Every time President Museveni announces a new Cabinet, Ugandans perform a familiar ritual. Political commentators parse the list for regional signals. Religious communities count their representatives. Ethnic arithmetic is performed on social media and radio talk shows.
Tribal loyalists thank Museveni for ‘remembering and rewarding them’ by appointing their ethnic kin.
Two troubling questions are generally lost in the excitement. First, are the appointees the best people for the job? Second, will they be allowed to be the real leaders of their ministries? The answer to both, after four decades of Museveni’s rule, is mostly no – and the reason is not that Uganda lacks capable people. It is that capable people, have often been a liability rather than an asset. Uganda’s Cabinet appointments have long followed a recognisable logic that has little to do with merit.
Not that Museveni’s Cabinets have been short of bright, educated and able people. Most of those who have served as Cabinet ministers since 1986 rank high on academic and professional achievement scores. His recent preference for ‘fishermen’ over intellectuals and seasoned leaders should not blur that truth. But intellectual excellence and leadership ability has not been a major driver of these appointments. The President rewards personal loyalty.
He accommodates powerful interest groups whose continued support he requires. He distributes portfolios as political currency, placating rivals and binding potential dissidents through the golden handcuffs of ministerial office. What emerges from this process is not a government of Uganda’s ablest citizens. It is a court. And like all courts, it functions primarily to serve the king.
Last week’s Cabinet announcement largely confirms that tradition. The new Cabinet contains a few individuals who are supremely underqualified to serve in leadership of any public organisation. But the majority are very capable appointments, with a few placed in portfolios where their expertise matches the job very well.
For example, Henry Musaasizi at Finance is a serious technocrat who understands the machinery of Uganda’s fiscal architecture.
Katumba Wamala at Public Service brings administrative discipline to a ministry that requires structural reform.
Chris Baryomunsi, moving to Health, is a medical doctor with leadership and political experience. He succeeds Jane Ruth Aceng, another highly capable physician and experienced corporate leader.
Charles Ayume, another experienced medical doctor appointed as Minister of State for Health, is held in high esteem by colleagues and others who know him well.
Jonard Asiimwe Akiiki, at Science, Technology, and Innovation, is a certified professional in mining and petroleum engineering, with an impressive resume that would get him shortlisted by most international head-hunters.
Adonia Ayebare at Foreign Affairs is a veteran diplomat who has represented Uganda at the United Nations with distinction and is deeply embedded in the architecture of regional security and multilateral diplomacy.
These are not token appointments. These, and others I have not mentioned, are people with the knowledge and professional standing to lead their ministries – if they are allowed to. That last clause carries all the weight. The distinction between a minister and a courtier is fundamental. A minister is appointed for competence, given a mandate, resourced adequately, and held accountable for outcomes.
That was how former Kenyan President Emilio Mwai Kibaki governed – with very impressive results. A courtier is appointed for loyalty, expected to reflect the ruler’s preferences back to him, and measured not by what they achieve but by how reliably they stay in line. For the capable ministers, the appointments present a genuine and painful dilemma. They serve in a system where the President is, by all documented accounts, the ultimate micromanager.
Major decisions routinely flow from State House. Ministers who show too much independence, or attract too much public admiration, or are perceived as building their own political profile could find themselves reshuffled out at the next opportunity.
This means the capable appointees face a structurally impossible task: to be simultaneously excellent ministers and compliant courtiers. To exercise real authority without appearing to challenge or outshine the one who gave it to them. To demonstrate independence of thought without appearing to dissent from the President’s position. It is a tight rope that would test anyone, and Uganda’s political history is littered with capable figures who fell off it.