In Uganda, there is a saying that [a bird that flies high must remember where it came from]. This proverb speaks volumes about the storm awaiting Uganda’s next president after NRM’s Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.
For nearly 40 years, M7 has been at the helm, shaping Uganda into a nation where freedom of speech thrives. Today, Ugandans openly criticize their leaders, mock government officials, and even insult the president and his family without much fear of consequence.
While some TikTokers, and outspoken critics have faced arrest recently, most people enjoy a level of liberty that was unthinkable under Uganda’s past leaders, as history puts it out. This newfound freedom, however, is the very reason no successor, whether from M7’s family, the ruling NRM, or the opposition will survive beyond one term in power.
Uganda’s history is a stark reminder of the dangers of oppressive leadership. Leaders like Milton Obote, Idi Amin, and Tito Okello are said to have ruled with heavy hands, leaving behind legacies of fear, bloodshed, and broken trust. Obote, Uganda’s first leader, used brute force to silence dissent, but his regime collapsed twice under the weight of public resentment.
Amin’s eight-year reign of terror remains one of the darkest chapters in Uganda’s history, while Okello’s short-lived rule was full of internal strife and instability. Its said that these leaders governed through fear, and the scars they left still shape Uganda’s politics today.
M7 took a different approach. Over the decades, he allowed Ugandans to express themselves in ways that were unheard of before. Social media platforms are now vibrant spaces where Ugandans critique policies, insult government officials, and even ridicule the president himself.
While M7’s tolerance for criticism has often been questioned, it has also created a society where freedom of speech feels like a birthright. But as the proverb goes, [Too much freedom can turn into chaos]. Ugandans have grown so used to this liberty that any leader who tries to rein it in will face immediate backlash.
The possible successors to M7 are as diverse as the country itself, but none of them can escape the challenges of leading a nation accustomed to criticizing its leaders.
General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda’s CDF, and M7’s son, has often been floated as a potential heir. However, many Ugandans view him as inexperienced, untested, and overly reliant on his father’s legacy. While Muhoozi’s social media antics have earned him attention, they have also exposed his lack of depth as a leader.
Ugandans are unlikely to rally behind someone they see as trying to inherit power rather than earning it. As the proverb says, [The son of a lion is still a cub].
Robert Kyagulanyi, better known as Bobi Wine, has captured the hearts of Uganda’s youth with his promise of change. Yet, his popularity would not protect him from the harsh realities of leadership. Ugandans who celebrate him today would quickly turn against him when faced with the tough choices of governance.
If he tried to restore order by limiting freedoms, he would be accused of betraying his ideals. If he failed to deliver on his promises, he would face widespread disappointment. As the saying goes, [He who holds the drum must be ready for the dancers]. Bobi Wine would find himself overwhelmed by the demands of a restless population.
Gen.Mugisha Muntu’s disciplined and calm demeanor makes him a respected figure, but those same qualities could work against him. Ugandans, used to M7’s mix of tolerance and authority, might see Muntu as too soft. If he tried to enforce stricter rules, he would risk alienating the public. [You can’t herd goats with a stick meant for cows], and Muntu’s approach may not suit a society accustomed to M7’s unique balancing act.
Dr. Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition figure, has spent years challenging M7’s government. Yet, if he were to take power, he would face the same scrutiny he once directed at M7. Ugandans would expect immediate results, and any attempt to discipline the public would be seen as hypocrisy. [The hoe that weeds the garden cannot escape the mud]. Besigye would find himself trapped in the same cycle of criticism and disappointment.
Erias Lukwago, the Capital City’s Lord mayor, and a strong and outspoken leader, has built a reputation for standing up against injustice.
However, leading a nation is far more complex than leading a city. His no-nonsense approach might create more enemies than allies, especially if he tried to impose strict discipline. [You can’t fight the rain with your bare hands], and Lukwago would struggle to handle the overwhelming demands of national leadership.
Even within M7’s own family, potential successors like his son-in-law Odrek Rwabwogo face uphill battles. The idea of a family dynasty already sits poorly with many Ugandans, and any misstep by Rwabwogo would quickly erode public trust. [A borrowed spear can’t kill a lion].
The challenges Uganda faces are not unique. Across Africa, many leaders have ruled with strict control over their citizens, but the results are often the same, public resentment and eventual instability. One of the most striking examples of strict governance tody is Rwanda under President Paul Kagame. Kagame’s leadership is widely admired for bringing stability and growth to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.
However, his government is known for its tight control over freedom of speech.
In Rwanda, criticizing the president can lead to imprisonment. Kagame has been praised for his economic achievements and strong leadership, but his intolerance for dissent has led to accusations of authoritarianism. [The eagle does not ask the opinion of chickens], the Rwandan government’s approach could be summarized as one where no criticism is tolerated.
While Rwanda has made impressive strides in development, the no-nonsense approach has created a society where political opposition is weak, and many people fear speaking openly against the government.
Leaders like Kagame have shown that strict control may bring temporary peace and prosperity, but it often comes at the expense of personal freedoms.
In Uganda, any leader who tries to emulate Kagame’s style would likely face a massve backlash, given the current state of freedom of expression. M7’s successor, attempting to govern in the same strict manner, would find Ugandans unwilling to sacrifice their liberties, which they’ve come to take for granted. [The more you tighten the noose, the more the horse resists]. The people would resist any attempt to control them, leading to a situation where the new president struggles to maintain their position.
Even leaders like Zambia’s late President Michael Sata, whose iron-fisted tactics were meant to stabilize the country, ended up facing public anger and disappointment. By the time of his death, Sata was deeply unpopular, and the country turned its focus back to democrtic freedoms.
Ugandans will not forget the days of restrictive rule, and any new leader who tries to reimpose such limits will face swift rejection. The proverb [You cannot milk a cow that you haven’t fed] serves as a reminder, that leading Uganda successfully, one must build trust and allow people to express themselves freely.
If a new president tries to stifle that trust, they will quickly find their support waning.
Ugandans have grown used to criticizing their leaders. Whoever comes after M7 will have to deal with a restless population that demands freedom but also expects miracles.
Attempts to restrict speech or restore order will lead to public outrage. [The axe forgets, but the tree remembers], and Ugandans will remember the freedom they enjoyed under M7 and will not forgive a leader who takes it away.
The legacy of Uganda’s former leaders, as well as the experiences of other African countries, makes one thing clear, that once a society tastes freedom, it is hard, or even impossible to take it back without facing serious consequences. The new president will be judged by the same standard as M7 and will be expected to deliver on promises while respecting the freedoms that Ugandans hold dear. The high expectations and criticisms will be overwhelming, and if they falter, they will be voted out.
By the end of their first term (five years), the new president will be overwhelmed by criticism and discontent. Ugandans, disappointed by unmet expectations, will regret removing M7.
[The well is only missed when it dries up], and whoever replaces M7 will find themselves isolated, blamed, and ultimately rejected. One term is all they will get, if they even manage to complete it.
This pattern is seen time and again across Africa, where leaders who suppress freedom face massive resistance and eventual downfall.
Whether the next president is from M7’s inner circle, the opposition, or beyond, they will have to contend with a population that will not allow the freedom of speech to be compromised. Uganda’s political future is one of dynamic change, but that change will be marked by swift, short-lived leadership. One term will, possibly, be the limit for any leader who steps into the shoes of M7.
The writer is a journalist and non partisan social-political commentator
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
