The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Why is very difficult for Uganda’s opposition to self correct and contribute meaningfully to the country
THE LAST WORD | ANDREW M. MWENDA | Uganda’s opposition has missed many opportunities to contribute meaningfully to our national development. This is because they have adopted a wrong strategy in their politics. They seek to capture power from President Yoweri Museveni. Period. Yet Museveni has effective personal control over the core elements of the state: its finances, its propaganda machinery, the security forces, and even the Electoral Commission. Thus, he has created a situation where the opposition go into elections where their chance of winning is close to zero. They know and appreciate this fact.
Consequently, the opposition has designed a second plan, i.e., to use election campaigns as an opportunity to mobilize the population for a popular insurrection and bring Museveni down through mass protests. This second option has consistently failed since 2006. Why? First, the organizational resources required to implement such a strategy are too complex and vast for the opposition to marshal. Second, to execute such a strategy requires a large urban population. But Uganda’s urban population is only 30%. And historically, urban areas have never formed the NRM’s social base. The party is rooted in rural areas, which host 70% of the population.
Besides, the Museveni system is so well organised that it is easy for the state to penetrate urban society and disorganize, manipulate, bribe, cajole and demobilize any planned mass action. Indeed, each time the opposition has attempted mass insurrection (the best example being the walk-to-work), the Museveni system has been very quick and effective in penetrating the opposition, bribing some of its leaders and co-opting them, intimidating and jailing some, sowing seeds of discord and confusion in their ranks and, thereby demobilizing the infrastructure for mass insurrection.
So in such circumstances the best option for the opposition is to find ways to work with Museveni. This means that rather than look at elections as an opportunity to defeat him or to stimulate mass insurrection, they should see elections as a way to build a strong post-election negotiating position. The opposition performance was very good in the 2006, 2016 and 2021 elections. Instead of using this strength to engage in negotiations with Museveni, they saw it as an opportunity to chest-thump, to posture, and to act arrogant and bellicose. In the process they have missed the best chance to participate in national development.
The reason for this failure is that the opposition has always adopted a strategy of “all or none” (we either get everything we want or nothing). That is a disastrous strategy given their weakness relative to Museveni. Each time an opportunity to negotiate with the government has arisen, the leader of the opposition, especially Dr. Kizza Besigye, and now Bobi Wine, have put forth conditions that are so unrealistic that they sound delusional. Indeed, they behave as if they were the stronger party. The vanquished cannot dictate terms to the victor in any negotiation. It is victors that do.
For instance, in 2011-2012, I worked with Conrad Nkutu to arrange a talk between Museveni and Besigye and the wider opposition. Besigye gave us five conditions for the talk, and Museveni gave four. During the discussions for these talks, Besigye rejected all the conditions from Museveni, and the president gracefully withdrew them. On the other hand, Besigye stuck to all his conditions, and Museveni gracefully accepted them.
Here was a defeated Besigye (he had won only 26% against Museveni’s 68% in the 2011 elections) dictating terms to a victorious Museveni, and he (Museveni) had gracefully accepted Besigye’s conditions. I was getting irritated by Besigye’s intransigence. I then asked Museveni why he had withdrawn all his conditions and accepted all Besigye’s conditions. The president told me he didn’t want me or anyone else to think that he is against talks with Besigye. He said he wanted to prove to me that Besigye has always been the obstacle to any talks. And he did.
The opposition in Uganda has two major problems. The first is that it has an exaggerated sense of moral superiority. They believe that their cause is so self-evidently moral, noble, pure and righteous. As a result, they believe that everyone, except the ignorant and those that Museveni has bribed, agrees or has to agree with them. Second, and as a result of the first, they believe public sympathy from the unfairnesses, injustices and brutalities that Museveni inflicts on them is a sufficient political force for their politics.
Consequently, they do not listen to any of their alternative views, and whenever and wherever they do, they respond with vitriol: insults, labels, name-calling and abuses rather than logical arguments and reasons. This self-righteousness is a much more stubborn thing to deal with than self-interest.
