By Oweyegha-Afunaduula
A dictator dictates. He or she may seek to know your thinking or your idea about something or even follow your reasoning with interest but ultimately, he or she will follow what his or her mind tells him or her and enforce it with all the power in his or her hands. He or she will then proceed to build his or her legitimacy, the legitimacy of his or her regime or the legitimacy of his or her government.
Many claim themselves kings or queens, and many work hard and prefer to pass the reigns of power to one of their offspring. One-time former Libyan strongman, Mammuar Gaddafi called himself King of kings. After 42 years in power, many Libyans believed Gaddafi was a dictator, although he delivered goods and services, such as building houses for them, giving them free electricity and free water, after building a river in reverse direction.
People wanted democracy, freedom and democracy, besides the social goods and services, but he died these three from them.Connolly (2011) saw Col Muammar Gaddafi as renowned not just for his cruelty, but also his theatricality and a tyrant in the mould of Mussolini, Idi Amin and Omar Bongo. He asked if Gaddafi could be the last of the line. Of course not. There were dictators before him and there will be dictators in Africa long after him.
President Tibuhaburwa Museveni is considered by many in Africa and outside Africa as a dictator. He is one of Africa’s longest serving leaders. His rule brought many changes in Uganda. He is a very strong believer of dictatorship and absolutism,In 2005, he scrapped presidential term limits and the presidential age limit in 2017, which two actions, using Parliament, opened the way for him to manifest as an absolute ruler.
President Tibuhaburwa Museveni of Uganda waged a five- year bush war in the Luwero Triangle of Buganda, leading to hundreds of thousands losing their lives. He promised freedom, justice and democracy. The title of his once popular book is “Sowing the Mustard Seed: The Struggle for Freedom, Justice and Democracy.
However, after capturing the instruments of power in 1986 and promising “a fundamental change, not a mere change of guards”, time, which is the best judge, has revealed that freedom, justice and democracy were not the goal of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s Bush War but power to achieve his goals of liberation of a small exogenous ethnic group, wealth, glory and domination of the naturally indigenous groups of Uganda.
40 years later, President Tibuhaburwa Museveni is still in power and building hereditary politics and hereditary militarism. All indications are that he wants power to remain in his hands and his family well beyond his personal reign.
Many Ugandans and foreigners in and outside Uganda now think, believe and are convinced that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni has mutated from a liberator he sold himself to be a formidable dictator (e.g., Mugabi, 2028). The seeds of absolute power were always there. At one time, President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, very early in his rule, called himself Ssabagabe, which is the same as saying “King of kings”.
In 1962 when Uganda got political independence from the British colonialists, there were four hereditary Kings: the Kabaka of Buganda, the Omukama of Bunyoro, the Omukama of Toro, and the Omugabe of Ankole. There was also the Kyabazinga of the Territory of Busoga, with King-like Status.
In 1966, Apollo Milton Obote abolished all of them. However, when Tibuhaburwa Museveni, after capturing the instruments of power in 1986, was greeted with calls to restore the Kingdoms and semi-kingdom of Busoga. Even if he persisted in saying that he did not go to the bush to restore kingdom, when he presided over the making of the Uganda Constitution 1995, he showed that he meant business when he said he did not go to the bush to restore kingdoms.
The constitution does not contain the words Kingdoms and Kings. Instead, it contains the phrases “cultural institutions” and “Cultural Heads”. However, while all the former Kingdoms and Kings see themselves in those phrases, the Ankole Kingdom (Obugabe) is completely abolished.
Since the promulgation of the Uganda Constitution 1995, President Tibuhaburwa Museveni has ruled like a Life President. Although, since he subjected himself to electoral politics in 1996, he has effectively excluded alternative leaders in his politico-military organisation – National Resistance Movement (NRM)and others in alternative political parties from meaningfully and effectively competing for political power. He has ruled like a mega-King (a Ssabagabe) with a personalist politico-military organisation.
Until today, there have been persistent calls by members of NRM to President Tibuhaburwa Museveni to show them a successor. However, he has preferred silence on the matter, interspersed with growing influence on the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and all the institutions of State.
In terms of action, he fast-tracked promotions his only son – Muhoozi Kainerugaba – through the military ranks and major posts in the National Resistance Army (constituionalised in the Uganda Constitution 1995 as Uganda Peoples Defense Forces, UPDF).
Today, Muhoozi-Kainerugaba is a General and Chief of Defense Forces (CDF) in which capacity he has a lot of powers, previously exercised by President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, such as promoting military leaders, and can do anything under the Sun. For example, during the by-election in Kawempe North, he admitted that he was the one who despatched the paramilitary group called JATT, which reined a lot of havoc.
