02/10/2024
Assessment of the Proposed Electoral Reforms by Hon. Mathias Mpuuga
The electoral reforms proposed by Hon. Mathias Mpuuga present a seemingly progressive framework aimed at overhauling Uganda's deeply compromised electoral process. However, upon closer scrutiny, these reforms fall short of addressing the core issues that have long undermined the possibility of free and fair elections in Uganda. While the ideas put forward may seem well-intentioned, they neither tackle the structural impediments to democratic processes nor account for the deeply entrenched authoritarianism that has been systematically cultivated by Yoweri Museveni's regime.
One of the most laudable proposals is the restoration and entrenchment of presidential term limits, a feature that was removed in 2005 to allow Gen. Museveni to extend his grip on power indefinitely. The reintroduction of term limits, while symbolically important, is insufficient on its own. Museveni’s removal of constitutional guardrails like term and age limits has already laid bare his disregard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. In this context, proposing the reinstatement of term limits without addressing the broader erosion of institutional checks and balances seems naive, if not deliberately superficial. Museveni has proven adept at manipulating legal frameworks to his advantage, and there is little to suggest that such reforms would be meaningfully implemented under his regime.
The proposal for a presidential candidate to have a running mate who would serve as Deputy President is another well-intended reform. However, this change seems more cosmetic than substantive. Uganda's political crisis is not rooted in the absence of a Deputy President but in the excessive concentration of power in the executive, particularly in the person of Gen. Museveni himself. Introducing a Deputy President would do little to address this fundamental imbalance, especially since the entire electoral apparatus remains firmly under Museveni’s control.
Perhaps the most perplexing of Mpuuga’s proposals is the introduction of a second tier of Parliament with 39 MPs from Uganda’s original districts, headed by the Deputy President. On the surface, this move seeks to return to a more representative model of governance. However, it is difficult to see how this additional legislative body would function in a political system where the current Parliament has already been weakened and subjugated by the executive. Increasing the number of legislative bodies or seats does not address the reality that the Museveni regime has rendered both Parliament and the Judiciary impotent in holding the government accountable. Without fundamental institutional reforms that ensure the independence of these bodies, the creation of a second tier of Parliament seems more like a distraction than a solution.
The reduction of the size of Parliament to 292 MPs is a step in the right direction, given Uganda’s bloated and ineffective legislative body. However, any such reduction must be viewed with caution, as past "reforms" to Parliament have often resulted in gerrymandering, with new constituencies created to favor ruling party candidates. Unless the redistricting process is transparent and overseen by a truly independent electoral commission, this proposal could easily be manipulated to further entrench the dominance of the ruling National Resistance Movement.
One of the more progressive elements of the reform package is the proposal to allow ordinary voters to challenge presidential election results in court. In principle, this would enhance judicial oversight of the electoral process and provide citizens with a direct mechanism to contest fraudulent elections. However, the real issue is not whether Ugandans can challenge election results in court but whether the courts themselves are willing or able to deliver impartial judgments in such cases. The judiciary, like other institutions in Uganda, has been co-opted by the Museveni regime, and it is difficult to see how this proposal would change that dynamic. Without an independent judiciary, this reform is unlikely to have the desired effect.
The proposal to declare presidential election results at the district level before transmission to the National Tally Centre is another attempt at improving transparency. While this measure might help reduce instances of tampering during the transmission of results, it does not address the more fundamental problem of widespread electoral fraud that occurs before the tallying process even begins. Museveni’s regime has a long history of voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and disenfranchisement, none of which will be rectified simply by decentralizing the announcement of results.
Finally, the inclusion of prisoners and Ugandans in the diaspora in the voting process is a long-overdue reform. These groups have been unjustly excluded from participating in Uganda’s democratic processes. However, this proposal raises practical concerns about how such voting would be implemented, particularly given the regime's reluctance to allow meaningful political participation from groups it views as hostile or unmanageable. Allowing diaspora Ugandans to vote, for instance, could pose a significant threat to Museveni, given the large diaspora population that is critical of his regime. It remains to be seen whether the government would genuinely facilitate voting for these groups, or whether this proposal is merely a token gesture.
Ultimately, the key question remains: Does the Museveni regime have the political will to implement meaningful reforms? History suggests otherwise. Museveni’s rise to power was justified by a desire to correct a rigged election, yet over the past 38 years, he has overseen one of the most entrenched systems of electoral manipulation in Africa. His removal of presidential term limits, elimination of age limits, and the systematic use of the police, military, and judiciary to target political opponents, coupled with his handpicking and manipulation of the electoral commission, all point to a leader determined to maintain power at any cost. Any proposal for electoral reform that does not address the authoritarian grip that Museveni and his family hold over the country is, at best, a well-meaning but ultimately futile exercise.
While Hon. Mathias Mpuuga’s proposals may appeal to some Ugandans who are desperate for change; they fail to address the root causes of Uganda’s electoral crisis. The problem is not a lack of reform ideas or laws on the books; it is a lack of political will from the ruling regime to embrace true democratic principles. Without a broader strategy to dismantle the autocratic infrastructure that Museveni has built over nearly four decades, these reforms are unlikely to bring about the substantive changes that Uganda so desperately needs.
Dr. Daniel Kawuma
NUP Diaspora Team Leader
Email: [email protected]
