Elections are held in order to facilitate peaceful transfer of power from one leader to the other. In most cases, people vote leaders whom they believe can drive them forward in all spectra of politics, economy and social way of life. If elections are free and fair however subjective this framing could be; – there will be losers and winners. The losers concede in this ‘free and fair’ game and the winners drive the aspirational agenda of voters who elected them to office. This is a basic ideational essence of electoral democracy. That the power to choose who and how they are governed lies with citizens who are the voters.
Uganda will elect its leaders in various position in January 2021 in a race that have seen the incumbent President Yoweri Kaguta T. Museveni wrestle alongside ten other Presidential contenders with only one female candidate in the race.
It is important though, to understand the history of elections in Uganda particularly drawing from post 1986 period when Museveni ascended to power through military means that overthrew the military junta of Gen. Tito Okello Lutwa. From 1986, elections were held starting from 1989 Resistant Council elections, the 1994 Constituent Assembly delegates’ election that drafted the 1995 Constitution, the 1996 and 2001 Movement system election based on the principal of individual merits. Meanwhile, the 2006, 2011, and 2016 general elections were held under Multi-Party Political dispensation. However, the circumstances under which these elections were held require some form of context and scrutiny.
However, under the movement system, individuals were free to compete on the basis of their personal merits rather than their political party affiliations. These actions provided the NRM government leverage and legitimacy over political parties that were clearly dead by this time round by virtue of the restrictions imposed over their operations country-wide.
As the country head towards election on January 14, 2021, the major issues driving the debates for change of political leadership at the top includes the incumbent’s long stay in power, political dictatorship, corruption, poverty, unemployment and the poor quality of public services such as health care and education etc.
Political campaigns so far have been characterized by the high-handed nature of security clampdown on protests and violent crack-down on political rallies, intimidation, alleged corruption, and bribery.
If we examine the theoretical disposition of voting patterns, there are three basic conceptual frameworks under which arguments can be hinged. The first theory would identify with the political party identification model. This model asserts that people tend to vote for candidates and positions of parties they have come to identify with. This would ideally mean people voting on the basis of ideological beliefs and orientations under which a political party espouses.
The second theory is the rational choice model which articulate the basic assumptions that people vote on the basis of their desires and preferences and thus the party that come closes to those preferences and desires get the votes. Last but not least is the sociological model – which emphasizes the impact of social structures on political parties. It looks at social base and values.
Most political parties operate under very tough political terrain to communicate their vision and values to electorates. The only chance they have is during election period. Moreover, political party structures are weak but also the political environment under which parties are structured and organized at grassroots are hostile. Therefore, voters do not necessarily cast their votes on the basis of those ideas. Rather voters will vote on the basis of their rational choices, inclinations and beliefs about particular candidates or issues.
Ugandan voters seem to vote for personalities as a consequence of the personalistic nature of politics in post-independent period. But of course new dynamics that influences voter behaviors have emerged over the years – e.g. the defining personality of Presidential candidates – their resilience, their resolute convictions, their appeals and fan base, military background etc. have defined the voting preferences of voters as opposed to ideology they represent, and or political parties they identify with.
Levitsky and Way (2002) writes about the rise of competitive authoritarianism in African politics and elsewhere. Several scholars had labeled regime types as ‘semi-democracy’, ‘illiberal’, ‘pseudo democracy’ and ‘semi-authoritarian’. They, however, saw these categorizations and characterization as problematic in many ways. But precisely according to them, in competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principle means of obtaining and exercising power and authority however, incumbents violate the rules.
In this state of affair, incumbents routinely abuse state resources, deny opposition adequate media coverage, harass opposition candidates and supporters and in some cases manipulate election results. These observations can clearly be seen in previous elections in Uganda and towards the run up to 2021 general elections but even in Eastern Africa generally e.g. Tanzania, Burundi, Kenya and Rwanda. DRC, Sudan and South Sudan.
Therefore, periodic regular elections don’t necessarily mean a country is democratic or is on the path to attainment of democracy. Formal democratic institutions may be established but if those institutions only serve the interests of incumbents and are used as tools to further their retention and consolidation of power, then the institutional structures are not effective and meaningful arenas of democratization. Political leaders should understand and appreciate that elections are held with the view that it can also be lost and those who lose must accept the rule of the game especially where it’s largely peaceful, free and fair. Unfortunately, this is never the case for most African politics.
Uganda will need to reflect on its democratic trajectory and define meaningful democratic participation that reflects citizens wishes and aspirations whether the incumbent wins or loses and a new administration get ushered in. Citizens must feel their voices are heard through elections and leaders assume and exercise power and authority on the basis of such legitimacy. Where elections are fraudulent and majority are dissatisfied, man can also be violent in reality but also metaphorically according to Thomas Hobbes’ ‘State of Nature’.
In fact, Hobbes had devised a mechanism for law and order in an anarchical state of nature through the imposition of a leviathan – a sovereign authority over humankind. However, he and other contemporary liberal philosophers placed limits to such governmental and sovereign authority by way of institutional checks and balances to the leviathan including elective processes to ensure voice and participation of man in its governance. Otherwise, violence can occur due to rigged and fraudulent election and according to Hobbes this can draw back human-kind and society to a terrifyng condition of living where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ and where man is living in ‘continual fear of violent deaths’.
