By Denis Muteguya
Multiparty democracy in Uganda was reinstated in 2005, heralded as a progressive step toward political pluralism and a vibrant democratic society. However, this transition appears to have been initiated without a full understanding of its implications, both by the political actors and the citizenry. Over time, Uganda’s opposition, rather than serving as a meaningful alternative to the ruling government, has become riddled with disunity, regionalism, corruption, and self-serving interests. This raises a critical question: can Uganda’s opposition deliver any real change, or is it structurally incapable of doing so?
One of the most glaring flaws in Uganda’s opposition is its foundation on individual interests rather than national aspirations. Political parties like the Democratic Party (DP), which predates Uganda’s independence, once had noble goals centered around national unity and democracy. However, recent developments highlight a shift away from these objectives. The uproar surrounding DP Chairman Hon. Norbert Mao’s decision to take a ministerial position in the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) government reveals how opposition parties are perceived—not as mechanisms for serving national interests but as vehicles for personal or party-centric goals.
The backlash against Mao is indicative of a larger crisis within Uganda’s opposition: the inability to view collaboration with the ruling government as an opportunity for change. His decision, criticized by many as a betrayal, might actually represent an underappreciated form of service to Ugandans—a pragmatic recognition that progress often requires working within existing structures rather than perpetuating endless cycles of political antagonism. This is not to imply that collaboration is always ideal, but it should not be reflexively dismissed as treasonous either.
Another significant challenge facing Uganda’s opposition is regionalism, where political parties and their support bases are predominantly concentrated in specific geographic areas. This tendency contradicts Article 71 of the Ugandan Constitution, which bars political parties formed for sectional interests, whether ethnic, regional, or religious. Yet, this regionalism has become a defining feature of Uganda’s opposition.
A striking example is the National Unity Platform (NUP), the leading opposition party following the 2021 elections. Almost 80% of NUP’s Members of Parliament hail from the central region, particularly the Buganda sub-region. This regional dominance has resulted in all Leaders of Opposition (LOP) emerging from one region, making it difficult for NUP to claim that it represents the interests of all Ugandans. The perception that NUP is a Buganda-centric party further fuels skepticism about whether it can genuinely unite the nation and address the diverse concerns of Uganda’s population.
This regional dominance stands in stark contrast to the party NUP seeks to oust—the National Resistance Movement (NRM). The NRM, under President Yoweri Museveni, has successfully maintained a nationalist platform, drawing support from all regions and ethnic groups. The NRM’s broad-based support across Uganda ensures its resilience and continued dominance, especially when juxtaposed with the regional limitations of the opposition. This contrast highlights the opposition’s struggle to present itself as a viable national alternative.
Ugandan opposition leaders often portray the country as undemocratic. In doing so, they overlook the paradox of their own political existence: many have been elected to parliament in relatively free and fair elections, yet they decry the system that allowed them to win. This contradiction erodes their credibility. It is difficult to reconcile claims of authoritarianism with the fact that these same leaders are active participants in the political process, beneficiaries of taxpayers’ money, and occupants of high offices.
This is not to deny that Uganda’s democracy faces challenges; no democracy is perfect, and Uganda’s is certainly not without flaws. However, for opposition leaders to partake in and benefit from the system while simultaneously decrying its existence raises questions about their commitment to democratic principles. If democracy in Uganda is as fundamentally broken as they claim, why do they willingly engage with it—and, more importantly, why do they not push for deeper reforms rather than merely perpetuating the status quo?
One of the most disappointing aspects of Uganda’s opposition is its own entanglement in corruption. While the opposition frequently accuses the NRM of institutional corruption, many opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) have also been implicated in similar scandals. This undermines their position as a credible alternative to the ruling party and further erodes public trust in their ability to deliver effective governance.
For instance, several opposition MPs have been linked to financial mismanagement and dubious contracts that have adversely affected service delivery in their constituencies. These corrupt practices, often hidden under the guise of opposition politics, have left their supporters disillusioned. It becomes difficult for the opposition to claim moral superiority over the NRM when they, too, are engaged in the very practices they condemn. Such behavior raises legitimate concerns about what might happen if the opposition were to come into power. Would they be any better at addressing the systemic corruption they currently decry, or would they fall into the same patterns?
This involvement in corruption reflects poorly on the opposition’s commitment to improving the lives of ordinary Ugandans. As a result, voters who might have been willing to give the opposition a chance to govern are increasingly disenchanted with what they see as more of the same political gamesmanship, devoid of meaningful progress or change.
One of the most damning indictments of Uganda’s opposition is their failure to live up to their own rhetoric. After the 2021 elections, several opposition members declared they would not recognize the NRM government, branding it as illegitimate. They vowed not to swear in or participate in parliamentary proceedings. However, when the moment of truth arrived, these same politicians took the oath of office and began collecting their parliamentary emoluments without hesitation. This stark contrast between words and actions is emblematic of an opposition that has lost its moral compass.
If these politicians cannot honor their own promises while in opposition, how can they be trusted to uphold their pledges if they assume power? Their inconsistency reveals a deeper problem: political expediency often outweighs principles. This not only undermines the opposition’s credibility but also demoralizes Ugandan voters, who are left questioning whether any political party truly stands for meaningful change.
Another paradox within Uganda’s opposition is their engagement in election malpractice, the very problem they accuse the ruling party of perpetuating. Reports of opposition parties bribing voters, intimidating opponents, and manipulating electoral processes have become increasingly common. This raises the unsettling question: if the opposition is willing to engage in corruption to win elections, how can they be expected to fight the systemic corruption they claim is rampant within the NRM government? This behavior reveals that the opposition, far from being a principled alternative, often mirrors the very problems they criticize.
Ultimately, the responsibility for Uganda’s political future lies not just with the opposition or the ruling party but with the electorate. If Uganda’s opposition continues on this path—entangled in corruption, engaging in election malpractice, and failing to live up to its promises—the electorate will have little reason to cast their votes in favor of any alternative government. As a result, Ugandans will likely continue casting their overwhelming support for the NRM, seeing it as the lesser of two evils or as the only party capable of maintaining stability and national unity.
The Ugandan electorate must critically assess the behavior of all political actors and demand accountability from both the government and the opposition. Blind loyalty to any party, whether opposition or ruling, only perpetuates the cycle of underperformance and unfulfilled promises. Voters must demand transparency, consistency, and a commitment to national—not individual or regional—interests.
The success of Uganda’s multiparty democracy will depend on the ability of its citizens to recognize that change cannot come from political parties rooted in self-interest, regionalism, and hypocrisy. The Ugandan electorate must wake up to these realities if the country is to cultivate a meaningful opposition capable of delivering real change.
Multiparty democracy, in theory, offers a platform for diverse voices and alternative governance. However, Uganda’s experience reveals that a mere return to multiparty politics does not guarantee effective governance. The opposition’s inability to act as a unified, principled alternative to the NRM has left many Ugandans disillusioned with the political system. For democracy to flourish, both the opposition and the ruling party must be held to the same standards of accountability, integrity, and service to the nation.
Without a meaningful shift in the behavior of the opposition, Ugandans will continue voting in overwhelming numbers for the NRM, not necessarily out of sheer loyalty but because they see no viable alternative. The challenge for Uganda’s political future lies not just in who holds power, but in whether those who aspire to power can rise above the petty, self-serving politics of the past to deliver the meaningful change that Ugandans deserve.
Do you have a story or an opinion to share? Email us on: [email protected] Or join the Daily Express WhatsApp channel for all the latest news and trends or join the Telegram Channel for the latest updates.
