Myth of Uganda’s family affair: What critics won’t say about power

____________

OPINION

By Esteri Mugurwa Akandwanaho

Every election season, Uganda’s political discourse is dragged into the familiar debate about President Yoweri Museveni’s family members holding senior government positions. Most recently, The Africa Report revived this narrative. It is, at best, selective journalism and, at worst, biased commentary.

Yes, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba commands the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, First Lady Janet Museveni heads the Ministry of Education and Sports, and son-in-law Odrek Rwabwogo leads the Presidential Advisory Committee on Exports and Industrial Development. But the headlines alone do not tell the whole story.

Uganda is far from unique in this regard. Around the world, political families have held influence.

In Canada, both Pierre Trudeau and his son Justin served as prime ministers.

India has been shaped for decades by the Nehru–Gandhi dynasty.

In Japan, leaders like Shinzo Abe and Junichiro Koizumi represented multi-generational political lineages. In Indonesia, President Joko Widodo’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, is now vice president.

South Asia and the Philippines are marked by the Zia–Hasina rivalry and the Marcos Duterte kinship.

Even the United States has the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, and now the Trumps. These examples confirm that political dynasties are universal, not uniquely Ugandan.

The real question is not how many relatives enter politics, but whether institutions are strong enough to check their power, and whether appointees are competent in their roles. Ultimately, it is accountability, not kinship, that should be the test of leadership.

Institutional responsibility is shared

In any functioning democracy, the performance of institutions is not the sole responsibility of the head of state. Yet in Uganda, responsibility is often deflected onto the president – carelessly, sometimes mischievously – as if governance were a one-man show.

It is common to hear officials say, “You need the blue letter,” alluding to presidential stationery, as though no decision can stand without State House’s signature.

But Uganda’s Constitution vests authority in Parliament, the Judiciary, the Auditor General, the Inspectorate of Government, and the executive as a whole.

Chairs of parliamentary committees, justices, ministers, and technocrats each carry mandates they are expected to uphold. When committees fail to address corruption reports, when courts avoid sentencing out of fear, or when watchdog agencies shy away from deterrent action, the blame lies with those institutions, not solely with the President.

This abdication of responsibility is symptomatic of a wider “big man syndrome,” where individuals expect one office to carry the weight of governance. Families, too, mirror this dysfunction – with parents absolving themselves of responsibility in raising and mentoring their children, leaving gaps that weaken social foundations.

Oversight reports that gather dust are not only a governance problem, but also an economic cost, eroding investor confidence and public trust.

Democracy, therefore, requires both institutional integrity and active citizen participation. It is not enough to complain about leaders; citizens must also fulfil civic duties and demand accountability.

Merit and democracy in context

Uganda has in place systems designed to enforce merit and accountability: parliamentary confirmations, judicial independence, performance contracts, and a multi-party legislature. The challenge is not the absence of institutions, but their inconsistent performance.

A useful analogy is that of a family: a father who idles away, drinking while projecting authority, and a mother who toils daily, but barely sustains the household.

Neither strikes balance, and the family suffers. Likewise, governance falters when leaders rely on rhetoric without action, or when citizens remain silent instead of demanding accountability. Dysfunction becomes culture when both leaders and people collude in neglect.

Criticism of family appointments, therefore, should be directed not at kinship itself, but at the institutions tasked with vetting and monitoring appointees. Leaders must be assessed on competence and integrity, not merely on their surnames.

The 2021 vote and foreign meddling

Uganda’s 2021 elections revealed not only domestic contestation, but also external interference.

International media amplified chaotic imagery – some accurate, others false, misleading, or staged – portraying Uganda on the brink of collapse.

Beyond media narratives, donor-funded civic platforms and foreign governments sought to tilt the playing field, advancing agendas misaligned with Uganda’s cultural and constitutional framework.

This is not unique to Uganda. Across Africa, similar strategies have been deployed to sway elections, undermine institutions, and impose policy directions aligned with donor interests rather than citizens’ needs.

National and Pan-African sovereignty

Uganda’s sovereignty is delegated by its people, not foreign capitals, donor microphones, or international lobbyists.

While foreign partnerships can be constructive, they cross into interference when they override national consensus or weaponise media narratives.

Leaders across Africa – from Museveni to Kagame – have emphasised that governance must be rooted in sovereignty and Pan-African solidarity.

Citizens must judge leaders not by foreign criticism but by whether they uphold accountability, stability, and national interest.

The call to leadership

For Uganda to progress, leaders must rise above ego, theatrics, and opportunism. Parliament must act decisively on committee findings.

The judiciary must enforce rulings without hesitation. Oversight bodies must ensure their work produces consequences, not dust-covered reports.

Citizens, too, must reject politics driven by innuendo and speculation, and nourished by sensationalism and hyperbole. True democracy rests on self-governance, transparency, and national pride.

Every Ugandan is first a leader in their own right; only by embracing responsibility can the nation strengthen its governance and build resilience. If Ugandans target real issues – merit, accountability, and institutional reform – rather than scapegoats and distractions, the country will advance toward a sustainable future worthy of its people.

The writer is founder of Axiom Group Holdings, is a strategist, business consultant, and communications leader