Since the first presidential elections of the Museveni era in 1996 (sounds truly a long time ago, 30 years now!), crowd size at campaign rallies has been a central piece of the political discourse. As he increasingly became politically insecure, keen to project an unassailable standing before voters during successive election cycles, President Museveni obsessed a lot about how the media covered his campaigns, pictured and presented his crowds.
Throughout the electoral cycles, it was a default editorial position of the government owned dailies, the English and Luganda language versions, to carry Mr Museveni’s flattering campaign crowds on the cover pages. Detracting from it or, particularly, placing an Opposition candidate on the front page, had grave consequences.
On the Opposition side of the ledger, Dr Kizza Besigye was the master of pulling organic crowds, especially in the 2006 and 2016 elections. During the former, he rode on the ground swell of a dramatic return from exile, coupled with arrest on trumped up charges; for the latter, he had a compelling case of rallying an angry public for a final push to unseat the incumbent.
Besigye’s mammoth and charged campaign rallies, drawn from an organic and ecumenical following, must have caused trepidation for Mr Museveni and greatly unsettled the regime survival calculus. But such popular outlook and the public displays of support was never what determined presidential election results. It will not be different with the current cycle, yet in Opposition ranks, and among foot soldiers, there is an illusory belief that the demonstration of popular support is the ultimate path to victory.
Mr Mugisha Muntu is right to downplay the value of big-crowd rallies. Muntu is a presidential candidate for a second time in succession but unlikely to have much impact despite the profile of a highly respected former army commander with an unblemished public record and sobriety in his politics. His failure to appreciate the significance of public perception and the necessity of projecting political strength is a blight on his approach, thus, unsurprisingly, the negligible popular following he can muster and the little traction of his political party. Worse, Muntu is wrong to believe that political change, presumably via elections, can happen once the right message reaches the people through mobilisation and outreach.
As someone with deep knowledge of the workings of the regime, surely, Muntu knows all too well that a truism attributed to Joseph Stalin (there are doubts if he indeed these were his words) holds eerily apt in today’s Uganda. And I paraphrase: it is not who votes but who counts the votes that matters. There is no basis to assume or expect that during the current campaign season and election cycle, robust policy debates and manifesto plans will appeal to voters and inform how they express their preference at the ballot.
The Museveni of past elections had some pretensions to engaging in serious debates about the report card of his performance and the plans he had on the table for seeking a new term. The Museveni in the current election iteration, by contrast, arguably has little energy to mount a spirited hunt for the vote and a dearth of motivation to persuade voters.
Instead, the outcome of the current election cycle will be gamed and secured through an even more blatant control over the counting and announcement process than the past. It may not be markedly different from the past, but it is especially necessary in the latest cycle with a tortured record of 40 years of rule.
Popular support as demonstrated in campaign crowds or other forms of expression and the quality or persuasiveness of campaign policy proposals can only make sense where a free and fair election is possible.
It is one thing, though, recognising the value of participating in an election destined for a questionable outcome and appreciating the worthiness of drawing out the masses in a signature statement of popular disapproval of the incumbent. It is another matter, however, harbouring illusions and cultivating a false promise of change to the public premised on the ballot.
The lessons of history are always staring at us. If the rulers disregard the past in the single-minded pursuit of power, those challenging and seeking to bring change appear in a rush as to take the lessons of history seriously to avoid doing the same things again expecting a different outcome!