Yoweri Museveni's National Resistance Movement took power in Uganda in 1986 and established what it called 'movement' or 'no-party' democracy. Reacting to a history of ethnic conflict-prone parties, the NRM aimed at transforming electoral politics into individual rather than organisational competition. Party activities became subject to strict limitations. The actual functioning of Uganda's alleged 'alternative democratic model' has not been systematically empirically scrutinised. Understanding how it is working is not only an important topic in comparative political analysis but also for appraising external donors' policy. Despite the pressures placed on other African countries to open up to organised pluralism, donors have been uncritically supportive of Museveni's regime, failing to examine the extent to which 'no-partism' can be an authentic alternative to multiparty democracy. This thesis critically investigates the no-party arrangement, both empirically and normatively. It is based on extensive fieldwork carried out in Uganda in 1999 and 2000, when interviews were conducted with parliamentarians, political organisations' officials, NGO representatives, and various policy-makers. The research reconstructs the advent of 'no-partism' in the light of the Movement's reading of the country's political history. It investigates the extent to which party-like organisations retain a presence by mapping them empirically. Finally, it analyses the way 'no-partism' works by scrutinising how political action is organised during elections, in parliament, and in policy-making. The thesis demonstrates that the no-party system is largely no longer in place - since the Movement itself has adopted a party-like organisation. Uganda currently has a 'hegemonic party system'. Opposition parties, despite the legal ban, have tried to adopt new organisational stratagems. But the ban also prompted the emergence of alternative arrangements to surrogate party activities, as it is most apparent in an atomised parliament that mainly fails to operate effectively without formal political parties.

Many scholarly and policy evaluations of governance in Uganda have blamed limited commitment to democracy in the country squarely on the shoulders of state leaders. This dissertation considers a broader range of explanations and raises questions about the limited understanding of democracy expressed in the prevailing literature. It does so by considering historical contexts, international and global structures, and the relationship between local political cultures and the contested concept of democracy. Claims about democracy and good governance, it suggests, are used to justify very narrow procedural prescriptions for the domestic state on the basis of a systematic neglect of Uganda’s specific political history and the structural contexts in which the Ugandan state can act. More specifically, this dissertation engages with one of the key controversies in the literature on the politics of development, that concerning the degree to which accounts of democracy favoured by the most powerful states should guide attempts to create democratic institutions elsewhere. It argues that at least some of the factors that are often used to explain the failure of democracy in Uganda can be better explained in terms of two dynamics that have been downplayed in the relevant literature: competition between different understandings of how democracy should be understood in principle; and the international conditions under which attempts to impose one specific account of democracy - multiparty representation – have marginalized other possibilities. These dynamics have undermined processes that arguably attempt to construct forms of democracy that respond to very specific socio-cultural conditions. Fundamental disputes about how democracy should be understood are already familiar from the history of democracy in Western societies, where struggles to impose some forms of democracy over others have defined much of the character of modern politics. The importance of the international or global dimension of democratic politics has received less attention, even in relation to Western societies, but is especially significant in relation to Africa’s political history and its position in the world. After reviewing the history of struggles over forms of governance in Uganda, this dissertation explores a series of unique open-ended interviews carried out in 2009 with important political actors in Uganda. On this basis, it argues for the ongoing centrality both of the always contested character of democracy and of attempts to impose particular accounts of democracy through internationalised and globalised structures. An appreciation of both dynamics, especially in the historical context that has been downplayed in much of the literature, offers a better scholarly ground on which to evaluate contemporary politics in Uganda than the choice between multiparty systems and dictatorship that remains influential in discussions of the Ugandan case. Such an appreciation is in keeping with important recent attempts to think about the possibilities of democracy in Uganda in postcolonial terms and to resist the forms of neocolonial politics that are examined here as a ‘politics of dispensation.’ / Graduate / 0615 / 0616 / sabina@uvic.ca

