The impact of the LRA war on Acholi material resources is the topic of Sulayman Babiiha’s contribution. He traces the formation and efforts of the Acholi War Debt Claimants Association (AWDCA), which works to get compensation for the cattle lost during the war. In focusing on cows as a lost resource, rather than other livestock, crops, houses or human beings, the Association claimed for an asset that was tangible, but valuable and significant in many ways, both material and immaterial. This resource shifted shape in the course of claims against government. Compensation was in money not cows. Like other resources, these were in the process of becoming. In this case, cattle became cash, a much less visible resource. When the government finally released some money for the AWDCA to distribute to claimants, there was suspicion about who got what and how much the Association kept back as overhead. Babiiha shows how the organization, established in 2005, managed to become the voice of Acholi war claimants. Without support from government or donors, it became the social infrastructure for one aspect of transitional justice. Yet in recent years, government has moved away from using the organization, preferring to deposit the limited compensation it provided directly into individual bank accounts. As a resource, lost cattle were the reason for the creation of the association. The shift from cows to cash as a resource had deep implications for the association. Thus, Babiiha’s article demonstrates two points about resources. They change or become in particular political-economic contexts. And they themselves can change the context, as money changed the politics of the Association.
Enos Kitambo writes about another post-conflict attempt to make resources. In view of high youth unemployment, the Youth Livelihood Programme (YLP) aimed to support youth groups for income generating projects in northern Uganda. Like Babiiha, he focuses on resources for reconstruction, but whereas the AWDCA struggled to obtain funds, financing was available in Kitambo’s case. The challenge was to make it productive in small scale businesses and agricultural enterprises. Kitambo considers three kinds of resources being mobilized in the Youth Livelihood Progamme. The obvious asset was money, the multi-purpose resource that could be used as capital for a variety of enterprises—to buy oxen, purchase seeds, or begin trading in agricultural produce. The second resource needed for almost all the enterprises was land. While the Programme provided financing, the youth had to mobilize land, having none of their own. Yet even with these two resources, many of the entrepreneurial efforts failed. Kitambo found that a third resource, subjective and intangible, was often missing according to his respondents. Personal assets were necessary in order to effectively use the other resources. These included determination, self-discipline, competence, and persistence, together with knowledge and skills. Programme and district officials blamed the youth for being lazy and unmotivated. Surprisingly, even some of the youth criticized themselves for lack of commitment and entrepreneurial ‘mindset’. The question is: how could the necessary personal resources have been cultivated? One answer is through better training and technical supervision. A whole assemblage, or apparatus, of institutions, equipment and ideology is necessary to create and cultivate resources. That assemblage was insufficient in the Youth Livelihood Programme.
The final contribution, by Doreen Chemutai, reinforces this view of resources as created and maintained within a broader assemblage. She analyses the way in which women Members of Parliament cultivate voter perceptions in order to win elections. Women compete with men for the open seats in every constituency—not very successfully. But female representation is ensured by the Ugandan system of affirmative action through reserved seats for women MPs in every district. They are expected to advocate especially for issues affecting women. Chemutai shows, first of all, that voters’ perceptions are shaped differently in rural and urban areas. Cultivating them in rural