Why Presidents are handed constitution, state seal, not guns when swearing-in

By Steven Masiga

Across the world, during the swearing-in ceremonies of presidents, we observe a consistent tradition: no one hands over a gun, an armored personnel carrier (APC), or missile to symbolize the transition of power. Instead, leaders are entrusted with instruments of state authority such as the constitution, the national seal, the flag, and other symbols rooted in national identity and legality.

In Zimbabwe, for example, the newly sworn-in president is handed symbols like the coat of arms, the national flag, and the Zimbabwe bird. Each of these carries profound national significance.

In Uganda, the presidential swearing-in ceremony bestows upon the incoming leader several key instruments: the Presidential Seal, the Constitution, the National Flag, and the Public Seal—all of which collectively represent the legal, moral, and symbolic framework of national governance.

Even in global superpowers like the United States, former President Donald Trump was handed the Presidential Seal, medallions, and other state insignia—not nuclear codes or firearms—when taking office. The emphasis was, again, on legitimacy through law, not military might.

Both former Ugandan President Idi Amin and Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic were similarly presented with these institutional artifacts when assuming power. This global practice underscores one central truth: real state authority is grounded in the constitution and civil institutions—not the barrel of a gun.

That said, I acknowledge there exists a school of thought—especially among militarists and revolutionary leaders—that discounts these democratic symbols. Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong famously declared, “Power comes from the gun,” a sentiment that continues to influence political thinking in certain circles. Many generals and politicians, even today, subscribe to this ideology.

A story is told of President Idi Amin during a graduation ceremony at Makerere University in the 1970s. He challenged professors to define power. Each professor responded with academic theories rooted in their disciplines. Unsatisfied, Amin pointed to a military jeep nearby and declared, “That is power.” Of course, this interpretation is narrow—after all, even witchdoctors claim to possess power. But state power, particularly in constitutional democracies, must go beyond brute force.

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda is explicit in Article 1: “Power belongs to the people.” Furthermore, Article 3 not only allows but compels citizens to defend the Constitution if it is ever abrogated. These clauses make it abundantly clear that the foundation of state legitimacy lies with the people and the rule of law—not with guns, not with tanks.

Leaders should therefore strive to be surrounded by their people, not by armed guards. The true measure of leadership is not fear induced by military might, but trust earned from citizenry. This is the essence of statecraft. A leader who understands and respects the legal instruments of power will be better positioned to execute both domestic and foreign policies with legitimacy and moral authority.

As Uganda approaches another election cycle, it is important to reflect on what truly constitutes power and leadership in a constitutional order. Guns may silence voices, but only the Constitution commands enduring authority.

The writer is a law student and public affairs analyst based in Mbale.