Why NUP leadership cannot outshine Museveni’s NRM in 2026

_______________

OPINION

By Boaz Byayesu

The 2026 presidential election in Uganda is fast approaching, and while the National Unity Platform (NUP) has attracted significant attention, its leadership faces substantial challenges in matching the deeply entrenched influence of President Museveni and the National Resistance Movement (NRM). This article examines the critical weaknesses within NUP, highlighting how they compare with the decades of institutional strength and nation-building cultivated by the NRM.

Exaggerated false expectations and “Get Rich Quick” schemes

One of the most glaring vulnerabilities within NUP is the perception that many of its leaders entered office with inflated expectations of rapid enrichment. This undermines credibility in the eyes of Ugandans still grappling with poverty, infrastructure gaps, and weak services.

Joel Ssenyonyi, elected MP for Nakawa West in 2021, was quickly reported to have accumulated a net worth of about sh500 million, with his annual income growing by more than sh300 million (Kampala Press). Later, allegations emerged that he had used his role as COSASE chair to “pocket sh1.4 billion to cover up” a report (Uganda Online Media). Whether or not fully verified, such claims fuel a damaging narrative: that some NUP leaders are enriching themselves instead of serving the people.

These allegations stand in contrast with the NRM’s narrative of sacrifice, rural development, and long-term institution building. Even when NRM leaders face corruption criticisms, their embedded structures and institutional presence cushion them. NUP, by contrast, risks disillusioning its base by overpromising transformation and underdelivering tangible results.

As the Bible cautions in Matthew 7:15-20: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves… every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” Judged by this standard, promises without delivery resemble thistles more than figs.

Tribalistic accusations, hypocrisy, and division

Bobi Wine and NUP have repeatedly accused President Museveni of nepotism and tribalism. Yet critics argue that Bobi Wine himself has resorted to rhetoric that fuels tribal divisions.

In one statement, Bobi Wine claimed: “The question of tribalism in our beautiful country begins and ends with you, General Museveni… If nepotism and sectarianism are twin brothers, you are their father” (Watchdog Uganda). During his #NUPCountryWideTour in Luweero, he added: “… Uganda is being ruled by a group of small people … What is sad is that the Museveni regime is using fellow Baganda to oppress the Baganda” (Pulse Uganda).

These remarks drew swift reactions, with NRM Secretary General Richard Todwong branding them tribalistic and full of hate, insisting the NRM “stands above such petty politics” (Pulse Uganda).

Bobi Wine, however, has defended himself, stating: “I’m not a tribalist … I despise people who have tribalistic thoughts.” He cites his multi-regional inner circle and inter- tribal marriage as proof of inclusivity (The Observer).

On the other hand, Museveni continues to emphasise unity. At the IPOD Summit in 2025, he urged political actors to embrace dialogue, avoid violence, and diagnose societal challenges correctly instead of using sectarian rhetoric (op.go.ug). He has also warned against tribal and religious divisions, calling their advocates “enemies of progress” (AllAfrica).

In a diverse country like Uganda, sectarian rhetoric alienates rather than unites. While NUP thrives among urban youth, it lacks a deep rural reach. By contrast, NRM’s networks, patronage structures, and inclusive presence across tribes and religions secure broader legitimacy.

Naïveté and Inexperience in Governance: Protest politics is not the same as governing. Running a state involves managing security, macroeconomics, foreign relations, infrastructure, bureaucracy, and social services. NUP leaders are often energetic and passionate but lack the institutional experience required to navigate Uganda’s complex state machinery.

The NRM, with nearly four decades in power, has entrenched administrative networks and continuity in local government. Even if imperfect, this gives them leverage in rolling out policies and stabilising governance. Many voters, therefore, perceive NUP’s proposals as idealistic and unrealistic, feeding scepticism about its ability to run government effectively.

Ambition over service

A recurring criticism of NUP MPs is that they prioritise political ambition and media visibility over grassroots service. Allegations of wealth accumulation, such as those linked to Bobi Wine, his brother Charman Nyanzi and Joel Ssenyonyi, reinforce this perception. Constituents have also complained about absentee leaders who neglect local development in favour of national publicity.

By contrast, Museveni and the NRM emphasise presence on the ground, launching infrastructure projects, extending electrification, supporting farmers, and holding Parish Development Model meetings. These tangible activities build loyalty at the community level.

Borrowing from Julius Nyerere and Martin Luther King Jr., true patriotism lies not in rhetoric but in sacrifice and service. When NUP leaders neglect these small but crucial acts of service, they lose moral authority.

The unity deficit

NRM positions itself as a unifier, with networks that span Uganda’s regions, religions, and ethnic groups. NUP, however, struggles to bridge divides. Confrontational politics and street protests often escalate into clashes with security forces, tarnishing its image as a stable alternative.

While NUP is strong in Kampala and a dozen urban areas, it has yet to convince rural voters, who often prioritise peace and predictability, that it can govern without destabilising the country. Museveni, by contrast, consistently emphasises national unity, declaring, “I believe in unity” (State House Uganda).

Why this gives NRM the edge in 2026

When all factors are combined, unrealistic promises, enrichment scandals, tribal rhetoric, inexperience, neglect of constituents, and lack of unity, NUP falls far short of matching NRM’s dominance.

The NRM benefits from institutional entrenchment, control of key state organs, narrative resilience, financial resources, and deep rural structures. Many Ugandans, particularly in rural areas, prefer continuity over the risks of experimental leadership. The memory of instability before 1986 still shapes voting behaviour, giving Museveni an advantage.

Conclusion

NUP has energised segments of Uganda’s electorate, especially the urban youth. But to outshine NRM by 2026, it must shift from promises to tangible delivery, avoid divisive rhetoric, build institutional capacity, demonstrate moral consistency, and articulate a unifying vision of peace and stability.

If it fails to make these adjustments, the gap between the two parties will remain wide.

NRM’s deep roots, state control, deployment of resources, legacy of stability, and emphasis on unity will continue to give it the upper hand as Uganda approaches the 2026 elections.

The writer is based in Virginia, USA.