Many scholarly and policy evaluations of governance in Uganda have blamed limited commitment to democracy in the country squarely on the shoulders of state leaders. This dissertation considers a broader range of explanations and raises questions about the limited understanding of democracy expressed in the prevailing literature. It does so by considering historical contexts, international and global structures, and the relationship between local political cultures and the contested concept of democracy. Claims about democracy and good governance, it suggests, are used to justify very narrow procedural prescriptions for the domestic state on the basis of a systematic neglect of Uganda’s specific political history and the structural contexts in which the Ugandan state can act. More specifically, this dissertation engages with one of the key controversies in the literature on the politics of development, that concerning the degree to which accounts of democracy favoured by the most powerful states should guide attempts to create democratic institutions elsewhere. It argues that at least some of the factors that are often used to explain the failure of democracy in Uganda can be better explained in terms of two dynamics that have been downplayed in the relevant literature: competition between different understandings of how democracy should be understood in principle; and the international conditions under which attempts to impose one specific account of democracy - multiparty representation – have marginalized other possibilities. These dynamics have undermined processes that arguably attempt to construct forms of democracy that respond to very specific socio-cultural conditions. Fundamental disputes about how democracy should be understood are already familiar from the history of democracy in Western societies, where struggles to impose some forms of democracy over others have defined much of the character of modern politics. The importance of the international or global dimension of democratic politics has received less attention, even in relation to Western societies, but is especially significant in relation to Africa’s political history and its position in the world. After reviewing the history of struggles over forms of governance in Uganda, this dissertation explores a series of unique open-ended interviews carried out in 2009 with important political actors in Uganda. On this basis, it argues for the ongoing centrality both of the always contested character of democracy and of attempts to impose particular accounts of democracy through internationalised and globalised structures. An appreciation of both dynamics, especially in the historical context that has been downplayed in much of the literature, offers a better scholarly ground on which to evaluate contemporary politics in Uganda than the choice between multiparty systems and dictatorship that remains influential in discussions of the Ugandan case. Such an appreciation is in keeping with important recent attempts to think about the possibilities of democracy in Uganda in postcolonial terms and to resist the forms of neocolonial politics that are examined here as a ‘politics of dispensation.’ / Graduate / 0615 / 0616 / sabina@uvic.ca

This thesis studies the authoritarian dominant party system in Uganda during the 2016 general election. It focuses on how subnational competition within the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) prolongs the tenure of its leader, 30-year incumbent President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. In three districts where the NRM has been historically strong - Kyenjojo, Kayunga, and Bugiri - the thesis traces three processes to this end: the decentralisation and localisation of accountability politics away from the regime and toward expendable local politicians (H₁); the relationship between local elite rivalry and the NRM's collective mobilisation for Museveni's simultaneous re-election (H₂); and how competitive electoral pressures on NRM MPs alter the national elite bargain in the president's favour (H₃). It concludes that in strong NRM areas, the fractious divisions that characterise intra-party competition are not a by-product of its near monopolistic domination of politics, but the very basis of that dominance. This emphasis on subnational intra-party competition brings a new variable into a literature on non-democratic survival that tends to focus on more narrowly coercive and clientelist regime strategies. The thesis presents this argument in a qualitative single case study driven by an open and inductive fieldwork component throughout the 2016 election period. Its three hypotheses are built on data from interviews (with voters and elites), ethnographic observations, official data, and secondary sources. This data is used in a process-tracing design before its conclusions are fortified by a subnational comparative analysis of the election results in the three case districts.

No description available.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / Includes bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: As a wave of political uprisings swept across North Africa since January 2011, ridding the region of longstanding autocratic leaders, presidents in Sub-Saharan Africa were still imprisoning opposition leaders, deploying military and police to clamp down on protest, and promising their citizens change - all this in a bid to avoid being ousted by their own people. Leadership has long been the main constraint on political and economic progress in Africa. This study analyses African leadership and especially the role of the presidency as a cause of conflict and instability in Africa. The modern-day African president might no longer be the absolute autocrat from yesteryear, but he still rules with awesome power and vast state resources at his disposal. African leaders have assumed an imperial character; many regard themselves as largely above the law; accountable to no one and entitled to remain in power or to pass the sceptre to their offspring. Due to this rather imperial character, conflict has been inevitable in Africa. As a theoretical basis the study proposes a framework for analysing leaders’ behavioural patterns that contribute to conflict and instability domestically as well as regionally. Six relevant behavioural patterns are identified: political deprivation, patronage and clientelism, personalisation of power, use of the military, staying to