The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
How the ruling party’s competitive elections produce a government that serves individuals
THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda | The just-concluded NRM primary elections are a classic case of the inconsistency between Uganda’s politics and democratic theory. There is a wide expectation that when leaders are subjected to popular control by the population through regular elections, they become responsive to the public good. Indeed, that is the whole essence of elections: to allow voters select those leaders who are responsive to the public good. This is achieved by electing poor and/or nonperforming leaders out of office and endorsing the good performing incumbents by reelecting them into office.
In the just concluded elections, 82% of NRM incumbent MPs lost the party’s flag. In fact, this is a pattern both the party and the country have sustained in all previous elections. For instance, the current size of our parliament is 536 members. Only 105 were in the previous parliament. Therefore, more than 75% of the current parliament are new members. This anti-incumbency against legislators at the national level also happens in elections to the local governments for executive and legislative offices. In every election, over two thirds of elected officials at all levels are removed from office.
Therefore, except for President Yoweri Museveni, who has become permanent furniture in the presidency, every other leader is subject to rigorous popular pressure. Yet despite such consistent vigilance by the electorate, the Uganda government exhibits an unusually low degree of responsiveness to the common good. So many things go wrong in both central and local government. Schools rot, hospitals go into disrepair, roads develop potholes, garbage goes uncollected, sewage spews into the roads, “investors” backfill swamps and other wetlands causing floods, etc. Despite these glaring failures, Uganda continues business as usual.
Next to Uganda is Rwanda. By every measure of democratic theory and practice as defined in a textbook, Uganda beats Rwanda hands down. There is more political participation in Uganda than Rwanda. Elections in Uganda are much more contested than Rwanda. Museveni faces much greater competitive pressure at every election than President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. In fact, Museveni is, in every election, under greater threat of losing than Kagame can ever imagine. Ugandan MPs face much more electoral threat than their counterparts in Rwanda can ever contemplate. Then, the press in Uganda is freer, civil society much more vibrant, political parties more dynamic, public assemblies more rigorous and probing, etc.
The attention public officials in Rwanda pay to the common good is truly inspiring. Public offices are treated as sacrosanct. When you visit a government school or hospital, walk or drive on public road or visit a public park, enter a government building or a political party office, go to a public library or museum, pass through their airports or public bus and taxi parks, or just going into a military barracks or politic station, etc. the quality of maintenance of these public spaces is even better than you fund in private homes and businesses premises, be they hotels or restaurants.
Every day, Rwanda’s public officials – with all their weaknesses – go to office and try their best to promote and protect the good of the citizen and country. They clean the streets, they clear drainage, mow the grass in public parks, prune the flowers, tend to the sick, teach the young, respect the elderly, etc. When there is a traffic logjam somewhere, the police are on time to help motorists. When a pothole develops in a road, the public office responsible, whether central or local government, will respond immediately.
Many people who visit Rwanda armed with prejudice and ignorance claim that officials respond this way because of an “authoritarian” state. Others claim it is fear of one man, Kagame, that drives these public expressions of commitment to the common good in Rwanda. Recently, a Nigerian who visited Rwanda posted on twitter (X) that he found the people there subdued. There is a lot of truths in the claim that Kagame’s iron discipline has ensured a very efficient and effective administrative state in Rwanda. But it is not the whole truth, in fact it is a distorted truth.
What Kagame did in Rwanda is to set a minimum standard below which he feels Rwanda should not go. And he has exhibited a tenacious commitment to enforcing it. However, that is one part of the story. The other part is that, and which I think is most critical, is that Kagame has directed the gaze of Rwandans to a vision of their individual and nation’s greatness. He has painted that vision in bright colors and then inspired Rwandans, in both his words and deeds, to reach out to that dream of a great country. He has inspired Rwandans to believe that they can achieve their personal and collective goals. The thing is that they have bought it.
This is big idea that has made public services in Rwanda function. It is hard to improve anything using intimidation and threats. If Kagame’s iron fist was the only instrument he had in his tool kit, he would have either failed or achieved much less. Indeed, and contrary to ill-informed opinion about that country, Rwandans are much more dynamic and activist about the public good. The pursuit of collective goals in not just imposed from above. There is a symbiotic relationship between the leadership and the citizenry.
For instance, if there is a public service that is not working, Rwandans will take to twitter and other social media to complain. Immediately this happens, responsible public officials will intervene quickly and get the problem resolved. One reason for this is that if they don’t intervene immediately, there is an authority that will come down on them like wildfire. In Uganda, a road will fall apart, and citizens resign to its fate. This is partly because Ugandans have the experience that no one really cares. Why? Because even the many times they have launched mass public campaigns against potholes and giant craters in their roads, no one has cared to respond.
