By Elizabeth R. Auma K,  A Heartbeat in Every Policy

My very first encounter with Trade Policy development was during the review of the Cooperative Society Act 1991. It was a deep analysis class. Subsequent encounters with policy development offered deep insight. These include Trade in Services, the Competition and Consumer Protection 2014, the National Export Development Strategy 2015-2020, and many more. Additionally, the review of the National Trade Policy 2025 taught me key principles. These principles have shaped my understanding of Trade Policy. Bringing a policy to life is like crossing a beautiful stream. However, sometimes waves can toss you in unintended directions. These waves reveals lessons we either learn from or proudly ignore. Let us look through five common mistakes the waves have revealed. We equally pick learning gear:

The Assumer

During the recent review of the National Trade Policy, both public and private sector stakeholders present, an assumption came up. The assumption was based on experience, not facts, which led to no consensus until the private sector provided facts. To someone unwilling to learn, this would lead to an unproductive argument. Hence, my line of thought, ‘the deeper you go into policy development, the more you either learn or drown in assumption.’ The latter is dangerous, not only in trade policy but in any area of life. Some policy drafters think that experience equals to understanding of the problems of private sector. At this stage, viewing through Mama Sarah’s lenses provides insights into the facts. Trade policy development is not experience but facts. (Please revisit my previous posts to understand Mama Sarah)

Misguided role

I have come to appreciate that in reality, the drafters of the policy are not the initiators. Mama Sarah is. She is the businesswoman at the market stall. The exporter managing border challenges. Additionally, she embodies the young entrepreneur trying to build a dream in a complex system. Why? Their compliment or complaint of the trade environment births the policy idea long before it reaches a boardroom. Therefore, the drafter’s role is to refine, structure, and translate those experiences into actionable frameworks.

The Lone Leader

The saying; it takes a village to raise a child,’ resonates well with trade policy development. Once a policy idea is birthed, it ceases to belong to an individual, it belongs to a team. Through shared ownership, an idea that initially seems refined in a single mind starts to align with reality. This happens through research, analysis, criticism, which can be positive or negative, reflection, and debate.

I learned this early in my career under the mentorship of the late Ambassador Julius B. Onen (R.I.P.), a leader whose wisdom continues to shape my service. During a discussion on a critical policy issue, the lead officer happened to be on leave. The team proposed recalling him so work could proceed. Ambassador Onen paused and said something: “Don’t call him back. Prepare and defend the document tomorrow at midday.” Moving forward, he directed a new approach. Every policy process must have at least three officers capable of authoritatively presenting and defending it. It was nearly the close of business, and many of us young officers silently thought he was being unreasonable. But that day, a principle was birthed: “A good policy is owned by the team, not the leader.”

That lesson reshaped my view of leadership and policy development, not as a personal assignment, but a collective responsibility. When ownership is shared, ideas grow stronger. When it becomes a one-person show, progress moves slower than a snail. Dale Carnegie, in How to Win Friends and Influence People, consistently emphasizes the power of making others feel important. Indeed, when people see their ideas genuinely considered, they naturally offer the very best of themselves.

Losing touch with reality

Eventually, every refined policy returns to the people it was designed to serve. Sometimes it is welcomed. Other times it is questioned. Often, it is rigorously tested to see how well its drafters captured the real experiences of citizens.

In my engagements with Mama Sarah, she sometimes asks, “But how does that really benefit the private sector?” The truth is, no single policy will please everyone at one go. However, the primary beneficiaries of the policy should at least be able to recognize themselves in it.

If the very people for whom we claim to be developing a policy, cannot see their realities reflected in the policy framework, then somewhere along the way, we missed the point. We need to have the courage to go back to the drawing board.

The misunderstood Purpose

Another challenge lies in institutional bottlenecks. Sometimes, policies are viewed as tools for institutional visibility rather than public good. The emphasis shifts when it becomes about how many policies an institution has on the bill board. Purpose is lost when it is about policy count instead of lives impacted.

When one has to negotiate for approval of a Policy document as opposed to objective discussion, purpose is lost. What began as a transformative idea is buried because either the purpose was misaligned or never understood.

The ability to view trade policy development objectively often determines whether a policy gets implemented or not. Some policies become eloquent literature. They could rival Shakespeare in text. However, they fail to touch the lives they were meant to change. As a Policy architect, I believe in this. Trade policy power is not measured by how well it reads. It is measured by how deeply it transforms individual lives.

Misreading the times

When we recently deliberated on the trade remedies policy for Uganda, something profound emerged. This process did not begin in the 2020s. It began more than a decade ago. The same is true for the Competition Law, 2023. I believe the drafters at the time had valid reasons for bringing these proposals forward. However, they never saw the light of day.

Some argued that, as a least developed economy, Uganda did not need such frameworks then. Others felt we lacked both the financial and technical capacity to implement them. Now, these policies returned to the table with stronger justification. The times had changed, and so has our economic landscape. The Competition Law, 2023, then saw the light of day.

Sometimes, ideas we believe will work may be viewed as low priority when examined through a different lens. Many times, we give up. Something we should pick up instead of giving up is this; keep building the case in the background. With time and shifting seasons, circumstances eventually become our greatest ally. They provide a stronger, evidence-based justification grounded in the current realities.  I am eagerly awaiting thorough discussions on the trade remedies policy. Let us see what we learn from the process.

I would like to hear your thoughts on some of the common mistakes we make Trade Policy development.