Uganda held its presidential and parliamentary elections last week. There were no surprises, although they are always anticipated or perhaps only hoped for. Everything was predictable. The outcome was never in doubt. President Yoweri Museveni would win as he has done every five years since 1996, and in the same way. And unless something drastic happens, he will be back in 2026 with the same results. The campaign was marred by violence, as has been the case in all Uganda’s elections except in 1961 leading up to internal self-rule and to a lesser extent the independence elections in 1962. Only this time it was greater than in all previous times. There were more deaths. The roughest treatment was reserved for the candidate thought to carry the greatest threat to President Museveni’s hold on power. Those who lose react the same way. They claim victory and reject the outcome citing rigging, violence by the state, uneven playing field, and so on. In the past they would go to court. Then they lost faith in that route and resorted to street action. It remains to be seen which way candidate Robert Kyagulanyi (Bobi Wine) will go. The response of the state is equally predictable. It will harass opposition leaders, arrest and detain them, and prevent their parties from functioning normally. Finally, there is always some foreign meddler to blame. It used to be the United States and Europe. But in recent years a country from the region has been added to the list of meddlers. Museveni made the customary blame again in his victory speech. He did not, however, name this country. But relations in the region leave no doubt as to which he meant. This signals that there will be no change in relations with this particular country, and indeed, in the East African region. Not that much was expected anyway. If anything it indicates that he is even more determined to continue his own meddling. If all this was predictable, if no change is expected, why go through what is for all intents and purposes a charade? Simple. Democracy and hope. Regular elections, however flawed, are seen as the yardstick of how democratic one is, especially in the eyes of the west. They are often equated with democracy, and so people go through them to gain acceptance. It is doubtful whether Museveni believes in elections as the best selection method for those most qualified to govern the country. But make no mistake, he takes them very seriously. He knows the value of symbols and gestures and so will play along. He also takes every challenge seriously and prepares for it adequately. He leaves nothing to chance and will use every weapon at his disposal, including force and deceit, to defeat his opponents. In this past election, however, he seems to have been rattled a little more than usual. Previous challenges to his authority had grown from within his NRM party, among his long-time associates. Those he could deal with. This time it came from an unusual source – the ghetto and from a musician, not a conventional politician, with an army of young followers. Along the way it morphed into a strong regional challenge to Museveni’s rule. In this latter sense, Ugandan politics seems to have come full circle, back to the regional politics that was the original source of the country’s instability. And so the only way to deal with this was to bring out all the military force on the street – armoured cars paraded through the streets of Kampala, soldiers patrolled the streets and helicopters hovered above. This show of force was meant to project power and intimidate voters. But there was more to it according to a Ugandan journalist and commentator. Appearing on UBC television on a panel analysing the elections, Timothy Kalyegira, said the appointment of generals with Somali battle experience to take charge of security in Kampala and military mobilisation in the capital was meant to counter an anticipated urban insurrection instigated by a foreign country. He was a little more specific than Museveni and mentioned a hilly country in the neighbourhood. Some things, like elections, are meant to bring about change, but in some instances, they are designed to entrench the status quo. And so it is in Uganda. Expect no change there and also in the region. Besides predictability of no change, the elections in Uganda have broad significance regarding multi-party politics in other places. In many of these, elections are not contests of contending ideas, programmes or ideologies for organising society. They are more of a physical, battleground combat in which people actually get hurt and lives are lost. The candidate who can marshal the greatest force wins. The more combative (in a physical sense), intolerant or abusive a person or political party is, the more they are likely to be popular with voters. That is why politicians like Major General Mugisha Muntu can never make any impression on Ugandan voters. Multi-party competition is also a lie. Political parties are no such. They are only convenient vehicles for individuals and groups to get to power and then exclude everyone else. And therein lies the seeds of instability and violence. It is perhaps time to look for an alternative electoral system that recognises pluralism but is also inclusive. The views expressed in this article are of the writer.
