LC I & II elections must reset Uganda’s governance foundation

________________

OPINION

Emma Bwayo, Namisindwa LC5 chairperson elect

The recent announcement of LC I and LC II elections presents Uganda with an opportunity to correct a long-standing governance gap at the grassroots.

These elections should not be treated as a routine administrative exercise, but must become the foundation upon which effective service delivery and accountability are rebuilt.

Uganda’s decentralisation framework is clear. The country operates a five-tier Local Government structure from LC I (village) to LC V (district). The 1995 Constitution and the Local Government Act of 1997 provide for devolution of powers, responsibilities, and services to these levels to promote accountability and citizen participation.

On paper, the framework is sound. In practice, however, it has remained top-heavy.

LC I and LC II, the very structures closest to the people, have historically been the most neglected in terms of facilitation, capacity building, and even elections.

Since 1986, these leaders have only been elected twice. The 2018 elections were conducted after a 17-year gap, yet Article 181(4) of the Constitution requires local government elections be held every five years.

Timely elections are not optional. They are a constitutional obligation. When elections are delayed, leaders lose legitimacy, communities lose confidence, and accountability weakens.

At the village and parish levels, this vacuum directly affects dispute resolution, mobilisation for government programmes, identification of beneficiaries, and oversight of public services.

LC I leaders are often the first point of contact between citizens and the State. They mediate domestic disputes, authenticate documents, monitor government projects, and mobilise communities for health and social causes. If this level is weak, the entire governance structure above it becomes unstable.

But elections alone will not solve the problem. Uganda has repeatedly made the mistake of electing LC I and LC II leaders without adequately inducting and training them. Many assume office without a clear understanding of their legal mandate, limits of authority, reporting lines, or relationship with technical staff at the sub-county level. This knowledge gap creates overlapping roles, jurisdictional conflicts, and frequent clashes between political leaders and civil servants.

An uninformed local leader is not just ineffective; they can inadvertently undermine service delivery.

Ignorance of the Local Government Act and other relevant laws can result in illegal levies, mishandling of disputes, abuse of authority, or interference with technical functions. In some cases, well-intentioned leaders fail to execute their mandate simply because no one has guided them properly.

This is where the Ministry responsible for Local Government must be held accountable. Capacity building at the LC I and II levels has been minimal and irregular. Most structured trainings target LC III, IV, and V levels, leaving grassroots leaders to learn through trial and error.

Decentralisation was never meant to be symbolic. It was designed to empower local communities to participate meaningfully in governance and development. Yet empowerment requires knowledge, clarity of roles, and continuous support.

Civil society organisations and governance-focused NGOs must also reflect. For years, most governance interventions have concentrated on districts and municipalities, overlooking village and parish structures. Yet it is at the LC I where citizens experience government most directly.

If we are serious about improving service delivery, three urgent steps are necessary. First, the Electoral Commission must institutionalise predictable, five-year election cycles for LC I and LC II leaders without exception. Electoral consistency builds democratic culture and public trust.

Secondly, the government must make induction training mandatory immediately after elections. Every LC I and LC II leader should undergo structured orientation covering their legal mandate, financial procedures, ethics, conflict resolution, community mobilisation, and coordination with technical officers. Refresher training should be followed periodically.

Thirdly, development partners and NGOs should deliberately invest in grassroots governance capacity. A coordinated, nationwide induction and mentorship framework would reduce operational confusion and strengthen accountability from the bottom up.

Decentralisation can only deliver if leaders are empowered, trained, and guided. Without strengthening the base, reforms at higher levels will continue to struggle with implementation gaps.

The forthcoming LC I and LC II elections must, therefore, signal more than political renewal. They should mark a commitment to rebuilding Uganda’s governance pyramid from the foundation.

Strong villages build strong sub-counties. Strong sub-counties build strong districts. And strong districts build a stable nation.

The future of effective service delivery in Uganda begins at LC I.

The writer is the LCV Chairman elect, Namisindwa District, Youth Councillor and Journalist

emmahbwayo@gmail.com