Godfrey Ssekisonge
Uganda’s political journey, nearly four decades since the advent of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) in 1986, continues to be haunted by a model of governance rooted in “individual merit.”
Marketed at the time as a way to overcome sectarian divisions, this system has instead weakened collective leadership, stifled dissent, and entrenched a dangerous culture of self-interest and authoritarian control.
At the heart of our political dysfunction lies the enduring legacy of big man politics, a system where power revolves around a single individual, reducing institutions to mere instruments of personal rule. Historical examples such as Idi Amin in Uganda and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire stand as grim reminders of this model’s consequences. The big man legacy is not just surviving, it is being actively cultivated. This culture of personalised politics has devastated Uganda’s opposition.
Once-formidable parties like the Democratic Party (DP) and Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) have been hollowed out by factionalism and weakened leadership. Even newer movements like the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) and the National Unity Platform (NUP) are beginning to display similar patterns, where loyalty is demanded, dissent is punished, and independent thinkers are pushed aside in favour of those who merely echo their leader's line.
The fundamental issue is that most political parties in Uganda are built around personalities, not principles. Instead of nurturing debate and encouraging ideological diversity, they reward sycophancy and suppress alternative viewpoints. Consequently, these parties become stagnant echo chambers—unable to renew themselves or present a credible challenge to the ruling regime.
For Uganda to move forward democratically, a cultural and structural shift is urgently needed. Political parties must abandon personality cults and embrace internal democracy, inclusivity, and institutional strength. Genuine political spaces must welcome diverse perspectives, even disagreements, if they are to act as agents of meaningful change. Democracy cannot flourish in a landscape dominated by big men.
It thrives in environments where institutions are resilient and ideas, not individuals, shape the political narrative. If opposition leaders wish to be seen as a credible alternative to the ruling party, they must do more than simply criticise the government. They must act differently, modelling transparency, tolerance, and unity through action, not just rhetoric. Ironically, the ruling NRM, for all its flaws, has tolerated internal dissent from figures like Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Hon Barnabas Tinkasimiire, individuals who have often challenged party positions yet remained within its ranks.
This should serve as a lesson to the opposition, if you cannot accommodate disagreement within your party, how can you convincingly argue for a broad coalition of ideologically diverse groups? Ultimately, the question facing Uganda is this: Will our politics remain trapped in the outdated and destructive model of big man rule, or will we finally build systems that empower institutions, encourage debate, and prioritise the national good over personal ambition?
One wonders whether it is precisely this intolerance to internal dissent that explains why NUP has consistently avoided holding open, competitive party primaries, a cornerstone of internal democracy in functioning political systems around the world. Party primaries are not just a procedural formality; they are a litmus test for a party’s commitment to transparency, inclusion, and accountability.
By shunning this process, NUP raises serious concerns about whether it truly practices the democratic values it preaches. If opposition leaders fear internal competition and open dialogue within their ranks, how can they convincingly argue that they are prepared to manage a pluralistic, democratic state?
The author, Mr Godfrey Ssekisonge is a political analyst based in the UK.
