Blogs
Voters never forget, and they are watching
Parliament has commenced work. However, for some MPs, the swearing-in ceremony may have marked not the beginning of a Legislative term, but the start of a political decline. Opposition legislators, particularly those from the National Unity Platform (NUP), appear, especially vulnerable.
David Mukholi.
By: David Mukholi, Journalist @New Vision
_________________
OPINION
The 12th Parliament is now fully constituted following the swearing-in of MPs and the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The Opposition has also selected its parliamentary leadership, including the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Whip and chairpersons of four accountability committees: Public Accounts, Local Government Accounts, Government Assurance and the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE).
Parliament has commenced work. However, for some MPs, the swearing-in ceremony may have marked not the beginning of a Legislative term, but the start of a political decline. Opposition legislators, particularly those from the National Unity Platform (NUP), appear, especially vulnerable.
Following their swearing-in, several MPs reaffirmed their commitment to serving the people. While such announcements are expected, many went further and promised improvements in education, healthcare, transport infrastructure and household livelihoods. The critical question is whether MPs possess the mandate, resources, and authority to deliver on such promises.
These commitments were largely a continuation of campaign pledges. Ironically, the same promises that helped candidates win office could become the basis upon which voters judge and reject them in the next election. A recurring feature of Ugandan politics is that candidates often depart from their party manifestos and craft personal ones tailored to local expectations.
In these personalised manifestos, candidates make big pledges beyond their legislative responsibilities. Even some National Resistance Movement (NRM) flag-bearers made promises that stretched far beyond the party manifesto. Because party manifestos are broad national plans and may not contain projects specific to every constituency, candidates are tempted to create localised agendas. Five years later, many of these promises remain unfulfilled, leaving voters disillusioned. As a result, legislators are often branded non-performers. The question voters commonly ask is simple: “What has this MP done for us?” This perception partly explains the high attrition rate witnessed during every electoral cycle.
The 2026 elections were no exception. More than 70% of MPs in the 11th Parliament lost their seats. Of the 295 legislators who failed to retain their positions, 188 were from the NRM, 30 from NUP, 42 were Independents, 20 belonged to the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), eight to the Democratic Party (DP), five to the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and one each from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and JEEMA.
Ironically, many MPs overlook the political value embedded in their own party manifestos. For example, the NRM Manifesto for 2021 2026 introduced the Parish Development Model (PDM), arguably one of the most politically marketable programmes available to ruling party candidates. An NRM candidate who simply explained that the Government intended to channel sh100m to every parish had a compelling campaign message. The same commitment appears in the NRM Manifesto 2026–2031. But some candidates ignored such flagship programmes and, instead opted for grand personal promises that they may struggle to fulfil.
The NRM cannot abandon its national manifesto to implement the personal manifestos of individual MPs. Consequently, NRM legislators seeking development projects for their constituencies must resort to lobbying and influence within government structures. However, success often depends on networks, experience and access to decision-makers. For first-time MPs, navigating these systems can be difficult. Many eventually resort to meeting constituents’ immediate needs through personal financial contributions such as paying school fees, settling medical bills and supporting funerals, weddings and community functions. They hope such gestures will save them politically.
These commitments were largely a continuation of campaign pledges. Ironically, the same promises that helped candidates win office could become the basis upon which voters judge and reject them in the next election. A recurring feature of Ugandan politics is that candidates often depart from their party manifestos and craft personal ones tailored to local expectations.
In these personalised manifestos, candidates make big pledges beyond their legislative responsibilities. Even some National Resistance Movement (NRM) flag-bearers made promises that stretched far beyond the party manifesto. Because party manifestos are broad national plans and may not contain projects specific to every constituency, candidates are tempted to create localised agendas. Five years later, many of these promises remain unfulfilled, leaving voters disillusioned. As a result, legislators are often branded non-performers. The question voters commonly ask is simple: “What has this MP done for us?” This perception partly explains the high attrition rate witnessed during every electoral cycle.
The 2026 elections were no exception. More than 70% of MPs in the 11th Parliament lost their seats. Of the 295 legislators who failed to retain their positions, 188 were from the NRM, 30 from NUP, 42 were Independents, 20 belonged to the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), eight to the Democratic Party (DP), five to the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and one each from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and JEEMA.
Ironically, many MPs overlook the political value embedded in their own party manifestos. For example, the NRM Manifesto for 2021 2026 introduced the Parish Development Model (PDM), arguably one of the most politically marketable programmes available to ruling party candidates. An NRM candidate who simply explained that the Government intended to channel sh100m to every parish had a compelling campaign message. The same commitment appears in the NRM Manifesto 2026–2031. But some candidates ignored such flagship programmes and, instead opted for grand personal promises that they may struggle to fulfil.
The NRM cannot abandon its national manifesto to implement the personal manifestos of individual MPs. Consequently, NRM legislators seeking development projects for their constituencies must resort to lobbying and influence within government structures. However, success often depends on networks, experience and access to decision-makers. For first-time MPs, navigating these systems can be difficult. Many eventually resort to meeting constituents’ immediate needs through personal financial contributions such as paying school fees, settling medical bills and supporting funerals, weddings and community functions. They hope such gestures will save them politically.
