Charles Bukuwa
Over the last few months, there has been a flurry of activity within political parties and organisations as the country gears up for the 2026 General Elections. Incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) are under immense pressure to retain their seats.
Many must juggle the demanding responsibilities of Parliament with the need to maintain a strong presence in their constituencies with the people from whom they seek another mandate. In order to outdo themselves and win the hearts of the electorate, these prospective candidates end up making promises to the voters, which are unrealistic and impossible to fulfil. Unfortunately, this has become the yardstick by which performance in Parliament is judged. The incumbent MP is often assessed based on how many campaign promises he or she fulfilled.
Some MPs have been judged not on their legislative performance but on how often they attend funerals, marriage ceremonies, or other community events. In seeking to outperform the incumbent, many aspiring MPs also fall into the same trap of making grand promises to build schools, hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure in order to convince their voters to send them to Parliament. How did we get here? Shouldn’t the electorate judge candidates based on their ability to perform their constitutional roles? Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda clearly states that the role of Parliament is to make laws for the peace, order, development, and good governance of the country. From this provision, four major roles of MPs are derived: legislation, budgeting, oversight, and representation.
In their legislative function, Members of Parliament process laws through government and private members’ Bills aimed at enhancing the governance of the country. In fulfilment of their budgeting role, Members of Parliament analyse and approve revenues and expenditures for the country every financial year. They also demand accountability from the Executive as to how the revenue is raised and spent. The budgeting role is also intertwined with the MPs oversight role. Through sectoral and standing committees, MPs scrutinise the implementation of government programmes. Members go to the field and physically inspect the different government projects to ascertain whether they are operating well and if there is value for money. Members are also representatives of the people in Parliament.
They have a duty to engage their constituents and present their views and challenges in Parliament. They do this through raising matters of national importance, presenting petitions or lobbying the Executive for development of key infrastructure in their areas. These constitutional roles should be the lens through which the electorate assesses aspiring candidates. The electorate must ask themselves these questions: Can a candidate effectively advocate for my needs in Parliament? Are they capable of understanding the budgeting process? Will they provide meaningful oversight? Will they help influence the making of laws that are good for us, the common man? Making promises that one cannot fulfil, however well-meaning they are, sets an MP up for failure as it often exceeds the constitutional role and financial ability of an MP.
Some of the promises like building schools, hospitals, and bridges are the responsibility of the government structures, and even with a generous salary, no MP can personally fund such large-scale projects without compromising their ability to perform their constitutional mandate. It is time for the electorate to start asking aspiring candidates hard questions. How will a candidate fulfil a promise to build hospitals, roads, schools, bridges etc.? As 2026 is around the corner, it is down to voters to make the decision on how we want to be represented. Shall we make a decision based on a candidate’s ability to fulfil their constitutional mandate or based on grand promises that they may not be able to achieve?
The author, Mr Charles Bukuwa is a Principal Information Officer, Parliament of Uganda
