Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:29:02.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reintroducing a Local-Level Multiparty System in Uganda: Why Be in Opposition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Ragnhild Louise Muriaas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a referendum in July 2005 the people of Uganda voted overwhelmingly in support of reintroducing the multiparty system. As a result, one expected an increase in candidates running on party tickets other than the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) in the local elections in March 2006. However, the findings in this article reveal that politicians challenging the incumbent preferred to be non-partisan candidates rather than members of the opposition parties. Based on semi-structured interviews with 198 local leaders, this article connects local perspectives on the reintroduction of the multiparty system with well-known explanations of weak opposition in Africa, and discloses how formal institutions and people's notions of representation limit the prospects of the opposition at the local level.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , 2009 , pp. 91 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The NRM changed its name to NRM-Organization after the passing of the Political Parties and Organizations Act in 2005 to demarcate between the NRM as a political system and as a political organization. The term NRM is preferred in this article.Google Scholar

3 John Ssenkumba, ‘The Dilemmas of Direct Democracy: Neutralising Ugandan Opposition Politics under the NRM’, in A. O. Olukoshi (ed.), The Politics of Opposition in Contemporary Africa, Uppsala, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1998, p. 172.Google Scholar

4 Van De Walle, Nicolas, ‘Elections Without Democracy – Africa's Range of Regimes’, Journal of Democracy, 13: 2 (2002), p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Moehler, Devra C., ‘Participation and Support for the Constitution in Uganda’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 44: 2 (2002), pp. 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Translates as ‘The King Alone’.Google Scholar

7 Kasfir, Nelson, ‘No-Party Democracy in Uganda’, Journal of Democracy, 9: 2 (1998), p. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Muhumuza, William, ‘The 1998 Local Government Elections and Democratization in Uganda’, in Makara, Sabiti, Tukahebwa, Geoffrey B. and Byarugaba, Foster E. (eds), Voting for Democracy in Uganda, Issues in Recent Elections, Kampala, LDC Printing Press, 2003, pp. 227–31.Google Scholar

9 The elected leaders of LC I would form an electoral college that elected the LC II committees. This process repeated itself up to the election of the LC V committees.Google Scholar

10 Representatives of young people, older people and people with disabilities are elected indirectly by members of their own group.Google Scholar

11 Sabiti Makara, Lise Rakner and Lars Svåsand, ‘Turnaround: The National Resistance Movement and the Re-Introduction of a Multiparty System in Uganda’, in J. Kiiza, S. Makara and L. Rakner (eds), Electoral Democracy in Uganda: Understanding the Institutional Dynamics, Processes and Outcomes of the 2006 Multiparty Elections, Kampala, Fountain Publishers, 2008, p. 282.Google Scholar

12 Carbone, Giovanni M. Political Parties in a “No-Party Democracy”– Hegemony and Opposition under “Movement Democracy” in Uganda’, Party Politics, 9: 4 (2003), p. 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Ibid., p. 488.Google Scholar

14 Kasfir, ‘No-Party Democracy in Uganda’, pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

15 Therkildsen, Ole, ‘Uganda's Referendum 2000: The Silent Boycott: A Comment’, African Affairs, 101 (2002), p. 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Bratton, Michael and Lambright, Gina, ‘Uganda's Referendum 2000: The Silent Boycott’, African Affairs, 100, (2001), pp. 429–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Therkildsen, ‘Uganda's Referendum 2000’, p. 240, argues that there should be some reservations about Bratton and Lambright's interpretation of the result, since they ignore the devolution dimension of the movement system and how people's perception of the government system is influenced by this.

17 Makara, Rakner and Svåsand, ‘Turnaround’.Google Scholar

18 Ibid.Google Scholar

19 Adebayo O. Olukoshi, ‘Economic Crisis, Multipartyism, and Opposition Politics in Contemporary Africa’, in Olukoshi, The Politics of Opposition in Contemporary Africa, p. 31.Google Scholar

20 Bratton and Lambright, ‘Uganda's Referendum 2000’, p. 430.Google Scholar

21 Randall, Vicky and Svåsand, Lars, ‘Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Africa’, Democratization, 9: 3 (2002), p. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Van De Walle, Nicolas, ‘Presidentialism and Clientelism in Africa's Emerging Party Systems’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 41: 2 (2003), p. 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Olukoshi, ‘Economic Crisis, Multipartyism, and Opposition Politics’, pp. 29–30.

23 Chabal, Patrick and Daloz, Jean-Pascal, Africa Works. Disorder as Political Instrument, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1999, pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 39.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 54–6.Google Scholar

26 van de Walle, Nicolas, ‘Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss? The Evolution of Political Clientelism in Africa’, in Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven I. (eds), Patron, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 61.Google Scholar

27 Due to the ongoing civil war in Northern Uganda, it was seen as too difficult and unsafe to conduct research in this area.Google Scholar

28 In the 23 February 2006 presidential election Museveni's strongest opponent, Kizza Besigye, received between 72 and 82 per cent of the vote in the northern districts such as Amuira, Apac, Gulu, Kitgum, Lira and Pader.Google Scholar

29 For more information see Anne Ryen, Det kvalitative intervjuet fra vitenskapsteori til feltarbeid [The qualitative interview from the theory of science to fieldwork], Oslo, Fagbokforlaget (2002).Google Scholar

30 These findings are consistent with the findings in Afrobarometer, ‘Ugandans Divided on Political Transistion’, Afrobarometer Briefing Paper 15, July 2005, available at http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfrobriefNo15.pdf.Google Scholar

31 They did not label themselves non-partisan, but are categorized as such because they did not identify themselves with any party.Google Scholar

32 Ottemoeller, Dan, ‘Popular Perceptions of Democracy, Elections and Attitudes in Uganda’, Comparative Political Studies, 31: 1 (1998), pp. 98–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 The LC II is an administrative unit and does not convene courts for dispute resolutions.Google Scholar