By Oweyegh-Afunaduula
This article is a Christmas gift to the present and future generations of Ugandans who curiously wonder, and will wonder, about the reasons why President Tibuhaburwa Museveni ruled Uganda for 40 years without interruption, unlike Apollo Milton Obote, who ruled Uganda twice but with the interruption of Idi Amin’s coup d’état and Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s guerrilla war in the bushes of Luwero.
If any living Ugandans are not ready to think, rethink, think critically, reason critically and consider an alternative analysis and narrative of Uganda’s governance under President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, then this article is not for this generation but future generations of Ugandans who will be asking, “How and why did we allow ourselves to be governed the way we were?”
I know some Ugandans believe the President has ruled for long because we are docile, while others believe he is popular and people give him votes. Some believe he is a strong leader who knows how to manage the armed forces. Some believe Uganda is better off with President Tibuhaburwa Museveni than with another person as president because they don’t see any difference between growth, which he cites as economic progress, and development, which he talks about in a cursory manner. Because many Ugandans can’t think beyond President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, this article is not for them. They will entertain any mention that alternatives exist or that an alternative to Uganda can have effective leadership and effective governance beyond President Tibuhaburwa Museveni. Many Ugandans stuck with President Tibuhaburwa Museveni see him as the best thing that happened to Uganda and cannot detect any faultlines in his leadership and governance. They take him as a faultless god whom they want to be the first and last ruler of Uganda.
President Tibuhaburwa Museveni recently told the people of Lwengo District that he was in the Democratic Party (DP) in 1960, the year I was in Primary 4 (and am nearly 77). In 1960 I was nearly 11 years old. Assuming the president was 20 or 21 years old then, how old is he now? Whatever his true age, he has had a continuous presence on Uganda’s political landscape, waging a guerrilla war against Idi Amin in the 1970s. Participating in the formation of what was called the Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF) government in 1979; seeking to be President of Uganda in the 1980 elections; waging a guerrilla war against Apollo Milton Obote (1981-1985) and the Tito Okello Military Junta (1985), ultimately capturing the instruments of power on 25 January 1986.
In 2026, President Tibuhaburwa Museveni will mark 40 years in power in Uganda, raising questions about the country’s governance trajectory. Despite progress in economic growth and stability, challenges persist. Uganda’s governance struggles stem from institutional weaknesses, limited accountability, and restricted civic space. Strengthening transparency, protecting rights, and fostering citizen engagement are key to breaking this cycle of good governance failure in Uganda. He has continuously ruled Uganda since then for 40 years, 30 years less than the period the British colonialists ruled the country. If the colonialists invaded, conquered and occupied Uganda, there is a growing school of thought which holds that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s ruling clique also invaded, conquered and occupied Uganda because most of its members had exogenous roots in Rwanda and Mulenge in the DRC.
The question persists: what is the explanation of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s long stay in power even when he said the problem of Africa is leaders who overstay in power?
President Museveni’s nearly 40-year rule in Uganda can be attributed to a combination of factors. It is crucial that every Ugandan understand the factors that have enabled President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s long tenure if Uganda’s future generations are to ensure effective leadership, governance and institutional strength during their time when virtually all of us will have transited to the decomposer chain and be living only spiritually. For lack of time and space, let me list them with some explanatory notes:
*Deception and Deceptive Democracy: President Tibuhaburwa Museveni has been able to break the cycle of democracy through lies, deception and disinformation. When he says no one knows democracy more than him, he means deceptive democracy: holding regular elections while subverting democracy by using laws, policies and the military and police.
*Strategic Politics: Tibuhaburwa Museveni has effectively managed Uganda’s complex political landscape, leveraging the country’s post-conflict situation to consolidate power.
*Economic Reforms: He has implemented economic reforms, which have driven growth, not development, making Uganda one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies.
*Military Support: He has forged strong ties with the military, which has helped maintain stability and ensured loyalty. Besides, he has ensured that the strong linkage which existed between NRM and NRA in the bushes of Luwero is maintained between NRM and UPDF.
*Weak Opposition: He has created a sociopolitical spectrum with fragmented opposition unable to unite and struggle together to mount a credible challenge to his rule. Then he repeatedly tells Ugandans that the Opposition is useless and cannot perform when he is the reason why the Opposition is in a state of helplessness.
*International Support: Uganda’s strategic location and Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s diplomatic skills and deceptive stance have secured him international backing, to the chagrin of indigenous Ugandans in general and the Opposition in particular.
*Constitutional Amendments: Changes to term limits and age restrictions have allowed Museveni to extend his rule and act like a life president despite holding regular elections. The elections are just to impart legitimacy to his regime, not a vehicle for ensuring Ugandans of democracy, freedom and justice, which he promised them when he was reigning mayhem in the Luwero Triangle and in his book, Sowing The Mustard Seed: The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy”.
*Sycophancy and Patronage: He has sown a culture of sycophancy and patronage, which has created a network of loyalists and beneficiaries dependent on his rule and public money, denying Ugandans public services such as quality education, quality health and adequate energy.
Why This Works:
These factors have combined to create a system where President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s personalised leadership is deeply entrenched, making it challenging for alternative voices and/or leaders to emerge. If alternative leaders emerge, his now formidable propaganda machine and almost personalised security forces are unleashed on them to crash their resolve, spirit and mind and create the impression that the President is unchallengeable, indispensable and a strong leader, the only one who can manage the security of the country and people.
Implications
For future generations, prioritising institutional strength, merit-based leadership, and accountability can help ensure effective governance and prevent the perpetuation of sycophancy and authoritarianism, which currently dominate President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s leadership and governance. Strengthening institutions and promoting critical thinking can help mitigate the risks associated with long-term rule and ensure Uganda’s development, which has been sacrificed for growth so hyped by international capital.
Leadership
As I have frequently stated, behind every problem is the problem of leadership. This means that many problems are either leadership-based or generated by leadership. In the case of leadership, the problems arise when the leaders think, believe and are convinced they are so indispensable that other leaders cannot displace them. They decide ways and means to ensure that they retain power at whatever cost, which may be public money, human life or both.
Leadership plays, or should play, a huge role in Uganda’s development. Effective leadership can drive progress, while poor leadership can hinder it. This is the case when leadership concentrates on acquiring weapons to control the movements and actions of the citizens instead of providing public services for or to the people.
In Uganda’s case, President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s leadership has had both positive and negative impacts:
*Positive impacts: Economic growth, infrastructure development, and relative militarily mediated security, stability and peace. Unfortunately, these essentials can easily crumble if the leader who puts the military before the people finds himself unable to maintain the balance between the people’s craze for development, freedom, justice, equity, and democracy.
*Negative: Authoritarian tendencies, human rights concerns, intensifying and extensifying poverty, intellectual decay and collapse, land grabbing, environmental decay and collapse, conversion of indigenous Ugandans into third- or even fourth-rate citizens, internal and international slavery, and entrenched corruption have come to characterise President
For Uganda’s development, leadership needs to prioritise:
*Accountability: Ensuring leaders are responsible to the people, not to themselves and their families or ethnic groups.
*Meritocracy: Appointments must stress competent individuals based on merit, not loyalty nor relations (familial, kinship or ethnic).
*Institutional Strength: Leadership must prioritise building strong and resilient institutions that outlast leaders.
Let me now focus on why effective institutional leadership is important. Institutional leadership is a major issue in Uganda. The country’s institutions have in the last 40 years been weakened by leadership through three main avenues:
*Patronage: Appointments based on loyalty rather than merit.
*Political Interference: Institutions have often been influenced by the ruling party or directly by the president, such as in their structure and function or leadership. In other cases, such as universities, the president has interfered in what is taught, showing his preference (natural science) against the social sciences and humanities.
*Lack of Autonomy: When the leadership interferes in institutions, they lack independence to make decisions suitable for them and their clientele. If it goes on for a long time, the institutions will not do anything until the exogenous leaders (the president and others) instruct them what to do. When this is the case, the institutions cannot be autonomous. They are governed from outside. The institutional leaders manifest as puppets, or worse still, sycophants who cannot decide without reference to higher orders outside their institutions. When this is the case, the result is multifold:
*Ineffective Governance: Institutions fail to deliver quality services.
