By Lawel Muhwezi
Uganda has recently been caught in a noisy, emotional, and at times bitter debate about Members of Parliament and the kind of Parliament the country deserves. The spark was the National Unity Platform primaries process, where several long-serving, well established MP figures now referred to as ‘Abateketeke’ in Luganda dialect to mean the groomed, prepared, and elite were denied the party flag. These included Medard Segona of Busiro County East, Joyce Bagala, Woman MP Mityana District, and Allan Sewanyana of Makindye West. In response, the political space split almost instantly into two hostile camps. One side accused the party of abandoning quality and expertise, warning that Parliament would be reduced to a chaotic gathering of amateurs. The other side fired back with equal anger, arguing that the so-called elite MPs had done little for the people, had grown comfortable, compromised, and in some cases openly entangled in corruption and patronage networks.
The language became sharp. The old guard were labelled out of touch elites. The new entrants were dismissed as unpolished, unrefined, and unprepared. This revealed something much deeper: a national crisis of confidence in Parliament itself and in the kind of leadership Uganda has been producing for decades.
There is an uncomfortable truth that must be faced honestly. Much of Uganda’s political elite has been profoundly unproductive. President Museveni himself has, on several occasions, mocked sections of the elite for having nothing to show beyond good English and impressive titles. While the President’s motivations for saying this may be questioned, the observation resonates with many citizens. Across sectors, politics, academia, and civil service, we have cultivated a class of people who are fluent in language but poor in results, confident in theory but weak in delivery. In Parliament, this elite often shines in debate, committee rooms, and television appearances, yet struggles to translate that sophistication into laws, oversight, and policies that materially improve people’s lives.
This failure is precisely why many Ugandans feel little sympathy when long-serving MPs are dropped. To the ordinary citizen, especially those at the margins, these leaders appear distant, protected, and increasingly indistinguishable from the system they once claimed to oppose. The frequent references to figures implicated in corruption scandals, such as MPs who served as parliamentary commissioners or even Leaders of the opposition, like Mathias Mpuuga, have reinforced the perception that experience has not necessarily produced integrity or courage. In this light, the anger directed at the elite is not irrational; it stems from disappointment.
This is not an insult to those who lack formal education or elite exposure; it is a recognition of how power is structured. The system is not neutral. It rewards those who can navigate complexity and punishes those who cannot. A representative may live the struggles of the people daily, understand hunger, unemployment, and broken services intimately, yet still fail to convert that understanding into effective parliamentary action. Lived experience without institutional competence can quickly become frustration, silence, or tokenism.
It would be dishonest and dangerous to pretend that simply replacing the elite with anyone who is closer to the people is a sufficient solution. Parliament is a highly technical institution governed by rules of procedure, complex budgeting processes, procurement laws, constitutional interpretation, committee systems, and international obligations. Legislation is often buried in dense legal language. Oversight requires a deep understanding of public finance, contracts, and bureaucratic systems designed sometimes deliberately to confuse and exhaust. A legislator who cannot read, analyze, question, and strategically engage with these systems is easily outmaneuvered, manipulated, or rendered irrelevant. It is no wonder that in the current parliament, about 90 MPs have not spoken more than three times on the floor.
And so, Uganda finds itself trapped between two unsatisfying options: an elite that knows the system but often lacks the moral courage or public accountability to challenge it, and community-rooted leaders who know the pain on the ground but may lack the tools to confront the system effectively. Treating this as a binary choice is a mistake. The real question is not elite versus non-elite, but performance versus failure, integrity versus compromise, and service versus self-preservation.
The language we use matters. Describing some candidates as “non-elite” automatically frames them as deficient. A better term might be “community-rooted leaders,” people whose legitimacy comes from lived reality rather than pedigree. But being community-rooted should not exempt anyone from the responsibility to be capable. Likewise, being elite should not excuse incompetence, corruption, or detachment from citizens’ lives.
Uganda does not need a blind purge of elites, nor does it need a romantic elevation of raw authenticity. It needs a new political standard. A Parliament made up of leaders who are intellectually equipped to deal with legislation and oversight, ethically grounded enough to resist corruption, and socially connected enough to remain accountable to the people who sent them there. These qualities are not mutually exclusive, but they are rarely demanded together.
This debate also forces us to confront an uncomfortable reality about Parliament itself. Even the most competent and ethical MP operates within a system that often discourages boldness and rewards compliance. Committee positions, allowances, and access can all become tools of control. This is why competence must be paired with courage, and experience must be anchored in principle. Without that combination, Parliament becomes what many Ugandans already believe it is: a place of speeches without consequences and oversight without teeth.
Voting capable leaders, therefore, is not a magic solution, but it is a necessary starting point. It is how citizens signal that performance matters, that integrity matters, and that connection to real life must go hand in hand with institutional skill. Over time, this pressure can reshape political incentives, encourage parties to invest in serious candidate preparation, and slowly rebuild Parliament’s credibility as an institution that serves the public interest.
The argument over elites and non-elites should not distract us from the deeper task at hand. Uganda’s crisis is not merely one of representation, but of leadership quality. Until citizens’ demand leaders who can think, act, and remain accountable at the same time, Parliament will continue to disappoint, no matter who occupies its seats. The choice before Ugandans is not between polish and authenticity, but between failure and competence, between compromise and courage.
No Comments yet!