Thirdly, they are unable to see that many Ugandans may generally like and admire Museveni, others may be indifferent to him, while the rest that may even dislike the president are not necessarily attracted to them. The fact that a man has been abusing his wife and she has left him doesn’t mean that she will automatically fall in love with the next guy that shows up telling her love stories. In fact, such a woman is less likely to embrace the next guy who comes telling her love stories due to her past experience.
Equally, therefore, many Ugandans who have been disappointed by Museveni and are frustrated by his government are less inclined to buy the opposition promises of emancipation. Remember Museveni came promising the same things that the opposition are promising and hasn’t delivered on many of them. So many Ugandans have become cynical. They no longer see politics as a vehicle for progressive change. Instead, they see politics, both in the government and the opposition as characterized by greed and selfishness.This is why voter turnout in the last election was 52.4%. If we are to discount vote-stuffing that takes place, it’s around 40%.
Therefore, for most Ugandans, the opposition’s assumption of occupying a moral high ground is actually a delusion. What the opposition need to do is step down from that self-assumed moral pedestal to the hard ground of reality, of realpolitik. They need to recognize that they are not crusaders in a moral contest but politicians in a civic struggle. Such sobering advice is what they reject every day, yet it is what they need. To participate meaningfully in our politics and contribute effectively to national development, they need to find the courage, just like Nelson Mandela and Raila Odinga, to talk to Museveni. Otherwise they will keep losing and crying.
*****
amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug
Waiting for the full volume on this and more.
The Tragedy of Multi-Party Democracy in Uganda
Andrew Mwenda’s analysis is characteristically sharp, yet it glides over the elephant in the room… or perhaps, the elephant that now is the room. To speak of opposition “failures” without first acknowledging the systematic dismantling of competitive politics is to critique a boxer for losing after his hands have been tied behind his back.
The piece wisely advises opposition leaders to step down from their “moral pedestal” and engage in realpolitik. But realpolitik must begin with a clear-eyed view of the playing field… one where the goalposts are not only moved but occasionally stored in the presidential basement for safekeeping. When one player enjoys a permanent, affectionate relationship with the referee, the linesman, the groundskeepers, and the ball itself, the game ceases to be a sport. It becomes a carefully choreographed performance, where the outcome is known before the whistle blows.
Mwenda rightly notes that elections are not a path to power but a potential platform for negotiation. Yet negotiation presupposes a mutual interest in bargaining. When the balance of power is so charmingly one sided… what incentive exists for the stronger party to offer more than ceremonial concessions? The opposition is urged to talk, but history shows that talks often become a theatre where their demands are graciously accepted… and then gently filed under “pending indefinitely.”
The tragedy is not merely Bobi Wine’s, nor Besigye’s. It is Uganda’s collective tragedy… the quiet acceptance of a political culture where multi-party democracy has slowly been retired, like an old flag folded away and replaced with a more durable, single-colour banner. The electorate’s declining turnout speaks not only to cynicism but to a weary recognition that when choice becomes merely cosmetic… abstention becomes the last form of protest.
Uganda’s opposition may indeed suffer from self-righteousness and strategic blunders. But let us not mistake the symptom for the disease. The disease is the normalization of a system where political competition is politely discouraged, dissent is gently neutralized, and the machinery of state wears the permanent smile of a host who has already decided who stays for dinner.
In this new dispensation… where the rules are written by, and for, the perennial incumbent… the opposition is left to choose between shouting into the void or learning to whisper in the corridors of power. Neither option promises democracy. Both accept that the multi-party experiment has been quietly retired, replaced by a more “stable” arrangement… one where the throne is not so much contested as gently polished by loyal attendants, who are in turn rewarded for their loyalty… and everybody else is automatically branded as a “rebel”.
Perhaps the real “last word” is this… Ugandans have not yet decided whether to mourn multi party democracy or to celebrate its elegant replacement. But until that choice is faced, all political strategies… including those proposed by Mwenda… will merely be acts in a play whose ending was written long ago. It seems Mwenda is patriotically persuading all Ugandans to embrace learned helplessness on a national level.