*Corruption: Weak institutions enable corruption and misuse of resources for personal gain.
*Lack of Accountability: Institutions are unable to hold leaders accountable.
To strengthen institutional leadership, Uganda needs:
Autonomy: Grant institutions independence to operate freely.
Merit-Based Appointments: Ensure leaders are appointed based on competence.
Transparency: Increase transparency in institutional decision-making.
*Promoting Institutional Autonomy:
*Legal Frameworks: It is critical to enshrine autonomy in laws and the Constitution.
*Independent Oversight: It is critical to establish independent bodies to oversee institutions. However, such bodies will be useless if they are used to hoodwink the citizenry while filling them with loyalists and presidentialism hovering over them.
*Financial Independence: No institution will be effective if it has no control over its budgets.
Impact of Patronage
*Undermines Meritocracy: Patronage prioritises loyalty over competence.
*Fosters Corruption: Patronage networks enable corruption and abuse of power to flourish.
*Weakens Institutions: Patronage erodes institutional credibility and effectiveness.
Addressing patronage requires:
*Merit-Based Appointments: Prioritise competence over connection.
*Transparency: Increase scrutiny of appointments and decision-making.
*Strengthen Accountability: Hold leaders accountable for patronage and corruption.
Uganda’s institutions need rethinking to promote autonomy and reduce patronage. As far as the government is concerned, three institutions must be rethought to make them accountable and least vulnerable to patronage to ensure public trust is sustained in leadership and governance:
Executive
*Overconcentration of Power: The President wields excessive influence, often overshadowing other branches of government.
*Patronage: Appointments are often based on loyalty, undermining meritocracy. Accordingly, patronage is used as a political weapon.
*Lack of Accountability: The Executive often acts with impunity, disregarding checks and balances.
Legislature
Dominance by Ruling Party: The NRM’s majority limits opposition voices and undermines meaningful and effective debates.
*Weak Oversight: Parliament often rubber-stamps executive decisions.
*Lack of Autonomy: Parliament’s independence is compromised by executive influence.
Judiciary
*Political Interference: Judges are often pressured or influenced by the Executive, thereby undermining justice and promoting judicial decisions that the Executive desires or prefers.
*Corruption: Judicial corruption undermines public trust in the judiciary and the government as a whole.
*Limited Autonomy: The Judiciary’s independence is questionable.
What Needs to be Done:
*Strengthen Checks and Balances: Ensure institutions can hold each other accountable.
*Promote Autonomy: Grant institutions independence to operate freely.
*Merit-Based Appointments: Prioritise competence over loyalty.
The issues with the executive, legislature, and judiciary impact Uganda’s governance in major ways, including:
*Weak Accountability: Concentration of power and patronage lead to unchecked decisions and corruption.
*Poor Policy Decisions: Loyalty-driven appointments result in ineffective governance and policies that benefit a few.
*Eroded Public Trust: Corruption and impunity in institutions undermine citizens’ faith in government.
*Stifled Dissent: Limited opposition voices and judicial interference silence critics.
*Public Intellectuals disappear: Ideas from a nonpolitical channel into government stop coming in.
*Presidentialism: The President infiltrates and overrides every institution.
All this leads to:
*Ineffective Service Delivery: Institutions fail to address citizens’ needs.
*Increased Corruption: Weak oversight enables misuse of resources, especially by the President, Speaker and Chief Judge – the heads of the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary. This could be seen in rewarding loyalty.
*Political Instability Risks: Unchecked power and suppressed dissent can spark unrest in the short, medium and long term, making our pride in reigning stability momentary and stability unstable.
For Uganda, addressing these issues is key to improving governance and making the country move from growth narratives that have dominated to development narratives. Uganda’s future hinges on addressing the governance challenges to ensure inclusive development, democracy, freedom, justice and stability. Ultimately, that is what good governance means.
For God and My Country.
