By Elizabeth R. Auma K, Trade Policy Leader/Bridging Policy, People & Purpose/ Founder, Hearts&Trade

I recently participated in the East African Business Council CEO and Investment Summit. What energized me was not only the conversations around trade and investment, but the innovations within the private sector. Business people showcased what they were doing, the investments they were making, the markets they were entering, and the possibilities they saw in East Africa.

There was a real sense of what East Africa could become. And then came the familiar statement I have heard many times in policy conversations: “Africa has many brilliant policies, but the problem is implementation.” I have heard it so often that, for a moment, I almost accepted it as part of the language of policy. This time I refused to let it sink in and began to wonder: What if we developed a policy on implementation? At first, the question sounded absurd. How can we develop a policy to implement our policies? Wouldn’t we simply be creating another policy that would itself require implementation?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized the question isn’t as absurd as it sounds. It is not that we lack implementation plans. We do have brilliant policies that often tell us who should do what; they identify resources and set timelines and milestones, among other things. Yet, sitting in a room with the private sector, I could still hear the frustration: “The problem is implementation.” This pushes me to ask a deeper question: ‘Why is there still a gap between what we know and what we do?’Why is there a lag between the approved policy and the business experience? Yes, resources may be limited, institutional coordination may be limited, priorities may change, and decisions may wait for other decisions; a monitoring report may tell us that an activity took place without telling us whether the intended change actually happened. Then I thought, sometimes, everyone may agree on what needs to be done, yet the system still struggles to make it happen. But who is the system?

The conversation needs to move beyond asking whether we have implementation plans kwasababu (because) the private sector does not experience a policy as a policy document. Mama Sarah does not experience an EAC protocol as a protocol. She experiences it as the price she pays, the road she travels, the border she crosses, the customs procedure she navigates, the permit she waits for, the electricity that powers her business, the financing she can access, and the market she can reach. For her, the question is not whether an implementation matrix exists. It is about simplifying her business and making it work so it sustains her baby, her home, and her livelihood.

That is why Mama Sarah’s voice matters. Government may say, “The policy has been implemented.” Mama Sarah may ask, “Then why am I still facing the same problem at the border?” Neither question should simply be dismissed. Both are telling us something. Implementation of a policy should therefore ask whether what we planned produced the change the policy was intended to produce.

We have regional policies and protocols. We have national strategies and sector policies. We have reports. Indeed, we do not need another document telling us how to implement. What we need is a stronger culture of closing the gap between knowing and doing. I believe this is where my seemingly absurd question about a “policy on implementation” becomes useful. We literally do not need another policy. We need to make implementation itself a policy priority.

Ultimately, a policy’s value isn’t in the quality of the document produced or the pride in saying we have a policy. I would stand tall hearing Mama Sarah say that, since the government implemented the policy on transit goods, my goods no longer meet the obstacles they used to. I earn better and my business has expanded. And from that, Mama Sarah can pay what she owes to Caesar without cursing Ceaser.