I must correct a significant oversight in my initial response… apologies to Mr. Mwenda for this oversight.
Mwenda’s argument is, in fact, firmly grounded in his clear-eyed analysis of the profoundly uneven political landscape… he explicitly details the incumbent’s control over the state’s core institutions. His recommendation for the opposition to engage rather than confront is premised entirely on this recognition of the current, non-competitive dispensation. My earlier response claimed that he glossed over this reality, which was not true.
The core of my argument, however, still stands. Acknowledging the imbalance is honest and honourable of Mwenda, but his proposal… that the opposition’s only meaningful choice is to negotiate for a seat at the table within a system meticulously designed to perpetuate its own dominance – a system in which all non loyalists are automatically branded as “rebels” …this is precisely what signals the quiet collapse of multi-party democracy. It’s not Bobi Wine’s tragedy, nor Besigye’s tragedy… it’s the tragedy of multi party democracy in Uganda.
The tragedy is not in the diagnosis, but in the prescribed acceptance of a dispensation in which electoral contests no longer serve their intended purpose.
AI garbage. Cease and desist.
If you believe there are flaws in my reasoning… engage me.
Which part of my comment would you like to discuss? Which points did you find unclear?
I remain open to dialogue on the issues under discussion… including Mwenda’s proposal, the feasibility of opposition engagement, and the future of multiparty democracy in Uganda.
Let’s keep the conversation focused.
You’re simply proving the problem he is diagnosing. Stuck on the same format of sounding politically grandiose and pushing back against suggestions for constructive engagement, yet too feeble to lift the elephant. And, BTW, 2031 is already here, for the information of the concerned.
You raise a fair point about the tone of political discourse, and perhaps the format does risk sounding grandiose.
Yet the substance of the concern remains… if the opposition’s path forward is to “find ways to work with” the incumbent, what becomes of the specific promises made to those who voted for them? Those votes were not blank checks for collaboration… they were often cast against the current dispensation, in the hope of creating something completely different… ushering in a brand new political reality. To interpret those votes as a mandate for accommodation feels less like strategy and more like alchemy.
Again, what would be the point of voting, if voting for change results in more of the same?
One might respectfully ask… does Mwenda’s proposed model of engagement, where electoral expression is converted into collaborative capital, genuinely curb corruption or enhance accountability to voters? Or does it instead validate a political economy where power is never truly contested, only politely renegotiated among familiar players?
2031 may already be here… but the question of whose interests are served when opposition becomes an annex of the incumbent’s project remains open.
Also… Mwenda’s prescription for opposition engagement is hardly novel. For decades, we have witnessed the well-trodden path of opposition figures crossing to “work with the incumbent.” The results are a familiar trilogy… the silence of abandoned causes, the hypocrisy of adopted vices, and in too many cases, a metamorphosis where the reformed critic becomes the most brazen practitioner of the corruption they once decried. No need to name and shame, even that strategy has failed… they are known and they are shameless. These defectors often become the system’s worst advertisement, their excesses making the very structure they joined look unsustainable. Given this history, Mwenda’s proposal lacks the transformative wow factor one might have expected from him.
This logic of accommodation seems powerless against the nation’s central pathology… the metastasizing scale of corruption. In the 1990s, Teddy Seezi Cheeye’s Uganda Confidential exposed corruption scandals involving millions of shllings. We were promised an end to it. The scandals grew to billions, then trillions, each wave met with sterner yet emptier promises. In what would seem to be an admission of defeat in terms of human capacity, national prayers were held to pray away the corruption… only to make a mockery of God. The opposition has tirelessly demanded accountability… to no avail. If decades of solemn vows have failed to curb this tide, how would a strategy of co-option suddenly succeed?
By the reasoning behind Mwenda’s proposal, we may soon be told the problem is not corruption itself, but a public stubbornly unwilling to accept it, and journalists impudent enough to report it.
