National stability has trampled individual freedom in Uganda

Museveni became president in 1986 with a message of democracy, free and fair elections, freedom and prosperity for all contained in the ten-point program which he dropped in 1987 in favor of structural adjustment program (SAP) with stiff conditions. The unpopularity of SAP which was being experimented in Uganda after some countries like Ghana and Chile had found it costly and adjusted it, and the threat of terrorism in the East Africa region created a pretext for Museveni to introduce measures that have trampled individual freedom. In 2002, an anti-terrorist law came into force with a broad definition of terrorism as the “use of violence or threat of violence with intent to promote or achieve political, religious, economic and cultural or social ends in an unlawful manner”.

Painful structural adjustment at home and Uganda’s intervention in countries of the greater lakes region including alleged genocide of Hutu in DRC and plunder of Congo’s resources made Museveni unpopular, causing him to become authoritarian in order to cling to power because in a free and fair election he would lose.

Why a rising tide of opposition against Uganda’s NRM regime

From time immemorial opposition, rebellion and even revolution against a regime develop not because the regime is getting stronger or becoming more dictatorial but because it is getting weaker and less capable of delivering desired goods and services. What triggered the French Revolution of 1789, for example, was a reaction not against the rising tyranny of the ancient regime but its weakness and inability to deliver expected results.

In Uganda, the NRM regime is following in the footsteps of France’s ancient regime. NRM’s domestic, continental and global strength and glory are fading. At home the promise of eradicating poverty has vanished. Instead absolute and relative poverty is increasing. Some twenty percent of Ugandans are believed to be getting poorer. Those in the top income bracket are getting richer leaving behind those in the middle income causing a feeling of relative poverty.

Why ethnicity is rising again

There is a recognition that the colonial philosophy of divide and rule through indirect methods intensified ethnic, religious and geographical divisions. Colonial authorities favored some groups over others either in compensation for their role in suppressing resistance as in Uganda or because of racial resemblance as in Rwanda and Burundi. Consequently Baganda in Uganda, Batutsi in Burundi and Rwanda and Bahima and Bahororo in south west Uganda benefited disproportionately. They got educated, good jobs and gained tremendous political, economic and social power over the majority – the commoners.


The struggle for independence based on democracy and majority rule reversed colonial arrangements in many countries. In Uganda and Rwanda, for example, commoners – by virtue of their numerical superiority – captured power and corrected colonial injustices. Allocation of development resources, jobs in the cabinet, civil service and public enterprises were reorganized to bring about ethnic and geographical balance.

In Zambia, former President Kaunda used to argue that he had appointed so and so from one province over so and so from another province because he wanted to achieve regional balance. In Cote d’Ivoire the late President Houphouet-Boigny played a carefully ethnic balancing act that kept the country together.