Thus, what appears as a vibrant civic life with a lot of activism are voices of despair and desperation, not hope. Ugandans know that little or nothing will change. On the other hand, what appears as silence in Rwanda is because it takes a short time between when activism against failure of a public service is raised and when the problem is solved. So popular campaigns do not last forever, a reality that creates a sense that people are subdued. In this election, Ugandans will be killing each other for individuals to get a public job. In last year’s elections, Rwandans were coming together to serve the public. That is the entire difference.
****
amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug
Sometimes Mr Andrew M9 writes like some who truly cares and loves this country called “The Banana Republic”, which’s very nice; yet again, occasionally, he writes like a resigned “activist”!!
Look at the story above, in juxtaposing general governance situations between Rwanda and Uganda you realize that he(Andrew M9) too, feels for the sorrow state under Tibuhaburwa’s wanton autocratic rule!
Which tells us that many of M9’s articles which appear in support of the current establishment are in fact a result of “no-ray-of-hope-for-a-better-future”!!
But, as the old adage goes: for every dark cloud there’s always a silver lining!
So Andrew M9 one day we’ll be at a better situation than Rwanda, it’s a matter of when but not if!
I’ve been to Rwanda personally many times and I really appreciate the situation there, albeit with their many other weaknesses like you aptly put it.
Uwelugosi, when it comes to speaking out about the situation in Uganda vs what’s in Rwanda, Andrew holds both the gold medal and trophy. He has been at it for decades. You often hear people stating how different things are in Rwanda than in the “bigger sister”. Most of them pick(ed) from his “gospel” because of his connections at both ends and outspokenness that many times stirs feathers. Hopefully, the “disciples” are doing their part to make things better in both countries.
What i hope to know better is how Rwandans (freely) comment about the state of Uganda-and theirs. We are ONE COUNTRY, in more ways than not!
It is all about the CEO dear. We have the wrong CEO in charge of our ship. James Kakooza,MP, et al errored by sponsoring the removal of term limits.
Shallow analysis, just like last week’s about Among and Kadaga, which did not chiefly focus on Museveni but the money. Money from who? Uganda’s political trajectory shifted markedly when President Yoweri Museveni began positioning his limited IQ son, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, as a heir. This reflects a pattern of neopatrimonial rule, in which state institutions are subordinated to personal power and dynastic ambitions. Under this framework, public resources are often diverted toward patronage and regime survival, leaving little room for investment in infrastructure, healthcare, or anti-corruption reforms. The outcome in Uganda has been political stagnation, weakened accountability, and declining public trust in state institutions.
In contrast, Paul Kagame’s Rwanda aligns more closely with the model of developmental authoritarianism, where political control is maintained through restricted pluralism but offset by tangible improvements in public goods provision. Kagame’s government has overseen major advances in health, infrastructure, and technology, which bolster regime legitimacy and contribute to international recognition of Rwanda’s developmental achievements. However, concerns remain regarding inclusivity, as perceptions of Tutsi dominance within state institutions persist. This raises questions about long-term stability in a country where ethnic identity continues to be politically salient. Kagame’s sustained emphasis on service delivery may therefore be understood as a strategic mechanism to consolidate support among the Hutu majority.
Nonetheless, when compared with Uganda’s stagnation under Museveni, Kagame’s model demonstrates that effective governance can coexist with limited freedoms. While both leaders are authoritarian, Kagame has prioritised national development, whereas Museveni has prioritised personal power. Definitely citizens under Kagame benefit more and in a long run it can lead to national development.
Uganda Shouldn’t Trade Freedom for Rwanda’s Discipline
Andrew argues that Uganda’s chaotic democracy pales beside Rwanda’s disciplined governance. Rwanda’s clean streets and efficient public officials, he says, prove the superiority of Kagame’s model. But this is a dangerous illusion.
Democracy is not about how fast potholes are filled or how tidy public parks look. Those are signs of administration, not freedom. The essence of democracy lies in accountability and the right to question leaders without fear. Rwanda’s spotless streets cannot be separated from its silenced voices.
Uganda’s high turnover of MPs is not evidence of accountability either. Elections are marred by money and factionalism. Many incumbents fall because of internal NRM battles or unmet patronage promises, not because voters reward or punish performance. That is dysfunction, not democratic vigilance.
Rwanda’s “efficiency” rests on fear. Dissent is tightly policed, opposition suppressed, and silence enforced. Citizens may post complaints online, but only within strict boundaries. Uganda’s noisy activism may look chaotic, but it reflects resilience. Rwandan quiet is not hope—it is caution.
And authoritarian efficiency rarely lasts. Gaddafi’s Libya, Mobutu’s Zaire, Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi, even Amin’s Uganda—all projected order and control, only to collapse or leave behind weakened states. Development without freedom is brittle.
Ugandans deserve more credit. When they march against corruption or demand better services, they show democratic courage. The tragedy is not that Ugandans don’t care, but that their government rarely listens.
Uganda’s politics are flawed, yes. But Rwanda is no model to emulate. Clean streets and quick repairs cannot replace rights, accountability, and dignity. Real progress comes from strengthening institutions so that democracy delivers without sacrificing freedom.