My last article on Buganda’s position in Uganda’s politics was in 2021 titled ‘The Role of Buganda in Uganda’s Politics’ published in Watchdog News of January 18, 2021. In the article I asked, Is NRM/NRA really rolling out of Buganda? Is it true the people where President Museveni and his party scooped many electoral success stories (in the periphery) don’t want change?

In addition, the changing political attitude in Uganda is a reality, not fiction. What we see, however, could mean success of NRM/A in the politico-military strategy of disconnecting the periphery from the centre for purposes of power retention…” The strategy relies on ensuring that alternative leaders from alternative parties are not allowed to interface with the population but President Tibuhaburwa Museveni alone has unlimited interaction with the citizenry year in year out. In another article published by TDNews Uganda of April 18, 2025 I wondered whether the constitutionally created cultural institutions would stand the test of time since they depend on the state, not the people, for sustenance.

In yet another article titled, the Uganda Constitution 1995 did not Restore Kings and Kingdoms and published by Muwado of November 4, 2025, I argued that cultural institutions are not kingdoms and have no political influence on anything. They are disembowelled.

In this article, Buganda’s Balancing Act: Between Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s grip and Bobi Wine’s momentum”, I review Buganda’s former influence on Uganda’s politics when it had political power, and today when it has none and is trapped between Museveni and Bobi Wine. The thesis statement of the article is: “Buganda’s pivotal role in Uganda’s politics is a double-edged sword as its shifting allegiances have shaped the country’s trajectory, but its current dilemma between President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and Bobi Wine threatens to redefine the region’s influence and Uganda’s future.” 

Buganda has always had an advantage over other regions of Uganda in that it is physically centrally positioned. This is the reason why in the colonial times it was referred to as Central Province. Besides, the seat of power and capital of Uganda are in Buganda. Also, in Buganda is the main state house of the president of Uganda, who is the topmost servant of Ugandans. Because of its centrality in position, it has also been central economically, socially and politically.

In terms of political development, Buganda’s historical significance in Uganda politics cannot be overemphasised. National politics started in Buganda and then radiated out to the other regions of the country – eastern, northern and western. Even then, national politics continues to be played in Buganda as it was in the past. Virtually all political parties have their headquarters in Buganda as was the case during colonial times. However, today the contest for political is mainly between President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s NRM/UPDF (formally NRM/NRA) that has held power since 1986, and Bobi Wine’s National Unity Party (NUP), which came on the political scene only five years ago but has eclipsed all opposition, including the oldest political parties – Democratic Party and Uganda People’s Congress.

President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and Bobi Wine are first and foremost faced with the dilemma that the voting population is mostly young people who collectively do not get fascinated by stories of “we fought” and are more digitally influenced not by word of mouth. Their collective choice.

• They want freedom, justice and democracy in abundance. Like the old and elderly, they want quality health and quality of future
• Their younger ones want quality education. While they want to belong to the 21^st century, they don’t want the communities they come from to continue losing their natural belonging and identity to foreigners
• They want good roads, adequate food security and environmental security
• They want good governance and leadership free of corruption and committed to transparency, accountability and respect for human rights
• They want to be involved in determining the destiny of their country and free it from control by foreigners
• They have seen all these essentials of life decreasing and are asking: “Who will restore them: President Tibuhaburwa Museveni under whom they have been eroded or Bobi Wine who has yet to accumulate experience in governance and leadership and is at the level at which President Tibuhaburwa Museveni was 40 years ago in terms experience? Should Uganda continue in a state of ‘No change or embrace change?’ Uganda is 200 years behind and has not yet caught up with the 21^st century.

This article is not about dilemmas. It is about Buganda’s lost glory as a political campus setter and influencer. The thesis statement of the article, as shown above, is:

“Buganda’s pivotal role in Uganda’s politics is a double-edged sword as it is shifting allegiances have shaped the country’s trajectory but it’s current dilemmas Between President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and Bobi Wine promises to redefine the region’s  influence and Uganda’s future”.

Tibuhaburwa Museveni is talking of protecting gains, which implies continuing with old politics, while Bobi Wine is talking of a new Uganda, which implies veering off the path the former prescribed for Uganda. Which way Buganda? Protecting the old or a new Uganda? Can Buganda play any new role in Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s old? Does it see any new opportunities in the new Bobi Wine is expounding?

Historical context

Historically, Uganda’s politics has been intertwined with that of Buganda, with Buganda being central to it. It is only an ill-informed person who thinks, believes and is convinced that Buganda is peripheral to Uganda’s politics simply because the region has never produced a president of Uganda who has ruled the country for more than 11 months, Buganda is the only region in Uganda, which has made and unmade presidents. The other regions have played second fiddle to Buganda.

Here is a summary of the influence of Buganda on Uganda’s politics in historical context.

• They initiated colonial politics in Uganda when they welcomed the British colonialists simultaneously with welcoming Islam, Catholicism and Anglicanism.
• They introduced a black political association when Musaazi started Uganda National Congress
• They introduced Apollo Obote  into UNC politics when they elected him president of UNC, dumping their own, Ignatius Musaazi
• They started farm produce strikes in the 1940s and against Indians
• They clashed with the Governor Cohen, leading to exile of their king, but they persistently politically agitated for his return
• They institutionally rejected their own, Benedicto Kiwanuka, who had been elected Chief Minister of Uganda and leader of government business in favour of Obote. They offered their party, Kabaka Yekka, to Obote so that he could form a unity government between his UPC and their Kabaka Yekka
• They negotiated well for Kingdoms during the Lancaster Constitutional Conference just before Independence of Uganda in 1962
• They helped the Colonialists to crash Bunyoro before British Uganda Protectorate transited to Commonwealth Realm of Uganda and finally Uganda
• They sustained the lost counties politics against a constitutional referendum on their future
• They were behind the gold theft claim that almost brought about the fall of Obote’s Government
• They withdrew KY from the Obote government
• They ordered Obote to remove his government from the soil of Buganda’s
• They wholeheartedly welcomed Idi Amin when he overthrew Obote on December 25, 1980
• They rejected Obote when they overwhelmingly voted DP in Buganda, just as Busoga did in the 1980 elections
• They massively joined Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s bush war between 1981 and 1986
• They welcomed Tito Okello’s short-lived regime (1985-1986).
• As expected they massively welcomed rebel Yoweri Museveni, as he was the called. They expected him to return the kingdoms but he did not. Instead, he made a constitution in which kings and kingdoms are not mentioned. Instead he created so-called cultural institutions, without political power or decision powers
• Until recently, Baganda dominated the various Museveni governments

Current conundrum

In 2021 Baganda massively supported their own, Bobi Wine, for president of Uganda and rejected Museveni and his party. Today, as the country moves toward 2026 elections, Baganda are torn between Tibuhaburwa Museveni and Bobi Wine again. President Tibuhaburwa has sworn to recapture Buganda for himself and NRM, while maintaining that Bobi Wine has support only in Buganda. His supporters claim that if Bobi Wine has pulled huge crowds in other parts of Uganda, it is not because people there support him but because they are anxious to have a glimpse of a music icon. They are not entertaining the view that the largely youthful population in Buganda in particular and Uganda in general is more for Bobi Wine than for President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, perhaps far more than was the case in 2021. Meanwhile, there are reports circulating globally that Mengo, the seat of power Buganda’s cultural leader, is plotting to ditch Bobi Wine for Museveni. The story goes that some princes and princesses of Buganda have accepted Ush1.5 million bribe each to organise demonstrations against Bobi Wine during Museveni’s campaigns in the region. If it is true, then it means that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s continuing with the discriminatory practice of allowing pro-NRM demonstrations while disallowing those of the opposition.

Key players and interests

While there are other presidential candidates such as Nandala Mafabi, Kasibante and Munyagwa, the main political titans fighting for votes in Buganda are Bobi Wine and incumbent Tibuhaburwa Museveni.

Tibuhaburwa Museveni

President Tibuhaburwa Museveni is using largely the tool of money, which in past elections, has drawn voters to him. He has divided Buganda by targeting the heads of the land, and as pointed out earlier, princess and princesses, who are said to have sold a lot of Buganda land to people with exogenous roots. On July 26, the state-owned newspaper, the New Vision, reported that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni broke ground for Buganda Clan Leaders House in the presence of many Bataka (clan heads). The house called Lwattamu (traditional headquarters for clan leaders), according to the newspaper, will cost Ush58 billion.

Earlier, he met 30 of the 52 Bataka at state house Entebbe and announced he was reconnecting with the Kingdom of Buganda. State House did not explain why the other 22 did not attend nor whether the Kabaka endorsed the meeting. However, the Prime Minister of Buganda did not attend the meeting during which the president implored the Bataka to preach what he called National Resistance Movement (NRM) wealth creation message. 

Operation Wealth Creation is publicly funded. There are also reports and complaints, needing investigation, that the Uganda Electoral Commission, solely constituted by President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, has multiplied the number of polling stations in Nskaseke to boost NRM/President Tibuhaburwa Museveni electoral advantage. If it is true, then it must also be the case in other areas of Uganda. Therefore, clandestinely Buganda is bound to influence the outcome of the contest between President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and Bobi Wine.

