Vote bribery is a transaction where candidates distribute private goods such as cash and gifts in exchange for electoral support or higher turnout (Jaraquemada, 2024). The direct implication of this definition is that vote shares and turnout would have been lower in the absence of electoral handouts. While there is ample evidence that candidates offer cash and handouts to certain voters, it is unclear whether these handouts actually result in greater turnout or higher vote shares in favor of the distributing candidate(s).
In developed countries, especially in the West, money is primarily used to purchase media exposure to promote a candidate and their agenda (Lupu et al., 2023). In Uganda, Charles Mwanguhya Mpagi in the Daily Monitor on March 25, 2025, argues that politics is transactional.
One possible explanation for the lack of impact of vote bribery or cash distributions is that a typical voter may receive multiple cash offers or be “cross-pressured from both sides of the partisan divide” (Lupu et al., 2023), which weakens the quid-pro-quo nature of electoral handouts. When comparing the electoral effects of single versus multiple offers in Tanzania, the results often go in opposite directions. The study found that individuals targeted by one party are less likely to support the opposition candidate, while the opposite is true for those targeted by more than one candidate. Such voter behavior reduces the potential influence that targeting by a single candidate could have.
In one of my interviews with contestants, Kabadaaki (not a real name) said, “Vote bribery is a sad reality in Uganda. The voters themselves will demand that you pay them to elect you, yet you wonder why we have surging corruption scandals within the system.” Another contestant, Sofie (not a real name), stated, “Voters aren’t interested in a candidate’s qualifications but the money that they receive from candidates.” Additionally, the role of wealthy business interests in funding campaigns aiming to gain access to lucrative state contracts cannot be overstated (Robinson, 2023).
Would voters who receive money, liquor, packets of salt, sugar, or pieces of soap, as well as transport to and from voting centers, behave differently if they had not? A study by Guardado and Wantchekon (2017) found a statistically significant relationship between cash handouts and voter behavior or voter turnout. Since virtually all competing political parties engage in cash distribution to the same constituency, the resulting “cash glut” tends to exacerbate social and political divisions and erode trust, undermining democratic processes. Thus, it can be inferred that vote-selling and buying encourage a higher turnout of voters.
Nestor Basemera, PhD
Email: basemeranestor3@gmail.com
The writer is a researcher
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at editorial@watchdoguganda.com
