A mandatory unitary govt is unrealistic

Despite successfully removing all obstacles—such as term limits and the presidential age limit—that once stood in the way of a life presidency, it is becoming evident to President Museveni's supporters that they cannot overcome the natural limits of time. In response, these supporters have begun to explore alternative constitutional governance frameworks that could ensure Uganda's political stability and drive its economic agenda, given the country’s sluggish economic growth over the years.

One of the key proposals being floated is the establishment of a mandatory unitary government, with Mr Mwenda as its most vocal advocate. He argues that Uganda should abandon the winner-takes-all system at the Cabinet level in favour of a unitary government. In this system, those who compete for the presidency would come together to form a government after the election, with Cabinet positions proportionally distributed based on the percentage of votes each party or presidential candidate received.

This proposal seems to stem from both selfish and selfless motives. As the leading political ideologue of the Muhoozi Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), Mwenda may see a unitary government as the easiest path for their predetermined presidential candidate, Muhoozi, to ascend to the presidency. However, even when viewed through the lens of a genuine desire for political stability and inclusiveness, the idea remains unrealistic. Mwenda himself conceded during the Africa Speak Talk on X-Space, hosted by Mr Kabushenga, that the concept might be too idealistic. A mandatory unitary government would not only be impractical but would also contradict the principle of freedom of association, potentially making it unconstitutional.

Furthermore, from a political stability standpoint, this proposal could create a constitutional crisis if the winner of the presidential election fails to form a government. For example, how could a unitary government be achieved between groups with opposing economic ideologies—those who favour free markets versus those who advocate for a strong public system in delivering public goods? Or between pro-capital and pro-labour rights factions? Unless Mwenda is suggesting that Uganda's politics will permanently lack ideological contestation.

This scenario is further illustrated by the recent election in South Africa, where Opposition parties campaigned against African National Congress (ANC), accusing it of corruption and incompetence. While they succeeded in denying the ANC a majority, the Democratic Alliance (DA) could not form a coalition with Umkhonto We Sizwe (MK), the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and other Opposition parties, despite collectively garnering 60 percent of the vote. This failure was due to the irreconcilable differences between the DA’s agenda of protecting white minority capital and the MK and EFF’s radically different objectives.

In contrast, a proportional representation model of democracy offers a more appropriate constitutional framework. Under this system, the country would vote for the President and Members of Parliament indirectly by voting for political parties. In turn, the parties would share seats in Parliament proportional to the percentage of votes they received. This approach could help Uganda move away from the current system characterised by an imperial presidency, a bloated Parliament, and a proliferation of administrative units. 

It would further reduce the influence of highly commercialised, empty rhetoric in politics, as voters would be choosing political parties rather than individual MPs. The result would be a shift from personality-driven to institutional and issues-based politics. Additionally, it would empower Parliament to play a more significant role in the distribution of national resources, as well as in holding the Executive accountable.

Authored by Musa Mugoya, a lawyer.