
A man casts his vote during the 2016 General Election in Kampala. PHOTO/FILE
The call for peace was a common theme of sermons preached during prayers to celebrate the commencement of this year.
Church of Uganda Archbishop Stephen Kaziimba Mugalu, for example, urged tolerance and accommodation of divergent political views and opinions. He also urged politicians to respect their opponents and desist from using inflammatory language. Above all, he emphasised respect for freedom of choice and association as the country enters yet another election cycle.
“We all cannot belong to one political party. Respect people’s choices. Let them enjoy their freedom,” Dr Kaziimba said.
The clerics’ calls come 10 months before nominations of candidates interested in running for the post of President.
According to the revised roadmap for the 2025/2026 General Election that was released by the Electoral Commission (EC) on July 30, 2024, nomination of presidential candidates is scheduled for October 2 and October 3 this year.
Now, the 2026 elections will be the seventh set of elections that Uganda will be holding since the NRM shot its way into power. It will also be the fifth since Uganda moved away from the no party politics system, also known as the Movement system, and adopted multiparty democracy.
One would expect that Ugandans have over the years acquired knowledge, practical understanding, skills and even confidence to enhance decision-making and problem solving abilities in the management of elections. With 35 years of practicing in the belt, one would expect that every election would come with improved organisation and credibility.
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. The 2021 elections were characterised by some very ugly scenes. Col (rtd) Dr Kizza Besigye, who is incarcerated in Luzira after being abducted from the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, and arraigned before the military General Court Martial where he was charged with illegal possession of firearms, previously described it as the worst that Uganda has had.
“The 2021 elections excelled in demonstrating their tools of maintaining power. Every gun was out. How can you have an election where you have tanks and armoured vehicles all over the place?” Dr Besigye wondered.
Mr David Lewis Rubongoya, the secretary general of Opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) party, recently weighed it, describing it as “an election from hell”.
Questions
So much as the clerics are not saying exactly why they are making passionate appeals for peace and common sense to prevail, it is clear that they are making those pleas because the threats to peace and a credible, free and fair election are clear and present.
In light of those pleas, one cannot help but raise questions about the state of and practice of democracy in Uganda under the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party.
Where art thou?
If the Bertelsmann Stiftung's Transformation (BTI) Index (BTI) 2024, an analysis and evaluation of how developing countries and those in transition go about implementing changes aimed at moving them towards greater democracy and free market economies based on 17 indicators, including, among others, political participation, the rule of law, stability of democratic institutions, political and social integration, is anything to by, Uganda’s growth as a democracy has taken steps back under the NRM.
The report suggests that retrogression has been caused by deviation from the democratic and liberation ideals that it espoused when it took power.
It notes that whereas the NRM promised to preside over a fundamental change in politics, economics, and society; introduced a grassroots based participatory democratic system in the form of Resistance Councils (RCs); presided over a consultative constitution making process that led to the first direct election in 1996; adopted neoliberal economic policies and; embraced a free market economics, those gains have since been lost.
Mr Faruk Kirunda, the special presidential assistant in charge of the press and mobilisation, who also doubles as the deputy spokesperson of the President, dismisses the conclusions of the Index.
“What yardstick have these reporters from BTI used to conclude as such? What was the point at where they started measuring the backward trend that they are talking about?” he asks.
He says democracy was only in name and limited in scope before the NRM grabbed power.
Popular democracy
“Ugandans could not even vote their President directly until 1996. It is President Museveni who has fostered popular, citizen-based democracy, growing the involvement of citizens at all levels in so many ways,” Mr Kirunda says.
He points to the growth of Parliament from the 98 NRC members in 1989 to the current 556 MPs, including 109 members of the Opposition, as a sign of growth, never mind that there have always been questions around whether the country needs such a huge number of legislators.
De-democratisation?
However, whereas the Index is cognisant of some of those arguments, it points to increasing de-democratisation, with decision-making increasingly concentrated in the hands of the President. It also points to the curtailment of freedoms of expression and association.
“Despite claims of being a democracy by the government and its top leaders, Uganda, at its core, has transitioned into an authoritarian system of rule. In this system, the President wields supremacy over all institutions, and a select few powerful individuals hold more sway than entire institutions themselves,” it notes.
It adds: “...Museveni’s leadership has become more autocratic, and his administration has deviated from the democratic and liberation ideals proclaimed in 1986,” an assertion which Mr. Kirunda dismisses, describing President Museveni as “an embodiment of a democrat.”
“You know there is a tendency to classify leaders who have stayed for some time in leadership as dictators or autocrats, but that is a language applied by their competitors in order to attract undue sympathy when they fail to win over the masses,” Mr Kirunda says.
“All the power exercised by the President,” he says, “are provided within the Constitution. Any decision that is deemed illegal or unconstitutional,” he says, “can always be challenged in the courts of law.”
Use of force
The Index also questions the role of the military in Uganda’s politics. It notes that whereas there have been occasional acts of terrorism, incidents of violent crime, and armed robberies, which at times raise doubts about the government’s control over the use of force, the State has a monopoly on the use of force.
It, however, hastens to add that members of the armed forces have repeatedly misused their power.
“The State maintains a substantial monopoly on the use of force, even though there are recurring issues of misuse of this power by members of the armed forces, driven either by personal motivations or political factors,” it states.
The document accuses the armed forces of corruption, abuse of authority, and a lack of professionalism. It also accuses the military of lacking independence, saying it is often influenced by President Museveni.
“Furthermore, the military is often influenced by political elites, particularly the President, which compromises its ability to provide security in an impartial and professional manner,” it notes.
Defense and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) spokesperson, Brig Felix Kulayigye, is, however, quick to dismiss the document, saying its assessment is skewed.
“We are not influenced by political leaders. No. We follow legitimate and legal orders of the command structure. Political leaders are not in our command structure. The only political leaders in our command structure are two: the Commander-in-Chief (CiC) and the Minister of Defense. Those are the political leaders we are answerable to,” Brig Kulayigye says.
Brig Kulayigye adds that those who claim that the UPDF is influenced by the person of the President probably do so out of ignorance.
“The army is part of the State. You cannot say the President influences the army. That is absolute ignorance of the power structure in the country. Let them go and read Article 99 of the Constitution. The President is the CiC of the UPDF. So you cannot say the CiC influences the army,” Brig Kulayigye says.
Brig Kulayigye also dismisses questions about the Force’s ability to serve in an impartial and professional manner, saying it was arrived at with what he described as “misaligned eyes.”
“Have we failed to provide security? Our mandate is to ensure the country is secure, its territorial integrity is maintained, and the protection of the Constitution. We have fulfilled all those. Collaboration with other security agencies, we have done it. You can only judge us when you are using the mandate as per the Constitution,” Brig Kulayigye says.
Army in polls
The Index once again raised questions about the involvement of the army in elections.
“The excessive involvement of the police and military in the electoral processes poses a significant threat to their credibility. Each election cycle is marred by widespread state-sponsored violence against Opposition parties, their leaders and supporters, as well as Independent candidates,” it noted.
The role of the army in the electoral processes has been a constant complaint since 1996 and featured prominently in all reports of election observer missions.
It was once again one of the subjects that were raised on December 5 last year during the interface between the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) and EC chairperson, Justice Simon Byabakama. The clerics said the deployment of soldiers, especially in Opposition strongholds, leads to voter intimidation.
However, Brig Kulayigye insists the deployment is guided by the Constitution and is never intended to influence the outcome of elections.
“We have an obligation to ensure legitimate, free, and fair elections. Legitimacy of an election does not mean just voting, but also emanates from the security of persons to exercise their right undisturbed. The moment you have failed to ensure freedom of choice, then there is no democracy. When the police are unable to complete both their routine duties and election security, they, according to Article 212 of the Constitution, have to seek support from other security agencies. We are under obligation to support the police,” he says.
He adds that whereas the army participates in providing security during elections, it is never involved in manning polling stations.
Threat?
The Index suggests that Mr. Museveni continues to be the biggest threat to democracy in Uganda.
“Overall, the state of democracy in Uganda faces a significant threat due to President Yoweri Museveni’s prolonged hold on power, which has lasted for more than three decades,” it says.
Mr Kirunda, however, sees things a bit differently. He argues that Uganda stands to benefit from Mr Museveni’s long stay in power.