uses and make necessary decisions. Unfortunately, EIAs are very expensive. The cost of an EIA method depends on the number of impacts, which have been assessed. It is important to stress that the decision of the cost of the method is not made by the method itself but by those involved in identifying the impacts for the EIA.
It was expected that EIA would promote and support meaningful and effective participation of the public in environmental decision-making. Unfortunately, EIA deception (or sustainability deception or environmental deception) is at the centre of environmental decision-making (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2025) to ensure that governments get the projects they want to be implemented, ostensibly for development, without meaningful and effective public scrutiny, and to enrich firms involved in the planning and implementation of those projects. Frequently governments have connived with the firms and the funding agencies, principally the World Bank, to reduce the influence of public participation in project design and implementation. The EIA has been severally corrupted along many dimensions of development by governments and the corporate world. It was the distortion or corruption of the EIA moved Oweyegha-Afunaduula, Musumba and Muramuzi (2020) to write their article “The Threat of Environmental Corruption Via Huge Dam Projects, and Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2023) to write his articles “Uganda in a State of Corporate Environmental Corruption and Decision-Making.” (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2023), “Environmental Sabotage on the Rise as Accountability of Power Declines” (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2025) and “Environmental Impact Assessment as Sustainability deception: Bujagali Dam in Perspective” (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2025)Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2024) wrote that “Environmental deception combined with political deception is a dangerous combination. It is enemy number one to development, transformation and progress. If we are faced with increasingly debilitating climate change, it is this deadly combination that is responsible. No amount of talking locally, nationally, regionally and globally will do unless we resolve to confront the deadly combination”.
According to the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), environmental democracy is based on the idea that land and natural resource decisions adequately and equitably address citizens’ interests. Rather than setting a standard for what determines a good outcome, environmental democracy sets a standard for how decisions should be made. It adds that at its core, environmental democracy involves three mutually reinforcing rights that, while independently important, operate best in combination: the ability for people to freely access information on environmental quality and problems, to participate meaningfully in decision-making, and to seek enforcement of environmental laws or compensation for damages.
Environmental democracy is not a peripheral concern – the ability of our precious democratic institutions and values both to respond to and to survive our environmental crises should be one of the central questions of our time (Lee, 2023). It is also a complex and a rich topic, and when allied with the role of law, could be approached in many different ways. In her paper, Lee (2023) has explored the environmental and democratic potential of procedural (specifically participatory) rights in law. She has focused on two regional conventions: the UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; and the UNCEPAL Escazú Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean. These two Agreements provide an opportunity to explore the ways in which law speaks, or might speak, to the features that characterise environmental democracy.
In their article “Enhancing Environmental Democracy in Kenya”,Kariuki Muigua and Paul N.Musyim (2018) observed that environmental democracy may be a recent coinage but what it belies are concepts that have been in use all along. The term reflects increasing recognition that environmental issues must be addressed by all, or at-least a majority of those affected by their outcome, not just by the minority comprising the governments and leading private-sector actors. It captures the principle of equal rights for all including the public, community groups, advocates, industrial leaders, workers, governments, academics and other professionals to be involved in environmental governance. It connotes the right of all whose daily lives are affected by the quality of the environment to participate in environmental decision-making as freely as they do in other public interest matters such as education, health care, finance and government. Access to environmental information and justice for all those who choose to participate in such decision-making is integral to the concept of environmental democracy. In a word, wrote Kariuki Muigua and Paul N. Musyim, thechallenges facing the entrenchment of environmental democracy in Kenya today can, and should, be turned into opportunities for a better tomorrow in which all Kenyans enjoy a clean and healthy environment within an atmosphere that allows the realisation of the cherished dream of sustainable development. Environmental democracy is attainable. Indeed, it is an imperative for Kenya if the goal of sustainable development is to see the light of day. This also goes for Uganda and other underdeveloped countries.
Foundations of Environmental Democracy
The foundations of Environmental Democracy were firmly established in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which emerged from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, also known as the Earth Summit: “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”
While the concept of Environmental Democracy has existed for over two decades, there have been remarkably few efforts to operationalise it from a democracy support perspective via targeted programming (WFD, 2020).
