NUP’s approach to Mpuuga is justified, despite elite criticism

When reports surfaced alleging that Mathias Mpuuga, former leader of the Opposition in parliament and current parliamentary commissioner, had received a service award of Shs 500 million, a wave of public criticism ensued.

In response, his party leadership took to social media to condemn his actions, subsequently demanding both an apology and resignation. In the following weeks, the party president, Robert Kyagulanyi, took a decision to suspend Mpuuga from his role as deputy president for Buganda within the party.

There has been considerable criticism towards the National Unity Platform (NUP) leadership, particularly Robert Kyagulanyi, regarding his handling of the situation. This criticism, primarily from the political elite – who most think are beneficiaries of the same flawed system – suggests that the NUP should have managed Mpuuga’s situation differently.

Critics argue that Mpuuga, as a senior figure within the party, should have been addressed privately and discreetly. In fact, some have gone as far as suggesting that Kyagulanyi should have handled Mpuuga in a manner similar to how President Museveni deals with his corrupt ministers and cadres – either by turning a blind eye or in some cases promoting them.

However, such criticism, while it may have some merit, fails to acknowledge the nuances of political party dynamics in Uganda. The arguments overlook the distinction between the formalist and substantive understanding and operations of political parties in Uganda.

As academics have posited, the formalist perspective portrays political parties as entities controlled by the political elite and structured to secure electoral victories in competitive and impersonal political systems.

Conversely, in semi-authoritarian and pseudo-democratic systems like Uganda’s, parties can also be formed to shape the attitudes and behaviours of the populace. Consequently, the organizational structures, internal governance procedures, and recruitment processes vary significantly between these two paradigms.

Formalist perspective tends to enable us to generalize, rather fallaciously, the assumed democratic principles of political parties. On the other hand, the substantive approach enables us to understand the peculiarity of Uganda’s political parties as products of the social economic and political culture of the country.

It should be recalled that the emergence of the NUP and its subsequent surge was a direct response to a context defined by widespread dissatisfaction with the political elite.

Unlike traditional political movements such as the Democratic Party or Uganda People’s Congress, supporters of NUP were not bound together by political ideology or the internal democratic processes of the party; rather, they were unified by their shared disdain for the corruption and oppression perpetuated by the ruling class.

For many Ugandans, particularly the youth who have borne the brunt of socio-economic challenges and political repression, the NUP provided a platform to voice their grievances and demand meaningful change.

The party’s leader,  Robert Kyagulanyi, emerged as a symbol of hope and resistance against this political establishment that had long been accused of prioritizing self-interest over the welfare of the citizenry. The NUP’s appeal, therefore, lay in its ability to tap into the deep-seated frustrations of ordinary Ugandans and channel them into a cohesive movement for reform and accountability.

This approach to politics reflects a nuanced understanding of Uganda’s semi-authoritarian context, where formal democratic institutions coexist with widespread repression and limited political freedoms. NUP’s strategy resonates with broader trends of popular discontent and grassroots activism seen across Africa and the global South.

In many countries, disenfranchised citizens are increasingly turning to non-traditional forms of political organization and mobilisation to challenge entrenched power dynamics and demand accountability from their leaders.

There is consensus that even when it may appear legal, the service award to Mpuuga was illegitimate and morally questionable, particularly in a country where many live below the poverty line, social services are deficient, and the political elite continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the suffering masses.

However, the elite class, unfortunately clouded by their own comfort, ensconced in their air-conditioned offices, often overlook these realities in their criticisms of NUP.  

Understanding this context, especially in a system lacking transparent electoral mechanisms, clarifies the need for NUP’s leadership to distance themselves from actions that mimic those of the ruling party, even when on the surface, this may compromise electoral victory or elite support. It would be more unwise for NUP to maintain close associations with or refrain from criticising individuals perceived by the masses to be aligned with or emulating the corrupt and irresponsible ruling elite.

Like Gen Mugisha Muntu famously said, “you cannot give what you don’t have.” Similarly, if NUP cannot embody what it professes to be while in the opposition, how can we be certain that it will behave differently once in power?

Rather than vilifying Kyagulanyi for taking decisive action despite elite criticism, we should commend him for demonstrating that, in similar circumstances, he would act differently from the person he challenges for power – the incumbent.

This distinction is crucial in showcasing NUP’s commitment to genuine change. In all this, Kyagulanyi emerges as a genuine representative of the citizen’s struggle, carrying forward the torch ignited by Dr Kizza Besigye.

The writer is the deputy chief of party for the Strengthening Citizens Engagement in Elections (SCENE) and activity and team leader, Policy Governance and Engagement at the Uganda National NGO Forum