The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
KAMPALA, UGANDA | Gertrude Kamya Othieno | Not long ago, I hailed an Uber in Kampala, expecting nothing more than polite small talk. But what the young driver told me lingered far beyond that ride: “Uganda is not my home; it’s my business place. I wake up, go out to hustle, and return home to myself.” It was a startling admission, one that revealed the deep chasm between citizen and state. That single remark inspired this essay.
If a significant portion of Ugandans experience their country not as a home, but as a transactional space, then our governance model has fundamentally failed. This alienation is not just a product of economic hardship or youthful cynicism, it is a symptom of a system imposed, not chosen. And that system is the Western-style multiparty democracy, delivered to us in the colonial departure package labelled “the Westminster Model.”
Uganda was never born as a nation, it was crafted as a commercial territory by the Imperial British East Africa Company. What we inherited was not a shared identity, but a patchwork of kingdoms, clans, and communities forced into a single flag. In such a fragile setting, democracy as defined by partisan competition only deepens the divisions. Multiparty politics has not produced national unity or accountable governance; instead, it has weaponised ethnicity, entrenched patronage, and reduced leadership to transactional gain.
Even the system’s original exporters are now struggling to hold it together. America, long held up as democracy’s flagship, is now paralysed by hyper-partisanship, electoral distrust, political violence, and institutional decay. Some argue its model has outgrown its purpose; others say it was never truly tightened from the start, its founding ideals compromised by slavery, exclusion, and unchecked capitalism. Either way, it has become a cautionary tale: that form without function, and ritual without renewal, eventually collapses. Why then, must Uganda be wedded to a system that is not even working at its source?
Our earliest post-independence leaders, Obote, Kenyatta, Nyerere, Kaunda, understood this. Though often labelled dictators by the West, these men recognised that fragmented, newly-independent societies required unity before rivalry. Their one-party systems, while perceived as flawed, were nation-building projects rooted in the desire to create cohesion where none existed. They sought to mould citizens out of tribes, patriots out of parishes.
In Uganda, we’ve tried our own versions of inclusive governance. President Binaisa’s ekikufira principle called for a broad umbrella of participation beyond party lines. President Museveni’s “Movement System” echoed this, asking all Ugandans to unite under one platform, prioritising identity over ideology. These models resonated deeply, precisely because they drew from indigenous values, of consensus, not conquest; of unity, not victory.
Yet with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Western liberal orthodoxy, our options were curtailed. External donors and political advisers insisted we return to multiparty politics, knowing full well its divisive consequences in a context like ours. It was not governance they demanded, it was fragmentation dressed as freedom.
It is time we reconsidered. A Unitary System of Governance, rooted in our history but informed by contemporary examples like China’s model, may serve us better. This is not a call for authoritarianism, but for cohesive governance that emphasises national purpose over party politics. Such a system would consolidate power within a central framework that accommodates all regions and ethnicities, without reducing politics to a zero-sum game. It would prioritise long-term planning, merit-based leadership, and broad-based participation through civic councils, not endless campaigns or manufactured rivalries.
We do not need to mimic China entirely. But we can borrow its clarity of purpose, its rejection of foreign-imposed pluralism, and its belief that the state must serve the people—not the other way around.
The young Uber driver was right, in a way. Uganda today feels more like a marketplace than a motherland. But it doesn’t have to be this way. If we want Ugandans to feel they belong, we must build a system that reflects who they are, not who they were told to be. Not a Westminster echo, but a Ugandan voice. One nation. One system. One home.
****
Gertrude Kamya Othieno | Political Sociologist in Social Development (Alumna – London School of Economics/Political Science) | Email – gkothieno@gmail.com
