By Amiri Wabusimba
In the heart of East Africa, Uganda’s political climate has once again drawn attention this time, not for progressive reform, but for the troubling convergence of party dominance and state governance.
As the country navigates its path toward the 2026 general elections, a disconcerting precedent was set when President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, who also serves as the National Chairman of the National Resistance Movement (NRM), suspended Cabinet operations to allow ministers to partake in the party’s internal electoral processes.
Concurrently, Uganda’s Parliament under the leadership of a speaker who is also a member of the ruling party paused its sessions, placing national legislative activity on hold in deference to the NRM’s primaries.
This development, though perhaps routine in the eyes of domestic power brokers, signals a more profound democratic dilemma: can the internal operations of a ruling party justifiably override the sovereign functions of the state in a constitutional multiparty system?
Uganda is constitutionally recognized as a multiparty democracy, following reforms that were institutionalized after the 2005 referendum.
Yet, episodes like this reflect a systemic erosion of democratic norms and institutional separation. When party activities dictate the pace and function of state organs, it becomes evident that party supremacy has begun to blur, if not fully usurp, the boundaries meant to preserve constitutionalism.
The executive and legislative branches are no longer operating independently but are increasingly being seen as extensions of the NRM apparatus.
This conflation endangers institutional neutrality and damages the credibility of public service, especially in the eyes of citizens who do not subscribe to the ruling party’s ideology.
Comparative democracies offer instructive frameworks on how to manage this divide responsibly.
Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), for instance, although frequently at the helm of government, maintains a rigid separation between its internal affairs and federal governance.
Chancellor-led cabinets proceed uninterrupted, even during party congresses or leadership contests.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, transitions within the Conservative Party such as the 2022 leadership race between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss did not disrupt parliamentary proceedings or ministerial responsibilities.
The state’s institutional machinery remained intact and functional.
In South Korea, a model of democratic resilience in Asia, laws and norms require public officials who wish to take up or participate actively in party roles to resign from government office, thereby maintaining ethical clarity and avoiding conflict of interest (Choe, 2021).
Uganda’s current trajectory, however, reveals a deeper vulnerability in its democratic architecture: a lack of regulatory and normative safeguards to prevent the merger of party and state.
These poses risk not just to institutional autonomy but also to the spirit of fair competition in a pluralistic system.
When Cabinet and Parliament both halt operations in alignment with the ruling party’s schedule, it renders the state apparatus an accomplice in partisan enterprise.
This marginalizes opposition voices and alienates the broader citizenry from the democratic process.
To counter this creeping encroachment, it is imperative that Uganda enacts legislation establishing a firm firewall between public office and political party leadership.
Officials holding ministerial or other executive functions must be disallowed from occupying influential posts within their respective parties during their tenure.
Such a reform would not be novel; it reflects practices already embraced in many advanced democracies.
For example, in Sweden, the neutrality of civil servants is enshrined in law, and ministers cannot simultaneously engage in party mobilization or primaries without jeopardizing their posts (Pierre, 2004).
Moreover, Uganda’s Parliament must adopt internal regulations that prohibit the suspension of sittings on account of any political party’s internal calendar.
This is not merely a procedural issue—it is a fundamental democratic safeguard.
When the legislative agenda becomes subservient to party events, the very notion of representative democracy is compromised. Constituencies—particularly those represented by opposition lawmakers—are effectively silenced, excluded from the governance process due to decisions rooted in partisan prioritization.
This conflation of party and state responsibilities is emblematic of what scholars’ term “party-statism” a condition where the ruling party colonizes the instruments of governance, leading to a weakened multiparty system (Levitsky & Way, 2010).
The consequences are far-reaching. Not only is the impartiality of institutions jeopardized, but the international credibility of Uganda’s democratic commitments also suffers.
Development partners, regional observers, and global governance indices increasingly scrutinize such regressions.
Uganda risks finding itself classified not as a functioning democracy, but as a dominant-party system, where electoral processes exist in form but not in substance.
The responsibility for redress does not rest solely on the shoulders of the government.
The Electoral Commission must assert its independence and enforce regulations that ensure equal participation without state bias. Civil society organizations should amplify their monitoring and advocacy roles, while the media must maintain editorial independence in scrutinizing both ruling and opposition parties without fear or favor.
Furthermore, Uganda’s international partners including the African Union, European Union, and United Nations—must adopt a proactive stance in promoting institutional reforms that reinforce democratic norms.
The fate of Uganda’s democracy hinges on its willingness to reaffirm the supremacy of its Constitution over the convenience of political survival.
The idea that a ruling party’s internal processes can temporarily paralyze the functioning of the state apparatus is antithetical to democratic ideals.
It not only undermines governance but also breeds cynicism among citizens who see the political system as skewed and exclusionary.
As Uganda approaches the 2026 general elections, it must choose between the deepening of democratic practice or the entrenchment of party hegemony.
A true multiparty democracy does not merely permit opposition; it protects it. It does not just allow institutions to exist it empowers them to function independently and impartially.
The world is watching, not only to witness the outcome of elections but to assess whether Uganda remains committed to the principles upon which genuine democracy is built: constitutionalism, institutional autonomy, accountability, and respect for the diverse voices of its people.
Wabusimba Amiri is a communication specialist, Diplomatic & political Analyst, International Relations Scholar, Journalist, and Human Right activist. Tel: +56775103895 email: Wabusimbaa@gmail.com
Have An Advert Or Article You Want Us To Publish? Whatsapp: +256786288379 or email binocularugnews@gmail.com
