Dialogue is not weakness: Why Uganda must choose engagement over extremism

________________

OPINION

By Edgar Tabaro

Uganda’s political history teaches us a simple but often ignored lesson: nations are not built by perpetual confrontation, but by deliberate dialogue.

In moments of high political tension, dialogue is frequently mischaracterised as weakness, betrayal, or compromise without principle. Yet history shows that the absence of dialogue is far more costly. It delays justice, hardens grievances, and entrenches cycles of instability that ultimately harm both the state and its citizens.

Recent engagements between President Museveni and selected opposition leaders have reignited debate on whether political dialogue still has a place in Uganda’s governance. In my view, the more important question is not whether dialogue should occur, but how we utilise moments of engagement to build durable political systems anchored in accountability and reconciliation.

Uganda has previously encountered such moments. When the President publicly acknowledged excesses by the NRA during counter-insurgency operations in northern Uganda at the funerals of Mzee Adimola and Atwoma Okeny. Those acknowledgements carried enormous political and moral weight. They opened a rare window for structured engagement—one that could have advanced accountability, reparations, and institutional reform. Unfortunately, those opportunities were not fully seized, and the country moved on without resolving fundamental questions of justice and redress.

This pattern—recognition without structured follow-through—has repeated itself across Uganda’s political journey. We engage emotionally, but fail to institutionalise outcomes. We speak, but do not negotiate frameworks. We reconcile rhetorically, but not structurally.

At the same time, opposition politics must confront an equally uncomfortable truth. Extremism, whether rhetorical or tactical, weakens legitimate political causes. It narrows space for engagement, alienates potential allies, and invites repression that ultimately hurts the very constituencies it claims to defend.

I therefore urge my brothers and sisters in the National Unity Platform and across the opposition to embrace restraint and strategic engagement. Political pressure must be purposeful, not incendiary. Courage in politics is not measured by how loudly we shout, but by how effectively we convert contention into reform.

Dialogue does not mean abandoning principles. It means choosing outcomes over applause. It means recognising that sustainable political systems are built through negotiation, compromise, and institutional safeguards—not perpetual mobilisation alone.

As Uganda navigates the aftermath of a highly charged electoral period, the responsibility on all political actors—government and opposition alike—is clear. We must lower temperatures, elevate ideas, and commit to engagement that produces tangible reforms: the release or fair trial of political detainees, credible investigations into abuses, and reforms that restore public trust in state institutions.

History will not judge us by how angry we were, but by whether we used moments of political truth to move the nation forward.

Dialogue is not surrender. It is statecraft.

The writer is a lawyer