One of the fascinating less known realities in the American presidential election is that aside from Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, two lesser-known candidates, Chase Oliver and Jill Stein, also stand as contenders. Whether or not they have a chance at victory is beside the point.
The fact remains; they are on the ballot. But what’s more fascinating is the provision for American voters to exercise a rare form of agency: the write-in option that allows them to manually add the name of a candidate who is not listed among the official choices.
Often a portion of Ugandans opposed to Mr. Museveni have expressed a certain disillusionment with his opponents, claiming they are unworthy of replacing him. They often speak wistfully of names of other Ugandans they believe would make better presidents than both Museveni and his opponents.
The low voter turnout in Uganda, then, may not solely result from registered voters being abroad in search of work opportunities, hospitalized, imprisoned, or fearful of the thick security deployment, but also because none of the candidates on the ballot resonate with them. And so, how does one address the wishes of that silent, disillusioned group, since their voices are not formally heard at the ballot box?
As elections evolved and the American political system matured, write-in voting became more prevalent. It provided voters an opportunity to endorse candidates not aligned with the major political parties.
Over time, the right to write in a candidate received more formal legal acknowledgment. This option emerged as a way for voters to express their dissatisfaction with the major candidates or parties when the choices on the ballot did not meet their expectations.
While the American system permits voters to name candidates who may not meet all formal qualifications, the Ugandan context calls for something simpler, more direct: a “None of the Above” (NOTA) option.
Instead of writing in individuals who may not meet legal requirements, voters could merely express their rejection of all candidates by ticking against NOTA at the bottom of the ballot paper.
Such a vote, though seemingly passive, could convey a significant sentiment within the electorate. If the number of NOTA votes were tallied and included in the election results, it would cast a shadow over the declared winners.
It would not cancel out their victory, but it would bring with it a humbling message—one that might encourage them to govern with more mindfulness and less hubris, bearing in mind that if that discontented group got a right candidate, it might change matters for the incumbents.
It would nudge the incumbents toward governance that reflects the true will of the people. My suggestion might sound idealistic, but a number of countries (India, South Africa, Greece, Colombia, to mention just a few) have the NOTA option. Some have it as a formality, merely for protest but for others it’s actually impactful.
Even in Russia, often viewed by the West as repugnant to democracy, voters have the option to vote for None of the Above in presidential and parliamentary elections. If the “None” option wins a majority, a re-election is typically called. This makes a lot of sense because why would someone rule a country when majority of the electorate does not support them?
The absence of the NOTA option in Uganda leaves a significant portion of the electorate unheard, contributing to low voter turnout and perpetuating the sense of political apathy.
Ssekyonda Zeddekia is a Ugandan medical doctor