By Oweyegha-Afunaduula
Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis
2 June 2025
Uganda has been politically independent since 9th October 1962, but its people remain largely politically underdeveloped and politically illiterate.
Politics is primarily focused on accessing political office, power, money, resources, and consumable goods and services—often at the expense of others. Political leaders have exploited this situation to consolidate and retain power at all costs, ensuring that those who might offer alternative leadership remain as divided as possible.
More critically, the alternative political associations or opposition parties are conducting their political business by dancing to the tune set by the incumbent president, whom they allow to define the political agenda unchallenged.
Opposition leaders no longer prioritize renewing political leadership within their own parties—or the country. Instead, they often focus on fighting among themselves and seem to detest the word “compromise.”
When they agree to disagree, they invest their time and energy in forming new political parties—many of which direct their political firepower not at the incumbent president but at fellow opposition actors. Some even have political or financial ties with top leaders in the ruling regime and see no reason to engage in a genuine struggle for the country’s liberation.
I characterize this situation as the “Presidentialisation of the Opposition in Uganda.”
This might mean that opposition politics begins and ends with President Tibuhaburwa Museveni. It may also suggest that the president has considerable influence over the creation of new political parties and the internal politics of existing ones.
Presidentialisation of the opposition in Uganda could also imply that opposition parties increasingly focus on the presidency as the ultimate prize and symbol of political power. As a result, they concentrate their efforts and resources on winning the presidency, often overlooking other important electoral contests or local governance issues.
Their identity and messaging tend to revolve around the charisma, popularity, and leadership style of their presidential candidate, rather than party ideology, policy platforms, or grassroots mobilization. With such a strong fixation on the presidency, less emphasis is placed on building a robust opposition presence in Parliament, local councils, or other governance structures—yet these are crucial for checks and balances, policy development, and grassroots representation.
This trend will undoubtedly have long-term implications for Uganda’s political landscape—affecting how power is contested, how policies are developed and implemented, and how democratic institutions function.
As the opposition shifts focus away from liberation and structural change, the ruling regime has successfully designed and enacted policies and laws that are increasingly violent and disempowering. De-presidentialising Uganda’s political landscape—especially the opposition—will be a long and difficult process.
In the meantime, both the ruling regime and the opposition risk becoming burdens to the people of Uganda—ineffective in delivering development, transformation, or meaningful progress in this century of advanced knowledge and communication technologies.
If this trajectory continues, Uganda will remain on a path of de-democratisation, hereditary politics, and militarised governance. The dream of independence and true sovereignty will stay unrealised. In the end, the real beneficiaries will be foreigners.
In one sentence: This is a reversal of independence—a process that has been unfolding for the last 40 or so years.