While politically expedient, such interventions are neither sustainable nor a substitute for structured development.
The challenge is even greater for opposition MPs. Many campaigned not only on promises of development, but also on political change, specifically the removal of the NRM government and President Yoweri Museveni from power. Some pledged that they would not work with the Government, which they accuse of oppression and misrule. But neither they nor their parties possess the resources necessary to implement development programmes independently in their constituencies.
NUP MPs find themselves in a political dilemma. Should NUP legislators engage with the ruling NRM to secure development projects and fulfil their campaign promises? Or should they maintain a hardline opposition stance, refusing co-operation because NUP believes it won the election and that the NRM government lacks legitimacy? Museveni won the January 15, elections with a landslide, securing 7,946,772 votes (71.65%), while Robert Kyagulanyi, NUP’s presidential candidate, received 2,741,238 votes (24.72%). Kyagulanyi rejected the results and has continued to argue internationally that he won the election. Many NUP supporters expected the party to escalate its challenge, including through a boycott of Parliament.
As a result, NUP MPs risk facing supporters’ disappointment not only for taking their seats in Parliament but also for failing to deliver on campaign promises. During rallies, many pledged a “new Uganda” with grand promises to catapult Uganda close to a first-world. The promises were ambitious and difficult to achieve, even if NUP had formed a government. Nevertheless, many voters embraced them and now expect results.
The reality, however, is that NUP legislators remain in opposition. They will largely watch as the NRM uses its parliamentary majority to pass budgets and implement its manifesto. Numerically, the Opposition faces significant limitations. The NRM holds 372 seats (70.3%), NUP has 49 (9.3%), though that number has since reduced following the death of one member, UPC has 12 (2.3%), FDC has 9 (1.9%), DP has 6 (1.1%), PFF has 2 (0.4%) and ANT has 1 (0.2%).
With more than half of the independents leaning toward the NRM, the ruling party’s effective majority could exceed 400 seats. Added to this are the 10 Uganda People’s Defence Forces representatives, who are unlikely to side with the Opposition on key votes. The Opposition can still play an important role through Parliament to check the government. However, this is not what their voters were promised during the campaigns. At the same time, opposition MPs cannot openly lobby the government for development projects without risking accusations of collaboration.
This leaves many opposition legislators caught between political expectations and institutional realities. They must demonstrate results to voters while operating within a system where they lack executive power, limited parliamentary numbers, and face political costs for engaging with the Government.
As Parliament begins its work, one reality remains clear: voters never forget, and they are watching.
X-@dmukholi1 dmukholigmail.com
The challenge is even greater for opposition MPs. Many campaigned not only on promises of development, but also on political change, specifically the removal of the NRM government and President Yoweri Museveni from power. Some pledged that they would not work with the Government, which they accuse of oppression and misrule. But neither they nor their parties possess the resources necessary to implement development programmes independently in their constituencies.
NUP MPs find themselves in a political dilemma. Should NUP legislators engage with the ruling NRM to secure development projects and fulfil their campaign promises? Or should they maintain a hardline opposition stance, refusing co-operation because NUP believes it won the election and that the NRM government lacks legitimacy? Museveni won the January 15, elections with a landslide, securing 7,946,772 votes (71.65%), while Robert Kyagulanyi, NUP’s presidential candidate, received 2,741,238 votes (24.72%). Kyagulanyi rejected the results and has continued to argue internationally that he won the election. Many NUP supporters expected the party to escalate its challenge, including through a boycott of Parliament.
As a result, NUP MPs risk facing supporters’ disappointment not only for taking their seats in Parliament but also for failing to deliver on campaign promises. During rallies, many pledged a “new Uganda” with grand promises to catapult Uganda close to a first-world. The promises were ambitious and difficult to achieve, even if NUP had formed a government. Nevertheless, many voters embraced them and now expect results.
The reality, however, is that NUP legislators remain in opposition. They will largely watch as the NRM uses its parliamentary majority to pass budgets and implement its manifesto. Numerically, the Opposition faces significant limitations. The NRM holds 372 seats (70.3%), NUP has 49 (9.3%), though that number has since reduced following the death of one member, UPC has 12 (2.3%), FDC has 9 (1.9%), DP has 6 (1.1%), PFF has 2 (0.4%) and ANT has 1 (0.2%).
With more than half of the independents leaning toward the NRM, the ruling party’s effective majority could exceed 400 seats. Added to this are the 10 Uganda People’s Defence Forces representatives, who are unlikely to side with the Opposition on key votes. The Opposition can still play an important role through Parliament to check the government. However, this is not what their voters were promised during the campaigns. At the same time, opposition MPs cannot openly lobby the government for development projects without risking accusations of collaboration.
This leaves many opposition legislators caught between political expectations and institutional realities. They must demonstrate results to voters while operating within a system where they lack executive power, limited parliamentary numbers, and face political costs for engaging with the Government.
As Parliament begins its work, one reality remains clear: voters never forget, and they are watching.
X-@dmukholi1 dmukholigmail.com