President Tibuhaburwa Museveni used a lot of influence and money to ensure that the Parliament of Uganda enacted a new UPDF Act 2025, which allows for military justice over certain categories of civilians. In essence, the UPDF Act 2025 is the tool that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and the CDF will use to govern Uganda together militarily and administer military justice as and when the two with.
Even if President Tibuhaburwa Museveni has not pronounced that General Muhoozi Kainerugaba is his successor, the thoughts and actions of the President and his son depict that the President has a heir: a politico-military heir in the person of Muhoozi Kainerugaba.
It is hereditary Militarism in action. If this is the case, then President Tibuhaburwa Museveni is a military dictator clothed in democratic attire. He has shown love for all practices that depict him as such, and which show that Uganda has all the time been governed towards hereditary militarism.
One writer, cited by QUORA, said that dictators may claim the title of “king” or adopt king-like behaviors for several reasons, including:
- Consolidation of Power: By positioning themselves as a monarch, dictators can legitimize their authority and create a sense of permanence. This can help suppress opposition and dissent, as they frame their rule as a natural extension of a historical or cultural legacy.
- Dynastic Rule: Dictators often wish to establish a dynasty, where power is passed down to their heirs. This can create a sense of stability and continuity for their regime, as well as ensure that their personal interests and policies are maintained beyond their own tenure.
- Cult of Personality: Many dictators cultivate a cult of personality, portraying themselves as larger-than-life figures. By adopting royal titles or behaviors, they enhance their image and promote loyalty among their supporters, who may see them as a father figure or protector of the nation.
- Cultural and Historical Context: In some regions, historical precedents of monarchy influence modern governance. Dictators may invoke royal imagery to tap into national pride or historical narratives, aligning their rule with traditional authority.
- Suppression of Democratic Norms: By claiming royal-like status, dictators can undermine the principles of democracy and governance. This often involves eliminating political opposition, controlling the media, and manipulating public perception to maintain their grip on power.
- Symbol of National Unity: Dictators may present themselves as the embodiment of the nation, similar to how monarchs have historically been viewed. This can foster a sense of national identity and unity, even if it is based on coercion and fear.
The adoption of king-like titles and behaviours by dictators or dictator-like rulers, serves to reinforce their power, legitimise their rule, and establish a legacy that they hope will endure beyond their lifetime. In fact, their hope is that by the time they leave physical life, they will have established family rule based on hereditary politics and hereditary militarism.
I have written about hereditary political leadership in Uganda before, wherein former kings in the country were erroneously, but constitutionally, reduced to cultural institutions without political power soon after President Tibuhaburwa Museveni called himself Ssabagabe and resisted raising the former Kingdom of Ankole (Obugabe) among his new cultural institutions.
I have yet to write about hereditary militarism, but in Uganda the boundary between hereditary militarism and hereditary politics is absent because we have political military leadership with all power in the hands of the military, with military officers at the centre of governance in every sphere of human endeavour.
This particular article is about how exactly dictators build and maintain their legitimacy, consolidate their powerand go on to establish out-blown or concealed military rule with sovereignty over the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and all institutions of the State. Weakening of constitutionalism and the institutions of state is the ultimate phenomenon accompanied by rising presidentialism and personalist power.
Dictators are frequently also called tyrants and tend to use a variety of methods to establish and maintain legitimacy. They often employing propaganda, controlling information, and using force to suppress dissent. They may also hold rigged elections, claim to represent the will of the people, or manipulate cultural narratives to appear legitimate. Muradiaga (2024) has written that for tyrants, private property is one of the first barriers to be levelled in pursuit of despotic power.
Worse still, assets that tyrants steal can then be used to prop up their unfree regimes, extending their iron-fisted sway by spending wealth that the regimes’ cadres never earned or worked for.Muradiaga (2024) adds that economic, financial, and asset-based repression represents a systematic strategy employed by authoritarian regimes to consolidate and sustain political control through financial institutions and legal frameworks designed to restrict, monitor, and penalize dissidents, critics and [alternative political parties and leaders].
This form of repression entails the instrumentalization of all available financial tools, both national and international, to neutralise political, civic, or social opposition while undermining the economic autonomy of critical people and groups (Muradiaga 2024).
Recently, the Parliament of Uganda passed a law simultaneously with the UPDF Act 1995 to help President Tibuhaburwa Museveni deprive alternative political parties of financial power. Financially poor parties cannot meaningfully and effectively carry out their political work and stand up to the NRM, whose access to State resources make it financially strong. The financial resources it has ends up equipping itself with capacity to buy political opponents and finance agents that penetrate the alternative political parties.
