The National Unity Platform (NUP) and its electoral body, the Election Management Committee (EMC), are embroiled in a series of controversies surrounding the party’s vetting process for the 2026 general elections. A number of party members who were denied endorsement to become NUP flagbearers have expressed dissatisfaction, accusing the party of unfairness in endorsing candidates they claim are unpopular and have not demonstrated sufficient loyalty or sacrifice for the party.
Some of the aggrieved allege that they were coerced into paying substantial sums of money to party officials in exchange for endorsements, only to be denied in the end. These allegations have sparked concerns that the vetting process may be marred by corruption and favouritism. Many pundits believe that this controversy could significantly affect NUP’s performance in the upcoming elections and potentially weaken its position as the leading Opposition party.
A closer examination of the complaints lodged by the aggrieved reveals that none of them have been able to provide justifiable reasons for their exclusion from the list of endorsed candidates. Moreover, it appears that the criteria used by NUP in its vetting process give significant discretion to the party’s top leadership in selecting candidates. The emphasis seems to be on loyalty to the party leadership and perceived credibility, rather than on the candidate’s popularity or grassroots support.
This approach to vetting has raised concerns that the process may not always result in the selection of the most suitable candidates. In some cases, the party may overlook more qualified or popular candidates in favour of those who are more loyal to the leadership but incompetent. However, given NUP’s stronghold in Buganda, for example, it is unlikely that the party’s electoral fortunes will be severely impacted by the selection of less popular candidates.
At least for what happened during the vetting of local government leaders by NUP, many ‘foot soldiers’ deemed to be close to the echelons of power within the party were unsuccessful. Those who chose to stay, are the true emblems of political change, while those who defected remind me of 1 John 2:19 – ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.’
Uganda’s political landscape is dominated by mass political parties that focus on building broad electoral support rather than ideological conviction.
The National Resistance Movement (NRM), which came to power through a revolutionary struggle, is a notable exception because it disguises as a Constitutional political party, yet not. NRM maintained it’s status as a revolutionary party. Revolutionary political parties are known to be anti-system or anti-constitutional.
When the NRM overthrew the former constitutional structure to establish a new constitutional order, it actually did not change its guerilla modus operandi; it invariably became a ‘regime party’, suppressing Opposition political parties, and establishing a permanent relationship with the state machinery.
In this context, parties like NUP face significant challenges in building a strong electoral base and competing with the ruling party because their efforts to build foundations and structures of the party around the country are always frustrated.
Therefore, had NUP staged party primaries like the NRM, it would have failed irreparably.
It is essential for the party to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of its internal processes. A legitimate democratic process requires three key elements: consent, conciliation, and redress. NUP members must adhere to its rules and respect the decisions of its leadership. In so doing, NUP shall be able to consolidate the party’s strong grassroots support and will help it navigate the challenges mentioned above and maintain its position as a key player in Ugandan politics.