In beloved Uganda, politics is about the military and money

I am always reluctant to comment on politics. But I find myself under some kind of compulsion to. Why? It is very distressing. However, the controversy surrounding the leadership at the Forum for Democratic Change is a national issue worth the country’s attention.
 As Kampalans would say, this is Forum for Democratic Change’s tuli kuki moment. But this can be framed in a broader context than merely focusing on individual actors.

Former president Milton Obote (RIP) and Yoweri Museveni are two dominant figures in Uganda’s post-independence politics. Both Obote and Museveni were politically birthed by one mother.   Someone writing Uganda’s political history could say both Obote and Museveni could do and promise anything at the conference table so long as those concessions would not vary their core position: the retention of power.   They were civil, ideological, and rhetorically articulate at the conference table; even claiming or posturing to be representing the higher values of the state or the people. But they responded with the singularity of purpose if they were challenged outside the conference room.

 When the late Obote was openly challenged in the 1960s, he did not seek recourse to his eloquence and articulate rhetoric. He deployed military resources at his disposal to settle an otherwise political disagreement he had with Kabaka Edward Mutesa.   By that action alone, Obote introduced the use of guns in the politics of Uganda. From then on, the military (as a resource) has become the core political constituency in the body politic of Uganda. The gun, which was introduced into politics by Obote, was refined by Mr Museveni to near perfection.

 And then Mr Museveni introduced another item in national politics: money as a soft power dynamic. In fact, after the removal of presidential term limits in 2005, almost all political debates in Uganda have revolved around (or have been resolved by) money.   There is money lost in corruption (now refined to art level), buyouts of political opponents, inundation of the electoral process with money, etc. In fact, the use (or abuse) of money is now a tool of political mobilisation.

The problem in Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) has erroneously been reduced to some leaders picking money from the wrong place (and failure to account for other resources). But the challenge is broader. It is the structural organisation of power in the country. As I have said elsewhere, the strongest political constituencies in Uganda are two: the military and the National Treasury. Any political dynamic or force or actor is prone to the influence (negative or positive) of money as a political dynamic in the body politic of Uganda.

 In a speech to FDC leaders on Thursday, March 3, 2022, Dr Kizza Besigye captures this with high-definition clarity. “If the regime wants to take over FDC, they can take it over. That is what I believe. And they have already taken over (other) parties. In fact, Mr Museveni said there would be no Opposition by 2021- he was serious. It is only that FDC is stubborn. The conflicts we have are constructed conflict by the regime. And they will always be there. In any election, whether you hold it two years to general elections, you will meet the same challenge”.

Therefore, so long as the military and the national treasury are influences on the partisan political dynamics, there will always be conflicts in political parties whether NRM, FDC or others.  

The power of money begins at the cost of running for office. Nomination for MPs is Shs3 million and a candidate is likely to spend more than Shs1 billion on campaigns. With this kind of expenditure, why wouldn’t a rich man buy political support (starting with a Shs200m vehicle allowance)?

Mr Bisiika is the executive editor of the East African Flagpost. [email protected]