Mr Kevin Ayebare
For decades, Uganda’s political discourse has centered around one man—President Yoweri Museveni. Opposition figures, activists, and ordinary citizens alike have long called for his departure, convinced that his exit will automatically usher in a new dawn of democracy, economic prosperity, and national unity. But what if Museveni is not the real problem? What if his departure, without a well-structured plan for transition, could plunge Uganda into chaos rather than progress?
General Mugisha Muntu has repeatedly warned that change, for change’s sake, is not enough. The real issue is not just Museveni but the political culture that has been cultivated over decades—a culture of weak institutions, personal rule, and a lack of national preparedness for succession. Uganda’s history and the experiences of other nations serve as stark reminders that shouting “change” without a strategy is a dangerous gamble.
History is full of nations that removed long-serving leaders only to realize, too late, that they had no plan for what came next. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was a dictatorship, but it was also stable, with free education, economic growth, and infrastructure development. When the Arab Spring led to his downfall in 2011, many Libyans celebrated, believing that democracy and prosperity would immediately follow.
However, over a decade later, Libya remains a fractured state, riddled with armed militias, weak governance, and economic decline. The lesson? Removing a long-time leader without a concrete succession plan and strong institutions does not guarantee progress; in fact, it often results in a power vacuum, civil strife, and national collapse.
We have seen this happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein, in Egypt after Hosni Mubarak, in Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe, and even in South Sudan, where gaining independence did not lead to the stability its people dreamed of. These nations did not fail because their leaders left; they failed because their people had not built systems strong enough to outlast them.
Uganda faces the same risk. Unlike Ghana or Tanzania, where transitions from long-serving leaders were managed institutionally, Uganda lacks a clear roadmap for a post-Museveni era. The absence of a well-prepared leadership transition plan, coupled with deep-seated political rivalries, ethnic divisions, and weak state institutions, could turn the dream of change into a nightmare of instability.
Many Ugandans place their hopes in the opposition, but they fail to address the fundamental issue: Uganda’s political institutions are weak, and opposition parties are fragmented and often lack internal democracy.
Simply replacing Museveni with another leader without strengthening the structures that uphold democracy—such as an independent judiciary, a professional security apparatus, and a robust parliament—could lead to the same problems or worse.
The obsession with individuals rather than systems is Uganda’s biggest weakness. If the focus remains on removing Museveni rather than building a resilient democratic culture, then the country risks replacing one form of authoritarianism with another.
Without a strong institutional foundation, whoever comes next may find it easier to consolidate power rather than implement true reforms. General Mugisha Muntu has persistently advocated for a mindset shift, urging Ugandans to prioritize building structures over merely rallying behind charismatic leaders.
However, his calls often fall on deaf ears because they are not sensational; they require patience, discipline, and long-term vision—qualities that are in short supply in Uganda’s political landscape. If Uganda does not start preparing for the post-Museveni era now, the nation may end up in the hands of opportunists, warlords, or foreign interests seeking to exploit instability. The opposition must not just prepare to take power; they must prove that they can govern.
That means establishing credible policies, demonstrating internal party discipline, and presenting a clear national vision beyond rhetoric. Ugandans must demand more than just change; they must demand sustainable change. The responsibility lies with every Ugandan—not just politicians—to demand and create a nation that will stand strong long after Museveni is gone.
Uganda’s real challenge is not just removing Museveni—it is preparing for what comes after him. If citizens do not insist on institutional reforms and disciplined leadership, Uganda risks following the tragic path of other nations that thought removing a long-serving leader was the only solution.
Change is necessary, but only well-prepared change will prevent the country from descending into turmoil. The call for leadership must be accompanied by the demand for accountability, planning, and strategic vision. Otherwise, the post-Museveni era may turn out to be more chaotic than the present.
Mr Kevin Ayebare is an advocate in Uganda with Taslaf Advocates.