Even if we look at Mwenda’s proposal through other lenses besides that of the burning issue of corruption, it still doesn’t hold water and needs a lot more work.
“Constructive”ly engaging means that key issues must be considered in the engagements. It’s not betrayal of the cause but annexing the resources of the other side to advance logical interests. Voters are led, not the other way round. If you’re a leader and voters hold you at ransom while not giving you adequate push to cause a mainstream transition, be sure your days are numbered. Once they start on you you wouldn’t like it. We really hope they don’t get tired of Kyagulanyi so fast.
Your point about leadership and voter “ransom” is revealing, and it gets to the heart of the matter. It reflects a logic where power flows only downward, and citizens are treated not as sovereign principals but as obstacles or assets to be managed.
This reasoning betrays the fundamental inversion at the core of our political dispensation. Voters are supposed to be powerful… that is the entire premise of elections, the reason we invest time, resources, and hope in the ritual of choosing leaders. When that relationship is flipped… when leaders see themselves as patrons to be served, rather than servants to be held accountable… then “constructive engagement” becomes a negotiation between elites over a public that is merely an audience.
It reminds me of a striking remark made by a government official (I won’t name him) during a 2018 ACODE tax policy meeting, to the effect that “citizens are supposed to take care of their leaders, leaders are not there to serve citizens.” (which angered a citizen so much that she stormed the meeting and vented her valid anger until she had to be politely escorted out by a veteran politician and renowned feminist… the video of that rant went viral, I’m sure you remember it well). That problematic sentiment, laid bare by that government official live on television, clarifies the political cosmology we are being asked to accept… a system that places voters last as powerless plebs, and leaders first as permanent stewards.
In such a framework, what does “constructive engagement” actually mean? It cannot be about advancing public accountability or citizen interests, because the premise itself demotes the citizen to a secondary concern. Engagement becomes a transaction over who gets to sit closer to the throne, not how the throne itself can be made accountable to the people.
If the goal is simply to “annex the resources of the other side,” as you put it, then we are not discussing democracy. We are discussing elite co-option… a process that may change the players at the table, but never the fact that the public remains outside the room.
The fear you express… that voters may “get tired” of a leader… that should be the healthy engine of democracy, not a threat to be managed. When it is framed as a danger, it confirms that the system no longer sees the people as its masters, but as its subjects.
Name one (major) corruption case reported by the opposition and which is not from Government’s own audit reports?
That is like a man who repeatedly cheats on his wife, and when she finally confronts him, he retorts, “But I’m the one who showed you the proof… why are you complaining?”
The fact that the most comprehensive evidence of corruption comes from government audit reports is not the exoneration you seem to think it is. It is, in fact, the ultimate indictment… a system so saturated with impunity that the very institution responsible for preventing corruption instead documents it in granular detail… followed by zero consequences.
The opposition’s role isn’t to become a duplicate auditor… it is to demand accountability for what those audits reveal. When the same entity that audits also controls enforcement, prosecution, and political protection, the report becomes not a tool of justice, but a ledger of tolerated theft. Pointing to the source of the leak does not sanitize the crime… it highlights the plumbing of a broken system.
Your question inadvertently makes the opposition’s case for them… why is it that the most devastating evidence of corruption emerges from officialdom itself, yet it always vanishes into the ether of inaction? The scandal isn’t about who reported it… the scandal is about the guilty parties involved and the fact that they face no consequences and their impunity is continuously being normalized.
I wish to acknowledge Andrew Mwenda’s genuine effort to grapple with the profound brokenness of Uganda’s multiparty democracy. His honesty in naming the stark power imbalances is both rare and necessary. I am not here to root for the opposition or the ruling party… I am disheartened by the visible limitations of both.
If those opposition figures who have “found ways to work with” the system often end up muted, co-opted, or even more corrupt than those they once criticized, what does that say about the system itself? It suggests that the problem isn’t merely who holds power, but how power itself is structured, and protected.
