Are Uganda's upcoming elections already being decided in the streets, not at the ballot box? The heavy-handed policing of opposition rallies has ignited a firestorm of debate about fairness and security conduct, but one ruling party official insists they're playing a different game altogether. But is it really that different? Let's dive in.
Rose Namayanja Nsereko, the Deputy Secretary General of the National Resistance Movement (NRM), has stepped forward to defend her party's campaign strategy. She argues that the NRM, led by President Museveni, attracts massive crowds organically, without relying on the disruptive processions that have become a hallmark of some opposition campaigns. Namayanja suggests that their candidate, President Museveni, possesses a certain magnetism, drawing supporters naturally to organized rallies. "For us as NRM, we don’t do processions," she stated firmly during a recent appearance on NBS Frontline. "Our candidate comes in and finds the people settled in... a candidate coming in with a procession is another thing."
She emphasized that the NRM prioritizes careful organization over chaotic road processions to mobilize their base. The implication is clear: The NRM's support is genuine and pre-existing, while other parties may be trying to manufacture enthusiasm through staged events. And this is the part most people miss: it's not just about attracting crowds, but how those crowds are attracted.
But here's where it gets controversial... Despite Namayanja's claims, numerous videos circulating on social media tell a different story. These clips appear to show NRM supporters engaging in street processions, directly contradicting her assertion. A recent example cited was in Kabale, where President Museveni himself addressed a rally earlier this week. Does this undermine her entire argument, or is there a distinction to be made between spontaneous celebrations and organized, politically-motivated processions?
Namayanja's comments come in the wake of widespread condemnation of police conduct during a recent National Unity Platform (NUP) rally in Kawempe. The images were shocking: police deploying dogs to control crowds gathered to welcome NUP presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, widely known as Bobi Wine. Videos shared across the internet showed dogs lunging at supporters, sparking public outrage and raising serious questions about the proportionality and humanity of law enforcement's crowd control methods. The incident was further compounded by the use of pepper spray, forceful arrests, and aggressive confrontations involving police vehicles.
Civil society organizations and political commentators have voiced strong concerns, questioning whether these tactics are proportionate and warning that such scenes erode public trust in the democratic process, especially as the election season intensifies. Kawempe is just the latest in a string of reported disruptions targeting NUP activities. The party has reported heightened violence and clashes with security personnel in Mukono and Buikwe. Across Busoga, Bugisu, Lango, and Ankole, numerous NUP supporters have been arrested during or after campaign events. The NUP claims that over 300 of its members have been detained nationwide in recent weeks, a figure that, if true, paints a concerning picture of the current political climate.
These events raise fundamental questions about the fairness of the upcoming elections. Are the security forces acting impartially, or are they actively suppressing the opposition? Are all parties being given equal opportunities to campaign and reach voters? And crucially, how will Uganda's rival political factions navigate this increasingly tense electoral landscape? What is the acceptable level of force when policing political rallies, and who gets to decide what is "acceptable"? With the elections on the horizon, the answers to these questions will determine not only the outcome of the vote, but also the future of Ugandan democracy. What are your thoughts? Do you believe the playing field is level? Or are we witnessing a deliberate attempt to silence dissenting voices? Share your perspective in the comments below.
