This situation is not new. Uganda has seen it before. It echoes the deeply flawed 1980 general elections when the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) ended the nomination process with fourteen of its candidates declared unopposed. On the eve of that election, three more UPC candidates—all from Kasese—were similarly declared unopposed, bringing the total to seventeen. That moment marked a critical turning point in Uganda’s political history, one that ultimately led to prolonged instability and armed conflict.
What is striking today is not merely the repetition of history but the difference in how the opposition responds to it. The opposition of that era refused to normalize an illegitimate process. They did not accept political exclusion, intimidation, or the manipulation of electoral procedures as “business as usual.” The UPM/NRA—what later became the NRM—considered such conditions intolerable and framed their struggle as resistance to a stolen democratic space.
Today, under the NRM and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s long rule, similar patterns are emerging: candidates blocked at nomination, opposition figures intimidated or arrested, security agencies deployed as political tools, and entire constituencies quietly handed to the ruling party through unopposed declarations. Yet, unlike the past, much of this is being tolerated, rationalized, or softened under the language of “patience,” “protest votes,” and “change you can trust.”
The contradiction is hard to ignore. The very system that came to power by rejecting fraudulent elections now presides over an electoral environment that increasingly excludes genuine competition. Museveni’s NRM, once a self-proclaimed liberation movement, has evolved into a regime that fears open contest, relying instead on state machinery, legal technicalities, and coercion to maintain control.
As Uganda approaches another election cycle, the fundamental question remains unanswered: can meaningful change emerge from a process that systematically denies fairness, freedom, and equal participation? Elections without choice, without safety for candidates, and without institutional neutrality cannot deliver democracy. At best, they offer the appearance of legitimacy; at worst, they entrench authoritarianism.
History teaches us that ignoring these warning signs comes at a high cost. Uganda does not need to relive the mistakes of the past. What is required now is honesty, courage, and a refusal to normalize injustice—by citizens, political leaders, and institutions alike. The struggle for democracy is not sustained by slogans alone, but by confronting hard truths and demanding accountability.
The future of Uganda depends on it. Keep the faith—but keep it grounded in action, vigilance, and principle.
Bantu MEDIA 