President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni will, on Tuesday, September 23, be nominated as a presidential candidate for the 2026 general elections. The nomination comes as he marks 40 years at the helm of Uganda, a tenure that has made him one of Africa’s longest-serving leaders. His bid raises fresh debate on what value his continued presidency adds to the country and where it may present challenges.
His name on the ballot is no surprise; it has been there since 1996. The real question is whether Uganda, in 2026, still needs Museveni and his political machinery.
When Museveni came to power in 1986, he was hailed as a liberator who ended years of chaos. He stabilized a fractured country, opened up the economy, and gave Ugandans hope that politics could be practiced differently. Those gains are real and remain part of his legacy. Today, Uganda boasts more roads, more electricity, and a stronger regional footprint than it had in the 1980s.
But that legacy is being overshadowed by the cost of overstaying. By scrapping presidential term and age limits, Museveni turned what could have been a heroic exit into an endless pursuit of power. Uganda has become a textbook case of personal rule, where state institutions bend to the survival of one man and one party. What should be a democracy has, in practice, become a managed competition where the outcome rarely surprises.
Since taking power in 1986, Museveni has been credited with bringing relative peace and stability after years of conflict. His government liberalized the economy in the 1990s, attracting foreign investment and donor support, while infrastructure projects in energy, roads, and health facilities have expanded under his watch.
Regional and Security Contributions
Regionally, Museveni has positioned Uganda as a key security player. The Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) has been central in peacekeeping missions in Somalia and South Sudan, giving Uganda influence and international leverage. This role strengthens Uganda’s diplomatic weight and reassures donors who view Museveni as a reliable security partner. Yet, the militarization of politics at home, from policing protests to expanding the role of the army in civilian affairs, blurs the line between stability and authoritarian control.
Economic Growth vs. Debt Burden
Under Museveni, Uganda has moved from a fragile post-conflict economy in the late 1980s to faster, more diversified growth in recent years. Growth has averaged solid rates in the 2010s and early 2020s, and the IMF/World Bank project continued expansion — the IMF and World Bank put real GDP growth around the 6% mark in 2024–25, supported by services, industry and rising investment in oil and mining.
The government’s heavy push for big infrastructure (rail, roads, oil pipeline, refinery, power, large projects) has been financed by substantial borrowing. Uganda’s public debt has climbed sharply in the last few years, with finance ministry reports highlighting large increases in domestic borrowing and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio; officials have signalled efforts to rein in domestic borrowing, but debt servicing now squeezes the fiscal space for health, education and social protection.
Democracy and Governance
Museveni’s defenders argue that he has provided political stability in a region often plagued by conflict. Uganda has avoided the coups and mass unrest seen elsewhere, and the National Resistance Movement (NRM) remains deeply entrenched nationwide.
On the other hand, four decades of dominance have weakened Uganda’s institutions. Term limits were removed, succession plans remain unclear, and state resources are routinely deployed to consolidate power. This raises concerns about governance quality and the risks of a personality-driven state. The value Museveni adds in terms of stability is offset by the democratic stagnation his prolonged rule has fostered.
Human Rights and Civic Freedoms
When Museveni came to power, he promised to end the abuses of past regimes. In the early years, there was genuine improvement in security and human rights. Yet, over time, Uganda has witnessed shrinking civic space, media crackdowns, arbitrary arrests of activists, and laws criticized internationally for targeting minorities.
However, his long stay in power has drawn criticism from both domestic and international observers. Constitutional amendments that scrapped presidential term and age limits have been cited as setbacks for Uganda’s democratic trajectory. Opposition groups and civil society actors often raise concerns about the independence of state institutions and the fairness of elections.
Uganda’s human rights record has also been questioned, with reports of restrictions on assembly, media freedoms, and political organizing. While the economy has grown over the years, critics point to persistent rural poverty, high youth unemployment, and corruption as enduring challenges.
The human rights picture is equally troubling. Opposition rallies are broken up, activists are jailed, and media freedoms remain constrained. Young Ugandans — who make up more than 75 percent of the population — have never known another leader, and many see their aspirations for change repeatedly deferred. The promise of jobs, prosperity, and genuine political participation often feels out of reach.
When Museveni came to power, he promised to end the abuses of past regimes. In the early years, there was genuine improvement in security and human rights. Yet, over time, Uganda has witnessed shrinking civic space, media crackdowns, arbitrary arrests of activists, and laws criticized internationally for targeting minorities.
The government frames its tough approach as necessary for stability, but for many Ugandans — especially the youth — the erosion of civil liberties has undercut Museveni’s once-revolutionary credentials. The value of his presidency here is increasingly questioned, as repression undermines both domestic trust and Uganda’s international standing.
Human-rights watchdogs and foreign governments report an increasingly restricted civic and media space, reprisals against critics, and legal measures that institutionalize discrimination. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty flag government crackdowns on free expression, arbitrary arrests of protesters and activists, and laws that have tightened restrictions on sexual minorities and dissent. The U.S. State Department’s country human rights report similarly lists negative developments. These trends have reputational and practical costs — ranging from aid conditionality to investor reputational risk and diaspora mobilization.
The Road Ahead
Supporters argue that Museveni’s experience and track record in maintaining stability make him the best candidate to guide Uganda through regional security threats and to manage its upcoming oil economy. Opponents counter that a leadership transition is overdue, warning that extended rule risks weakening democratic institutions and limiting political renewal.
As the 2026 elections approach, Museveni’s nomination sets the stage for yet another contest between continuity and change. The coming months will test how Ugandans weigh the achievements of the past four decades against the demands and expectations of a young and fast-growing population.
Does Uganda Still Need Museveni?
The value Museveni brought in the 1980s and 1990s — security, stabilization, and reconstruction — is undeniable. But today’s Uganda faces different challenges: youth unemployment, climate change, public debt, governance reforms, and the need for leadership renewal.
For some, Museveni’s experience and regional stature remain an asset. For others, his long rule has become an obstacle to democratic deepening, institutional growth, and generational leadership. The central question is no longer whether Museveni can govern, but whether Uganda’s long-term development is best served by continuity under him or by a managed political transition.
Museveni’s 40-year rule left Uganda with visible economic and infrastructure gains and with continuity many voters value. But it also leaves the country at a crossroads: continued centralization and an eroded civic space risk converting short-term delivery into long-term political and institutional fragility. Whether Uganda “still needs” Museveni depends on whether his stewardship can be paired with serious, irreversible institutional reforms that protect rights, checks and balances, and fiscal sustainability. Without those reforms, another term would likely deepen trade-offs between order and liberty — and raise the costs of future transitions.
As he seeks to add another five years to his 40 already in power, Uganda faces a defining question: is continuity under Museveni a safeguard, or is it the single greatest barrier to the country’s democratic and developmental future? For many Ugandans, the answer is increasingly clear.