Bobi Wine seems to have learnt a lot from his last presidential attempt. He has concentrated on attacking the failures in governance and leadership of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni and putting across his message of unity of all the people of Uganda. He has ignored disparaging statements in gin by the President and other presidential candidates. He has appealed to his supporters to avoid violence during his campaigns, which has exposed security organs as the initiator and perpetrators of violence in Uganda. He has appealed to the individual members of the armed forces to identify themselves with the people because together we sink or rise, stressing that what the people are suffering is also what they (the security personnel) and their relatives are suffering ( ever rising poverty, poor housing, poor education services, poor health services, uncertain future. His clarion call to the people of Buganda is the same he has relayed to all Ugandans: unite, vote, protect your vote, and if the vote is stolen demand it“.

To cap his campaigns in Buganda, he paid a visit to Mengo, the seat of cultural authority (not power) of Buganda) and met the Katikiro of Buganda (Peter Mayiga). During his visit, security blocked the Kabaka and Bobi Wine was unable to meet him. Where that worked in favour of Bobi Wine or Tibuhaburwa Museveni the voters will tell. The visit by Bobi Wine to the grave of Obote I it still split opinion on Buganda, but it did not significantly negatively affect Bobi Wine’s popularity in Buganda: Most of the voters are those who were told about the bad that was identified with Obote by their parents or relatives, and are not held back by the past but want a better future than the one President Tibuhaburwa and his group captured from them.

Uganda’s future

Uganda’s future is now dependent on what Ugandans will decide from now on: leave their country to continue under family rule or reclaim their power from the family of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni? Most Ugandans are in Buganda. The centrality of Buganda in the politics of Uganda will continue. Beyond 2026. Buganda will either unmake Tibuhaburwa Museveni and his ‘No Change’ stance or make Bobi Wine and his ‘New Uganda’ slogan; unmake the future of Uganda as charted by Tibuhaburwa Museveni or make the future as envisioned by Bobi Wine: a future of reintegration, unity, domestic production, freedom from debt and corruption and progressive. Will it continue to be true that when Buganda coughs the rest of Uganda catches the virus?

Conclusion

The question will remain: If Buganda played a pivotal influence in the politics of Uganda in the past, will it do so in future? Today, the youth want to be in charge of their country and to determine its destiny. They may not tolerate a Buganda that takes Uganda in the past or stagnates it by sticking to and with President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s path of militarily capturing all the civic spaces of Uganda, the nationality, sovereignty, citizenship, independence, economy and wealth of Uganda for the benefit of a small, invasive group of people.

Buganda and Uganda have lost land, natural belonging and identity to people of exogenous routes as President Tibuhaburwa Museveni tries to build a new country dominated by his family in the spirit of hereditary leadership and governance at the centre. The current dilemma for Buganda is, therefore, participating fully in the struggle to free Uganda from domination by people who are outward looking or staying in subjugation.

Buganda and Uganda have lost far more than they have gained in the last 40 years and do not meaningfully belong to the 21st Century – a century information, new knowledge and the environment. Will Buganda reject propaganda, choose old knowledge or move ahead with new information, and continue to influence Uganda politics from 1a point of knowledge rather than transplanting the past knowledge to the present? It is a choice between ‘No Change’ or change that Buganda and Uganda have to make. But will the 2026 elections be the gateway for making the choice?

For God and my country.

• A Tell report / By Oweyegha-Afunaduula / Environmental Historian and Conservationist Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA), Seeta, Mukono, Uganda.

About the Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA)The CCTAA was innovated by Hyuha Mukwanason, Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Mahir Balunywa in 2019 to the rising decline in the capacity of graduates in Uganda and beyond to engage in critical thinking and reason coherently besides excellence in academics and academic production. The three scholars were convinced that after academic achievement the world outside the ivory tower needed graduates that can think critically and reason coherently towards making society and the environment better for human gratification. They reasoned between themselves and reached the conclusion that disciplinary education did not only narrow the thinking and reasoning of those exposed to it but restricted the opportunity to excel in critical thinking and reasoning, which are the ultimate aim of education. They were dismayed by the truism that the products of disciplinary education find it difficult to tick outside the boundaries of their disciplines; that when they provide solutions to problems that do not recognise the artificial boundaries between knowledges, their solutions become the new problems. They decided that the answer was a new and different medium of learning and innovating, which they characterised as “The Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis” (CCTAA).