office, underdevelopment and conflict. Additionally, and as a case study, this framework is applied to Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni. Each of the six behavioural patterns are analysed and evaluated in relation to Museveni’s rule of the past 25 years. Applying the framework demonstrates how Museveni contributed to conflict across the region in Somalia, Sudan, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Museveni is found to be a power point man in the region and his imperial nature is likely to contribute to future instability and conflict in Uganda and the Great Lakes region. The study also addresses the genesis of the imperial African leader and investigates why, despite waves of democratisation and the expulsion of a few autocratic rulers in Africa in the late 1990s, the imperial character still persist today. Constitutional limitations are found to be one of the major reasons why absolute powers end up being vested in the hands of the president. Lack of proper separation of powers, and a culture conducive to suppressing the legislature and parliamentary role, provides additional reasons for this phenomenon. Furthermore, both internationally and locally, the leadership deficit in Africa is drawing continuing attention and even funding. However, in order for Africa to make progress in eradicating poor and unaccountable leadership, local initiatives should be further encouraged. The African Union Peer Review Mechanism and the African Charter on Elections, Democracy and Governance are discussed as two African initiatives; also the Mo Ibrahim Index and Prize are evaluated. Although all three these initiatives are admirable in theory, they have failed to deliver because real commitment to action is lacking in most African countries. A speedy and conclusive solution to the problem seems unlikely because of the complex nature of humans and their environment. Thus, the aim of this study is to make a contribution to the scholarly body of work regarding the causes of African conflict, focusing on the African presidency as one cause of such conflict in Africa. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Vanaf Januarie 2011 het ’n vlaag politieke opstande Noord-Afrika getref waartydens weggedoen is met langdurige outokratiese leiers. In Afrika Suid van die Sahara het heersers egter steeds opposisieleiers opgesluit en militêre- en polisiemagte ontplooi om opstande die hoof te bied, terwyl vae beloftes aan die bevolking gemaak word oor moontlike veranderinge. Swak Afrika-leierskap word dikwels beskou as ‘n belangrike faktor wat politieke en ekonomiese vooruitgang op die vasteland strem. Hierdie studie analiseer leierskap in Afrika, veral die rol wat die president speel in die skepping van konflik en onstabiliteit. Die hedendaagse Afrika-leier mag dalk nie meer voorkom as die absolutistiese outokraat van die verlede nie, maar hy regeer steeds met oorweldigende mag en ekstensiewe staatshulpbronne tot sy beskikking. Dit is duidelik dat die Afrika-leier dikwels ‘n imperiale karakter aanneem en homself verhewe ag bo die wet. In welke geval hy dus geen verantwoording hoef te doen aan enige ander party nie. Die hoofdoelwit blyk dikwels te wees om beheer te behou. Die gevolgtrekking wat gemaak kan word, is dat die imperiale karakter van die Afrika-president tot konflik kan lei. Die teoretiese basis van hierdie studie bied ’n raamwerk om die leiers van Afrika se gedragspatrone te bestudeer wat aanleiding kon gee tot onstabilitiet asook interne-en streekskonflik. Ses gedragspatrone is geïdentifiseer om hierdie proefskrif te illustreer: politieke vervreemding; beskermheerskap en kliëntilisme; personalisering van mag; gebruik van militêre mag om aan bewind te bly; gebrek aan ontwikkeling en konflik. In besonder word hierdie raamwerk toegepas op die president van Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, as ‘n gevallestudie. Hierdeur word aangedui hoe Museveni bygedra het tot konflik, nie net in Uganda nie, maar inderwaarheid ook in Somalië, Sudan, Kenia en die Demokratiese Republiek van die Kongo (DRK) tydens sy bewind van die afgelope 25 jaar. Museveni word allerweë beskou as die “sterkman” in die streek en sy imperiale karakter sal heel waarskynlik ook in die toekoms bydra tot onstabiliteit en konflik in Uganda en die Groot- Merestreek. Hierdie studie spreek ook die oorsprong van die imperiale Afrika-leier aan en ondersoek waarom, ten spyte van die sterk strewe na demokrasie en die omverwerping van outokratiese leiers in Afrika in die laat 1990s, die imperiale karakter van sodanige leiers steeds kan voortbestaan. Konstitusionele beperkings word beskou as een van die hoofredes waarom totale mag in die hande van ‘n president beland. Gebrek aan behoorlike verdeling van mag en ‘n kultuur bevorderlik vir die onderdrukking van die wetgewende en parlementêre funksies, is bydraende redes vir hierdie verskynsel. Verder ontlok die tekortkominge van Afrikaleierskap plaaslik en internasionaal heelwat aandag en selfs befondsing. Die ideaal sou egter wees dat Afrika aangemoedig moet word om tot ‘n groter hoogte plaaslike inisiatiewe te gebruik om swak en onbevoegde leierskap te verwerp. Die African Union Peer Review Mechanism en die African Charter on Elections, Democracy and Governance word gesien as twee nuttige Afrikainisiatiewe. Ook die Mo Ibrahim Index and Prize word geëvalueer. Alhoewel al drie inisiatiewe in teorie goed blyk te wees, het dit misluk as gevolg daarvan dat ‘n verbintenis tot aksie ontbreek in die meeste Afrika lande. Waarskynlik is geen spoedige of permanente oplossing vir die konflik moontlik nie – grotendeels weens die kompleksiteit van mense en hulle omgewing. Dus is die doel van hierdie studie om ‘n bydrae te maak tot akademiese navorsing betreffende die oorsake van konflik in Afrika en dan spesifiek hoe die institusionele aard van leierskap in Afrika fungeer as ‘n bydraende oorsaak.