On Anita Among victory

What the speaker’s victory over Kadaga in NRM elections tells us about where our country stands

THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda | The resounding victory of Speaker Anita Among over former Speaker Rebecca Kadaga for the ceremonial position of deputy vice president of the NRM for the eastern region has received the greatest media coverage. This is largely because it pitted two powerful women from that region. And both come from the two largest tribes in the region: Busoga and Teso. Kadaga had the best structural advantage. In the 2011 election, the total registered voters from the Busoga region were 1.8m and from Teso, 900,000. Because there are Itesots in Tororo, their total on the register is about 1.1m.

Kadaga could have presented herself to President Yoweri Museveni as the political bull to deliver 80% of Busoga to the party and its leader. Instead, she harped on the past, reciting her role in removing term and age limits, actions long past. Museveni may appreciate that. But he needs votes in the future. This is where Among beat her. She positioned herself as the newcomer to deliver the region—at both the presidential and parliamentary levels—to the president and the party. Second, she had lots of cash to rent political support. Here Among proved to be a better student of democracy than most Ugandan elites educated in the best universities in the world.

It was alleged that Among spent Shs 300,000 on every one of the 25,000 voters, or Shs 7.5 billion. Many Ugandans went online claiming this was abuse of democracy. Some posts claimed that if this happened in a democracy, Among would be in jail. Clearly, most Ugandans have a very naïve and idealized understanding of democracy. The American philosopher, Will Durant, said that there are three most successful forms of government known to human history. The first is aristocracy, rule by birth. The second is theocracy, rule by religion (led by religious clerics). The third is democracy, rule by money. He could never have put it better.

Take the example of the oldest democracy in the world, the USA. In their last elections of 2024, victory in both the House and Senate races was largely, almost entirely, determined by how much a candidate spent in the campaign: 94% of members of the House of Representatives who won in that election had spent more than the candidate they defeated; for the Senate, it was 88%. It is only in the presidential election that Kamala Harris outspent Donald Trump and lost. Since the year 2,000, the highest percentage of top spenders losing a House race was 14%; for the Senate, it was 20% in 2010.

I have limited data on Western Europe. However, in most democratic elections across Africa and other developing countries, there is a high correlation between money and political success. There are, of course, exceptions. But that is exactly what they are—exceptions to the rule. It is the lesson Museveni learnt along his long political career and one that Among has perfected. In fact, the prostitution of Museveni from a revolutionary with an oversized ambition to transform Uganda to a foxlike politician seeking immediate electoral advantage had disastrous repercussions for our country.

Yet many elite Ugandans, idealizing democracy like a religion, cling to the naïve view that what we are witnessing is abuse of it. Far from that. I believe that most of the things we blame Museveni and his NRM for failing to do are a result of democratic pressures. I do not know what would have been Uganda’s performance had we taken an alternative path, perhaps with less democracy. But what I know, and what many scholars, observers, and analysts would agree with, is that Museveni and his NRM were a more enlightened government with a strong commitment to the good of the country before 1996. From thenceforth, there has been a steady decline in the number of public-spirited individuals in high and low politics.

This is how Among came to be the greatest political genius of our times. She understood that most of our people are poor and need basic things to live their lives. Consequently, the Ugandan government itself is poor and cannot afford to provide the large basket of public goods and services we expect and demand. Uganda spends about $320 per person per year compared to the US, which spends $25,000 per person per year. Hence, even with the best of intentions, the Ugandan government cannot do much for its people. So, voters know that politicians cannot deliver most of what they promise. It’s better to collect kitu kidogo during campaigns than to wait for Santa Claus to deliver air.

I hold strong and self-righteous views about public service. As I have grown older, I have learnt, slowly, to suspend my preconceived value judgements based on my moral tastes in order to gain understanding. It has been the most liberating thing in my intellectual life. It liberated me from partisan anger, from the constant belief that I am virtuous and the people I am criticizing are evil. And once I made that step, I came to analyze politics with dispassionate logic. I became more sympathetic to Museveni and to people like Among, however much their actions repulse my moral tastes.

I realized that in order to judge a leader (or any person) in regard to the decisions they made, the thing is not to seek an ideal solution. Rather, it is to ask: what were the real options this person had when they made this or that choice given the circumstances? For Museveni, Among has been the best Speaker who helps him control not just the NRM MPs in the house but the opposition ones too. At 81 years, the president can no longer afford to keep inviting MPs to State House, serving them tea, giving them envelopes stashed with cash, and personally paying their loans. He subcontracted that role to Among, and she does that job with excellence.

Museveni was the decisive factor in who won between Kadaga and Among. And if anyone was in his shoes, they would choose Among over Kadaga. The NRM delegates did the same. Kadaga had no money to give them. She did not promise any future but recited her past. NRM has lost most of its ideological resources for persuasion. Hence, there are very limited ideals the party pursues today that can make many people sacrifice material benefits for. That is why the party has degenerated (or let me use a positive term, transitioned) to a cash-and-carry organization. Therefore, whoever has the money always wins. That is democracy 101.

****

amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug