By the end of presidential nominations for the 2026 elections, no female candidate had made it to the contest. Despite interests, the bar seemed to have been too high for those who attempted to enter the race. Some people have made this a big deal. One prospective candidate was bold enough to accuse the Electoral Commission of discrimination, insisting that they do not want women. Key questions remain: What are the possibilities that female candidates would have done well in the elections? What are the lessons from the previous female candidates? What do women lose by not participating directly?
In 2006, when Miria Obote was presented by the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) to contest for President, it seemed exciting for some that history had been made. Finally, we were in the books of history for having scaled the gender barriers, breaking the highest ceiling. The first female presidential candidate in our history sounds good. It inspires the next generation, it appears. For the subsequent three years, Beti Kamya 2011, Maureen Kyalya in 2016, and Nancy Kalembe in 2021, all managed to make their mark by managing to get nominated and campaign. Their performance in each election is a story for another day, and I dare not discourage the next generation of aspirants.
While after the elections, for some, we forgot, there seems to have been created an expectation that female candidates are a norm for a presidential election. Sometimes that is the most significant win. The normalisation of a practice, even when the outcome would not change. Why does it matter that we should have female candidates? The law, when dreaming up affirmative action for women in politics, considered the Local Council levels and Parliament for such, but remained gender neutral for the presidential race. Was that a tactful way to lock out the women? What incentives were put in place to encourage the participation of women in presidential elections as candidates?
It may seem that, suddenly, the constitutional acknowledgement that women suffered some historical and social injustices that impaired their participation in politics, for which affirmative action was needed, did not matter at the presidential level. Or perhaps, leaving out incentives for the participation of women at the presidential level was a quiet way to say women were not ready for that level. If it matters that women participate at that level, then we must ask how meaningful that participation might be. Would a 20-year-old, who expresses interest in running for the presidency, necessarily reflect understanding of the demands of the office and what is required for it?
Perhaps it demonstrates our lack of guidance on who is fit for such an office. Not that there is anything wrong with a 20-year-old running for the office, of course. But even as women, we should be able to ask, which women are able to run and lead rather than have women for the sake of it. The legal logic is that the office of the President is so serious that there should be no need to add incentives for women to participate. They either are capable or they are not. Yet, incentives such as levelling the playing field for participation, making politics less toxic and far from a war zone, and freeing space for political belonging are all crucial for an improved environment in which women are capable of meaningfully participating.
There are many ways that women’s participation is discouraged, without actually saying so. Women assess what they are dealing with. Still, women’s participation need not be in the race itself. Rather than wait to be invited to the kings’ table, where the manners are defined for them, they can claim some space in the electoral process and participate meaningfully. In the campaign process, women can mobilise voters and educate them about the importance of being active in the elections.
Women can also participate in making demands for a peaceful election because all who participate are their children. And lastly, women can be involved in the election process as observers, pacifiers, and discussants, raising critical issues for voters to assess and make demands on candidates. We must address ourselves to the nature of politics and participation needed. Women should not just be candidates in an election as trophies to be admired and thereafter sizzle out. They can add value in a variety of ways to the democratic process. It is those ways we have to keep engaging with, even outside the race.