Screenshot
Just emerging from the January 15, 2026, general election – and throughout a heated campaign season – the word “dictator” continues to dominate political discourse, with President Yoweri Museveni, who has ruled for four decades, firmly at the centre of the debate.
His main challenger, Robert Kyagulanyi, also known as Bobi Wine, continues to make repeated portrayal of President Museveni as the embodiment of dictatorship in Uganda. Museveni’s lengthy hold on power has long – attracted criticism.
Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere – Museveni’s earliest challenger – frequently accused him of subverting constitutional processes from the outset, beginning with the disputed 1980 elections, before ultimately taking power in 1986 forcefully.
Several of Museveni’s former bush war allies – Kizza Besigye, Amanya Mushega, David Sejusa and Mugisha Muntu – have repeatedly warned that constitutional amendments backed by NRM’s majority risk entrenching his long tenure without a clear roadmap for peaceful succession.
Their criticism mirrors broader concerns over alleged human rights abuses, shrinking political space marked by crackdowns on opposition activity, disputed electoral practices, corruption and accusations of nepotism.
While such criticism is not only exclusive to political or civil leaders, labelling governments in power as dictatorial is a habitual feature and Uganda’s legend. Since independence, and in many respects, authoritarianism has remained an enduring feature of leadership-shaped, if not triggered, by ideological differences, prevailing circumstances, and practical political realities.
Whether we acknowledge it – or even embrace it – for a developing country like ours, a certain form of dictatorship may be necessary to deliver tangible outcomes, particularly in moments demanding firmness and control.
We can point to examples such as Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew and South Korea under Gen. Park Chung Hee, where authoritarian governance helped drive rapid economic transformation.
While the economic take-off in both countries came at significant social and political cost, they nonetheless moved from poverty to industrial powerhouses within single generations of their leadership. Uganda’s experience, however, presents a different dilemma.
Periodic elections every five years tend to divide more than unite. Yet even after prolonged spells of highly centralised rule, no single era has delivered outcomes that Ugandans can confidently point to with pride.
The 68 years of authoritarianism under colonial rule delivered much of Uganda’s early infrastructure – roads, railways, hospitals, airports and schools. In addition, compulsory cash-crop production entrenched cotton and coffee as key sources of livelihoods and government revenue, a pattern that continues to shape Uganda’s economy.
However, colonial infrastructure built on an extractive model serving metropolitan raw material needs has left Uganda struggling to build a value-added export sector, despite abundant natural and mineral resources since independence.
But colonial administration remains the only period credited with overseeing a peaceful transition, culminating in independence in 1962. Now, independent Uganda presents a complex puzzle.
The three consequential post-independence leaders have each exercised varying degrees of power, but none replicated the developmental model of state-led authoritarianism credited with lifting countries such as Singapore out of poverty.
Apollo Milton Obote, Uganda’s first post- independence leader, initially governed within a constitutional framework but later consolidated power, steering the country into political turmoil without forging the national consensus behind development achieved by leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew.
Despite this, his administration expanded public infrastructure, constructing hospitals, secondary schools, bridges, railway links and more than 1,200 kilometres of roads. He also established major state institutions, including the Uganda Development Corporation, Uganda Commercial Bank, Cooperative Bank, National Insurance Corporation and National Social Security Fund.
His government further strengthened commodity marketing through the Coffee Marketing Board and Lint Marketing Board, promoted industrial projects and secured diplomatic properties abroad.
However, his state-driven economy did not last long before his ousting by Idi Amin in 1971. Amin presided over a regime marked by widespread human right abuses, targeting political opponents, intellectuals and sections of the military.
His government relied on arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions carried out by his security organ – the State Research Bureau. His development agenda was largely eclipsed by autocratic focus on consolidating and retaining power.
While Amin largely sustained infrastructure inherited from previous governments, his 1972 expulsion of the Asian community severely disrupted the economy – a move many Ugandans nonetheless praise as a form of economic liberation.
Amin’s direct infrastructural legacy was limited, including the establishment of Mpoma Satellite Station for security purposes and the construction of the Uganda International Conference Centre, now integrated into the Kampala Serena Hotel complex.
His government also acquired a strategic diplomatic property in New York, an asset with symbolic importance but little direct domestic developmental impact. Longevity has its place, but President Museveni’s four decades in power have not transformed Uganda to levels comparable to Singapore.
Market- oriented reforms introduced under structural adjustment, guided by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, encouraged a private-sector-led economy but fell short of the sweeping transformation once promised.
Persistent corruption, wealth concentration, and weak service delivery continue to weigh on the regime’s record. A government once viewed as a vehicle for renewal is increasingly criticised for shrinking political space.
Continued crackdowns on opponents and allegations of nepotism and sectarian patronage have fueled debate over democratic backsliding. While Museveni is credited with restoring stability after years of conflict, critics warn that prolonged incumbency risks deepening political tensions.
Economically, Uganda recorded extended periods of macroeconomic growth in Museveni’s early decades, marked by falling inflation, private-sector expansion and notable poverty reduction.
Rapid growth in telecommunications, banking and services, alongside infrastructure investments – including more than 6,000 kilometres of paved roads and expanded energy capacity – improved connectivity, even as rail transport declined.
Universal Primary and Secondary Education has expanded school enrolment and decentralised healthcare access, but underfunding and uneven quality constrain gains.
Slow industrialisation continues to sustain reliance on raw exports amid youth unemployment and rising public debt pressures. While Uganda has oscillated between quasi- democratic rule and prolonged dictatorship, its authoritarian episodes have lacked the disciplined, development-driven model that helped countries such as Singapore escape poverty.
The writer is a development consultant.
About the Author