After decades of normalized corruption and institutionalized disrespect for voters, I fear that even if the opposition were to achieve the impossible and win an election, we might merely witness a change of guards, not of governance. The system itself is upside-down… and those who enter it often become reflections of its distortions.
This brings to mind what several Pan-African analysts have often observed… that independence in many African nations simply replaced foreign oppressive regimes with local oppressive ones… new flags, same foundations. For the ordinary citizen, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
It’s a tricky balance… calling out the opposition for perpetual defeatism, while also recognizing that asking them to integrate into a corrupted architecture may simply reproduce the same ills under a different banner.
What many of us quietly yearn for is not just a reshuffling of the same players, but the possibility of a clean page… a fresh start… with collective hope, optimism, determination, and the firm belief that we actually have a fair chance at getting this governance thing right… the same energy that propelled Uganda forward in 1986. That “unbwogable” energy that Kenyans once enjoyed… or that “rainbow nation” energy that South Africans once enjoyed.
Even if new leaders falter, at least their roots would not be entangled in decades of entrenched patronage. And if they disappoint, voters should have the power to peacefully try again… with the incumbent, or with another alternative… perhaps even a return to “another rap”, that’s if Mzee would still be willing and able to come back with fresh energy and new ideas after a voter-requested hiatus.
That cyclical, sovereign choice is what multiparty democracy is meant to guarantee… that’s the whole point of having elections.
What we are missing, perhaps, is not just better opposition tactics, but the political space for genuine renewal… and the faith that such renewal is still possible before it is too late. Is it too late?
Let’s briefly examine the feasibility of Mr. Mwenda’s proposal through the lens of another burning issue… one of many elephants in the room that most Ugandans are genuinely afraid to even mention… the issue of state-sponsored violence. The beatings, the abductions, the disappearances, the indefinite detentions, the torture, the deaths. How can a person like Dr. Kizza Besigye, who has been… and continues to be… on the receiving end of so much of this violence, genuinely “find ways to work with” the system? How can Bobi Wine, his family, colleagues, and supporters, who have also endured… and continue to endure… so much violence and trauma, be expected to negotiate from a place of trust? Through this lens, Mr. Mwenda’s prescription can feel less like political strategy and more like a taunt directed at those victimized for merely exercising their constitutional right to participate in democratic processes. This is a sore point that needed mentioning in the spirit of this candid discussion that has been provoked and sponsored by Mr Mwenda… and I’ll leave it there.
This reflection leads me to a deeper, more personal lament. I truly miss the days when Uganda made headlines across the region, the continent, and the world… for all the right reasons. We were once known for having the kind of able leadership that could show the rest of Africa how governance is done. We had a reputation for unstoppable momentum, for turning corners decisively… whether in confronting insecurity, taming inflation, fighting HIV/AIDS, building infrastructure, or fostering a democracy that, however imperfect, felt robust and promising. Uganda stood out as an exception… a country on the rise with so much promise, studied by academics… admired and respected globally.
But somewhere along the way, that capacity to turn corners faded. Corruption became entrenched, indiscipline crept into the army, human rights were eroded, torture entered the lexicon, elections grew questionable, multiparty democracy struggled, the judiciary wavered, tribalism simmered, and the parliament became bloated and useless. We are still moving… onward, perhaps, and in some respects upward… but the dynamism, the co-creation of a bright and promising future, the clarity of purpose, the moral and institutional confidence that once defined us… all those things have mostly nose-dived.
What would it take for Uganda to regain that capacity… not just to protect the static gains we’ve made, but to rediscover the momentum that once caused the world to look to us as a case study in turning the impossible into the achievable? How do we restore not just governance, but the spirit of collective and participatory governance… the kind that puts voters first and earns respect, not fear… that invites study, not pity… that turns corners not only for ourselves, but as a light for others?
I leave that as an open question… one I believe lives quietly in the hearts of many who still remember what Uganda once dared to be.