The financial squeeze of Opposition in Uganda on account of not meeting with the President in meetings such as those of IPOD is seen in the latest law regarding government financing of political parties in the country passed by Parliament simultaneously with the UPDF Act 2025.
According to Muradiaga (2024), in its most basic form, economic and financial repression for political control can manifest as confiscation of physical assets, such as land, properties, and businesses, under legal pretexts justifying expropriation. As financial technology has advanced and economies have become digital, however, authoritarian regimes have added newer methods that enable deeper, more precise control over the population.Muradiaga’s (2024) list of tactics that dictators use to squeeze alternative political leaders or bases includes:
1) Financial surveillance and violation of banking privacy. Authoritarian states will access (legally or not) the banking data of individuals and organizations, including their credit-card spending and any other financial flows that can be monitored. Through international-cooperation mechanisms meant to help in the fight against crime and terrorism, and through the use of Financial Intelligence Units (or FIUs — state agencies designed to keep tabs on suspicious financial dealings), regimes can track dissidents’ money in real time, both domestically and internationally.
2) Charges of money laundering and illicit financing. These are among the most effective tactics that authoritarian regimes can use in their efforts to delegitimize and criminalize opponents. Under the guise of fighting crime or terror, governments will freeze accounts, seize assets, and suspend the ability of individuals and organizations to operate. Groups that are deemed regime-unfriendly and that receive international donor funds are especially vulnerable.
3) Confiscation of physical and financial assets. In addition to surveillance and financial control, authoritarian regimes confiscate physical assets such as properties, homes, businesses, and other tangible resources. These expropriations are often justified by laws meant to stop money laundering or support national security, but which also allow the state to strip assets from regime opponents.
4) Manipulation of national and international financial institutions. Authoritarian regimes coopt both national financial institutions (banks, central banks, finance ministries) and international organizations through norms and regulations such as those of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to impose sanctions and financially isolate critics. This enables authoritarians to block access to global financial systems, cutting off critics from any possibility of receiving donations, conducting international transfers, or even conducting basic transactions.
Napoleon Bona Parte said he was the true representative of the people and the pillar of democracy in France even if he knew his was a military state. He was able to use the Parliament to convert himself from a military leader to an Emperor. He completely usurped the sovereign powers of the Parliament and made it dance to every tune he played in terms of administration, leadership, governance and war.
During his political ideology (Bonapartism) was supreme and unchallenged and all leadership and governance sprang from it. He was an absolute ruler. His Parliament gave a semblance of parliamentary system, it placed significant power in the hands of the First Consul, Napoleon, who appointed many officials and controlled the legislative process.
In the case of Uganda, the latest show of President Tibuhaburwa freeing himself from the people of Uganda and their representatives in Parliament is definitely the new Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) Act 2025, which gives a lot of power to the President’s son, Muhoozi Kainerugabawho for all, intent and purposes, is the chosen heir to the Presidential throne.
Both President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and General Muhoozi Kainerugaba have thanked the Members of Parliament whom, reportedly, the former referred to as children, for passing the UPDF Act 2025, which consolidates power in their hands. In the thinking of the President, those Members of Parliament who did not support the Act in its entirety were anti-Uganda and anti-people and should apologise.
It is becoming increasingly clear that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni can never be defeated through elections his government organises. He is seeking another term through an election in 2026. However, he is already militarily preparing to ensure that he emerges the winner. Even when he knows biometric voting can’t work effectively in Uganda, he has shown it is the one he prefers. He first claimed Kyagulanyi Ssentamu stole his 1 million votes during the 2021 elections (Draku, 2025).
Just as I write, he has claimed Kyagulanyi Sssentamu stole 2.7 million votes in collusion with the Electoral Commission, which he singularly composes. Clearly, the results the next elections will not be decided by the voters but by rigging. Already the President claims more than half the population of Uganda belong to his Party, which he and his supporters claim is a mass party, even if most of the population consists of young people born after he grabbed power. Because he has never believed in pluralism, he is using money to destroy the integrity of the political parties.
Meanwhile, political opines, whom he has repeatedly referred to criminals may either be treated like the power vandals of Luwero (URN, 2025) or subjected to military justice under the UPDF Act 2025. In both cases the person at the centre in the CDF, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba who will be hard put to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief, who is is his father.
A future ruler of Uganda can use the UPDF Act 2025 to consolidate power and decide to do away with Parliament the way President Idi Amin did and was able to rule the country for 8 years. With military justice, even the Judiciary of Uganda is already weakened.
Time will tell whether the father and son will free themselves from Uganda and from the people and how.
For God and My Country
Prof. Oweyegha-Afunaduula is a member of Center for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis
