Selection vs elections: How NUP is balancing on a democratic scale

____________

OPINION

As Uganda approaches the 2026 general elections, political parties are busy preparing for the contest. They are selecting candidates, writing manifestos and planning campaign strategies.

With the National Resistance Movement (NRM) primaries over, attention now shifts to the way NUP chooses its flagbearers. The process is a critical moment for the party, not only in selecting strong candidates, but also in demonstrating its commitment to internal democracy, transparency and institutional integrity.

For weeks, NUP leaders have criticised the NRM for conducting primaries marred by vote rigging and violence in some areas.

They have described the ruling party’s polls as flawed, yet as NUP starts its selection process, the party faces a fundamental contradiction: choosing candidates without a vote may fail the democratic test.

NUP’s method for selecting flag bearers is different from NRM’s universal suffrage approach. Instead, it uses a two-tiered system. The first stage involves a vetting committee that rates contenders based on interviews and academic credentials, assigning up to 40% of the total score.

Contenders must answer questions about the party’s mission and their role in its operations and survival. The second stage, accounting for 60%, evaluates a candidate’s so-called “field strength,” a vague metric presumed to measure grassroots support.

On paper, this system appears to combine merit and public appeal. In reality, however, it raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency and potential manipulation.

It is difficult to tell how scores are awarded. The vetting committee, for example, operates with limited oversight and is susceptible to bias. It functions more like an electoral college, where decisions can be influenced not just by competence but also by personal loyalty, flattery or transactional politics.

Reports of aspirants presenting gifts to the party leader, Robert Kyagulanyi, or theatrically kneeling before him could sway the committee.

For instance, one MP brought a goat to the party headquarters, and another respected professional knelt before the NUP leader.

If any of these individuals receive the party ticket, other candidates will cite bias. Moreover, such actions suggest a growing culture of patronage and personalism, dynamics that often undermine democratic party building. The assessment of “field strength” lacks methodological clarity. NUP does not reveal whether it conducts systematic opinion polling, grassroots consultations or uses other empirical tools to assign this critical 60%. Without clear standards, candidates and the broader party membership are left to guess how scores are calculated, fuelling suspicions of favouritism or arbitrary decisions.

This lack of transparency has political consequences. Candidates are expected to accept the results without question and are discouraged from running as independents if they do not get the flag. While some may comply out of loyalty or fear of repercussions, others will not.

Already, defections have started. Benjamin Kalyesubula’s public resignation, citing unfairness in NUP’s internal elections, may signal a broader dissatisfaction simmering beneath the surface.

He has chosen to run as an independent, and several others who will fail to secure the party flag due to the opaque system are likely to follow. It happened in the Kawempe North byelections, when two members who were unhappy with the selection process defied the party and ran as independents. If grievances multiply, as they likely will, NUP risks internal fragmentation.

As a relatively young party, founded in 2020, NUP is still in the process of institutional consolidation.

Managing internal dissent poorly could alienate credible members, erode public trust and compromise its performance in the 2026 elections.

Nevertheless, NUP’s leadership remains confident. They present their selection process as more disciplined and civilised than the NRM’s elections, citing the absence of violence and rigging. But while NUP may avoid physical confrontations, procedural opacity and perceived favouritism are equally corrosive to democratic legitimacy. The challenge is not only to be better than the NRM, but to genuinely model the democratic values it claims to uphold.

NUP appears to be taking its supporters for granted. The assumption seems to be that they do not mind how flagbearers are chosen, as long as the party is seen to be in the struggle for power.

However, the reality is different: supporters care deeply and want a transparent and democratic process, as a sign that the party will uphold democratic principles if it wins the polls and forms a government.

However, besides ignoring the concerns of supporters, NUP leadership is wary of universal adult suffrage, fearing it could leave the party deeply divided. They think that a selection committee approach could avert division, yet it can result in disagreement, too. So, they are glossing over the fact that a disgruntled member could easily defect, carrying away supporters to another party. Although not related to party primaries, the falling out of Kyagulanyi and Mathias Mpuuga MP (Nyendo-Mukungwe), and the former Leader of Opposition in Parliament (LOP), is a pointer to the possibility of quitting with supporters.

Mpuuga broke away with like-minded MPs and has since founded the Democratic Front (DF), which is turning Masaka into a stronghold. Not only does this set an example for others, but it also provides an alternative for dissatisfied NUP members.

NUP’s preference for selection over election works for now, especially since the party is not yet established across the entire country. Selection is where a few individuals choose candidates; it is easier to manage and control.

In contrast, elections are where many people vote for candidates, which is more democratic. While selection may serve practical purposes, it risks failing the test of internal democracy. The process would carry more legitimacy if the selection committee itself had been elected by party members.

In contrast, NRM has consistently used universal adult suffrage in its internal elections. It recognises that its members want a fair and open system for choosing leaders.

Moreover, the party’s primaries give it a strategic advantage, allowing it to showcase its national reach and organisational strength early on. Ultimately, NUP’s credibility as a national alternative will not rest solely on its criticism of the ruling party. It will hinge on its ability to practise internally what it demands externally: transparency, fairness, inclusivity and democratic accountability.

How the party handles the flagbearer selection in the coming weeks will provide Ugandans with the clearest indication yet of whether NUP is truly ready to lead, not just in rhetoric, but in reality.

dmukholi@gmail.com X-@dmukholi1