Through the lens of yet another burning issue…
I remember when the word “investor” meant something serious… entities that brought capital, created hundreds of jobs, and sparked impressive spin-off economic activity… often ushering in entirely new industries that created sustainable opportunities for self-employment and growth. Today, when most Ugandans hear “investor,” what comes to mind is far more humbling… land-grabbing, astonishing concessions never afforded to local entrepreneurs, hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money handed to non-performers (some of whom haven’t produced even a teaspoon of sugar despite years of subsidies), individuals with solid track records of non-delivery being rewarded with control of entire industries… What happened to us? What happened to that Uganda that we used to be?
This regression brings me back to the practicality of Mr. Mwenda’s proposal. Given this reality… where state resources and economic policy are so often structured around patronage rather than productivity… how would Bobi Wine, or Kizza Besigye, or Nandala Mafabi, or Mugisha Muntu, “finding ways to work with” this system… let’s say they followed Mr. Mwenda’s advice and they were able to miraculously succeed in squeezing themselves into this kind of dysfunction… how would that help resolve any of these fundamental distortions? Would their presence in the room change the rules of the game… or simply provide a new face to the same old playbook?
If the system itself incentivizes and protects economic failure while punishing genuine enterprise, what does “constructive engagement” actually look like? Is the expectation that opposition figures join in administering… and by extension, legitimizing… a structure designed to exclude the very people they claim to represent? Or would their participation be conditioned on terms so marginal that their constituents’ hopes for accountability and reform remain, once again, deferred indefinitely?
These aren’t rhetorical questions… they go to the heart of whether political accommodation can ever translate into systemic change, or whether it merely repackages stagnation under a broader umbrella of consensus.
Please convince us, Mr. Mwenda.
Nooo! A leader provides strategic direction to his or her support base to achieve set objectives. That’s what makes one a leader. For a voter to be led doesn’t negate that power is in their hands. Power must have direction and a point of contact with reality of challenges at hand. Not forgetting that the incumbent (also) has people behind him. If you doubt that, then i can assure you you will not see the promised land anytime soon until you review your methods as advised. One can as well choose to be a lifetime dissenter.
Ah. I see.
So, if opposition may have nothing to show for organic cases reported, are they mostly into cover-ups, “counterpart eating” and public show for political gains?
Okay.
If they cooperated or went in but didn’t spur the necessary change, then it would mean that they are not the awaited “messiahs”. The way we get tired of dysfunctional governance is how we get tired of dysfunctional change merchantry. Over to the “tragedy diagnostician”!
Wama Mr. Mwenda… please convince us (including us “currently non-partisan” patriots who have been impressed by most of your articles for a very long time).
Rather than convincing us that the opposition is flawed or that the incumbent is not quite perfect (we acknowledge and appreciate the many gains we have enjoyed under his able leadership, but that’s not the discussion we are having right now)… could you please convince us that your proposal can actually work?
Please show us, in practical terms, how it might be brought into reality. Put some extra detail on the how, taking into consideration the current tricky dispensation and all the concerns raised so far.
If figures like Bobi Wine, Kizza Besigye, Nandala Mafabi, or Mugisha Muntu were to “find ways to work with the system” as you suggest… what exactly would that look like on the ground? How would it differ from the well-worn path of co-option, silence, or complicity we’ve seen before?
More importantly, if your model were implemented, what tangible benefits would citizens stand to gain? How would it address the elephants in the room… including but not limited to… state-sponsored violence, institutionalized corruption, economic patronage, and the quiet erosion of multiparty choice… and all the other stubborn issues of governance that have been evading resolution and disappointing us as patriotic Ugandans.
We are all tired of being stuck.
So, I invite you… not as a critic, but as a fellow seeker of a way forward… to expand your proposal. Flesh it up. Detail it. Refine it. Strengthen it. Polish it with your brilliance. Name it. Own it. Copyright it. Trademark it. Show us your best effort. Convince us, please.
Present it not just as an opinion, but as a gift to the people of Uganda… a real, believable, and hopeful blueprint for a politics that serves citizens, not just players.
We are paying full attention and waiting with hopeful and open minds. Convince us.