Why there is Museveni fatigue in Uganda - Part I

No Ugandan leader has been in power longer than Yoweri Museveni. On February 26, he clocked 31 years as President of Uganda. From 1986 to 1996, he ruled as an unelected military conqueror. Yet he had assured citizens that he was only an interim leader who would put Uganda on a democratic path and retire after four years. Since he was head-of-State and also Speaker of the National Resistance Council, the parliament he started while still a guerilla fighter, he manipulated the legislature to extend his unelected tenure.

He justified his undemocratic hold on power arguing that the country had deep political wounds and the turmoil of an election would only reignite conflict. He operated a dubious system which abhorred political parties. He called that system “The Movement System”.
Meanwhile, he started a long constitution-making process.

Since he had refused to allow presidential elections in 1989, this process was one of the reasons he gave for his continued one-man rule. He also claimed that the war in the north was a threat to national stability, which had to be resolved before elections.
In the meantime, he became a poster boy for the renewed hope that Western countries had in the future of Africa .

Museveni was touted in Western capitals as one of a new breed of African leader. Former US President Bill Clinton called him “a beacon of hope” for Africa during his 1998 African tour.
He became a favourite of the donors.

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund promoted Uganda as a working model for economic recovery. In addition, Museveni’s bold and open policies in confronting the HIV/Aids epidemic ensured that Uganda saw the long-term danger of Aids ahead of most African countries that still lived in denial. Museveni was garlanded wherever he went.
But beneath all this shine, Uganda’s future as a democracy was under threat due to increased militarism and the deliberate failure to build durable democratic institutions. Moreover, an intractable civil war was ravaging the north of the country. Still, Uganda was touted as a peaceful country. The economy was hailed as a model to be emulated by other poor countries. Poverty was said to be declining and Uganda’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper was a subject of debate around the world. Criticising Museveni became increasingly difficult. Museveni was wholeheartedly embraced as a man the West could do business with.

The real problems of Uganda, namely lack of democracy, the slow genocide in the north, the alarming rate of corruption, the widening gap between the rich and poor, massive corruption, poor service delivery and the deep ethnic cleavages in the country, were swept under the carpet of complicity and indifference.
When Museveni called for elections in 1996, he must have expected a smooth ride but the stiff challenge he faced from a unified Opposition startled him. Museveni’s record was challenged by Dr Paul Ssemogerere, then leader of the Democratic Party. All Museveni could say was that he was the only one who could control the army and electing anyone else would plunge the country into anarchy. Academics like Ali Mazrui gave the necessary intellectual ammunition. Plan for multipartism. Do not plunge into it, they declared.

In the next part, we continue our exposition.