Status of Environmental Democracy in Uganda
In this article I want to focus on the status of environmental democracy in Uganda.Uganda has established some important legal mechanisms to support environmental democracy.She has also designed environmental policies to effect conservation-oriented policies. However, Twesigye Morrison Rwakakamba (2009) sought to establish whether the environmental policies were effective at all levels of society. Tumushabe, Bainomugisha and Makumbi (2002) addressed consolidation of environmental democracy in Uganda through access to justice, information and participation.By addressing these areas for improvement, it could do more to promote transparency, public participation, and access to justice. However, since then, justice has increasingly been militarised, information restricted and the public marginalised from effective participation in environmental conservation and management, with government preference of militarised politics and militarised management and conservation of natural resources (e.g., Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2025).
Way back in 2006 Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2006) wrote thus: “Development, a prized thing in Uganda, is a broad concept with multiple dimensions, though the tendency has been to pursue it in economic terms. The social, ecological, moral, ethical and environmental dimensions have attracted little attention. Development should mean qualitative improvement in human rights, democracy and freedom of choice. When one says he or she is experiencing development, that person should be saying that today more than yesterday and tomorrow more than today, one is enjoying maximum progress in all the dimensions of human welfare”. However, due to presidentialism and environmental corruption of the Office of President, in concert with international financial institutions (IFIs), these ideals have been consistently and persistently violated, thereby sabotaging environmental democracy and environmental development in Uganda.
Ganda (2020) found that corruption worsens the environmental sustainability situation.Many of the anti-corruption policies proposed for the environmental and resource management (ERM) sectors draw on the principal-agent theory. The political science literature on corruption found that theory to have limited application when corruption is systemic and the principal is corruption. Tacconi and Williams (2020) suggest that the analysis of corruption and anti-corruption in countries with systemic corruption should draw to a greater extent on collective action theory to identify more effective policies.
Environmental corruption in Uganda in the 21st century has President Tibuhaburwa Museveni at it s centre. Therefore, if environmental corruption is sabotaging environmental democracy, which it is, then we can extricate President Tibuhaburwa Museveni from it. The President has all infrastructural development in his hands even if he has privatised and liberalised the Uganda economy. There is no private investor in Uganda -foreign and local – of sizeable magnitude who never started and ended with the President before investing in Uganda. Most corporate investors owe their low environmental restrictionsto their business in all the dimensions of the environment to President Museveni. They have, as desired by the President, got tax holidays for 10 years, freedom to take all their money out of the country, c heap labour, start up capital using public money, and “free” land by presidential design. This is of course unfair to most local investors, but some local investors in the good books of the President have accessed public money for their start up capital, don’t pay taxes or are forgiven paying taxes. Or else they have easily got declared bankrupt.
The direct intervention of the President in the business cycle has not only led to much haemorrhage of taxpayer’s money, but has sabotaged environmental democracy, with the greatest losers being the masses of the indigenes of Uganda. The indigenes have lost their ancestral lands and natural resources with no hope of benefiting in any way. The beneficiaries are the Indians, Chinese, Banyarwanda (a constitutionally created indigenous group) and other foreigners, including the new categorise of refugees all of whom have no regard for the environment of Uganda.
In terms of dam building environmental democracy has been eroded through the environmental corruption of the government of Uganda, dam construction firms,dam construction consulting firms, dam construction funding international financial institutions (IFIs). These are all intricately intertwined in the corporate-government circle of environmental corruption committed to building the global money economy and characterised by government-corporate circle of secrecy at the centre of which is is “business confidentiality”.
The motive of profit for those who make the political development decisions, those who fund the projects and those who provide the consulting services is the driving force of environmental corruption and the factor behind so much erosion of environmental democracy in Uganda. It is the one responsible for rendering environmental impact assessment (EIA) of development projects in Uganda almost useless and only performed to environmentally legitimise the projects. This explains why the failed dam project of Isimba hydropower dam has embarrassed the government of Uganda and cost the tax payer highly because of the corruption of its cost and because it has been reported to be cracking. Otherwise Isimba hydropower damhas an installed capacity of 183 megawatts (MW). It generates 1,039 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually. This makes it one of the key contributors to Uganda’s total electricity production. However, most of Busoga where it is located is still in darkness – enjoying no environmental democracy in terms of electricity distribution.
For God and My Country
Prof Oweyegha-Afunaduula is a member of Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis
