The gist of this article is that while the methods and ideological packaging differ, Uganda’s ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) state under President Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni (since 1986) has replicated and, in some ways, intensified, the divide and rule approach to governance.

Further, it has entrenched the fundamental structures of control established during British colonial rule, creating a historical continuum of centralized and patrimonial power.

My thesis statement is: The British colonial conquest (late 19th century) and the NRM’s military seizure of power (1986) both initiated political orders characterised by a monopoly of violence, the centralisation of authority, the co-optation of traditional structures, and the creation of an economic system dependent on the ruling power. NRM, despite its revolutionary rhetoric, has often functioned as a “neo-colonial internal state”.

Hoping that you will follow and internalise the arguments in my critical thought and alternative analysis of the National Resistance Movement rule vis-a-vis British colonial rule, let me proceed as follows:

Nature of conquest

British Colonial Rule (1890s-1962) was not helping the area they called Uganda British Protectorate and later Commonwealth Realm of Uganda and then Uganda to experience positive change. It was external conquest by a foreign imperial power. It was imposed via superior military technology (Maxim guns), treaties (often fraudulent) and divide-and-rule tactics (using Baganda agents to subdue other kingdoms and or areas). The motive was economic extraction and imperial prestige.

NRM rule has spanned from 1986 to the present through an internal conquest by an invasive guerrilla movement with some local leaders such as Prof Yusuf Kironde Lule involved. NRM/A hegemony was achieved through a protracted deceptively “people’s war” (the Luwero Bush War), with support from specific ethnic-cum-regional bases (Banyarwanda, Banyamulenge) and ideological rhetoric of ending sectarianism and instituting democracy. The motive was to seize the state and “fundamentally change” Uganda in the interest of not Ugandans, but foreigners.

Structure of control and administration

British colonial rule and indirect rule. The British governed through “native authorities” (e.g. the Buganda Agreement 1900). They created and rigidified ethnic identities, appointing pliant chiefs to collect taxes and maintain order. The colonial state was the ultimate authority, with a powerful central government (in Entebbe/Kampala) overseeing provinces (Central Province or Buganda, Eastern Province, Northern Province and Western Province), each with a provincial commissioner (PC) under whom were district commissioners (DCs).

However, there were no districts in Buganda during British colonial rule. The colonialists recognised 15 nation states: Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, Bugisu, Bukedi, Bunyoro, Busoga, Karamoja, Kigezi, Lango, Moyo, Sebei, Teso, Toro and West Nile. Of these, Ankole, Buganda, Bunyoro and Toro were kingdoms and the rest were districts. The districts and kingdoms were amalgamated to form the colonial state.

NRM rule is direct but deceptively decentralised and patrimonial control. The NRM replaced the “no-party” state, which it preferred as soon as it captured power with an amorphous “Movement System” (until 2005). Since then it has preferred a de facto dominant-party state. It uses a vast patronage network – akin to modern “chiefs” – including resident district commissioners (RDCs), resident city commissioners (RCC), UPDF officers and local council (LC) officials. Decentralisation (a key NRM policy) ironically mirrors indirect rule: it devolves tasks and conflicts to districts while ultimate power (budgets, security) remain fiercely centralized in State House. The co-option of traditional leaders (cultural institutions) is a direct parallel with what obtained during British colonial rule.

Political economy of control

Under British colonial rule the economy was designed for extractive export. Focus on cash crops (cotton, coffee) meant that these were grown by peasants but controlled by Asian and European middlemen. Infrastructure (Uganda Railway) was built to serve the export economy. Land was alienated (e.g. Mailo Land system) to create a dependent class when the rest of the land was left in traditional-cultural hands.

Under NRM we have economy of patronage and securitisation. Control is maintained through access to state contracts, jobs and donor funds. A new class of “military-commercial entrepreneurs” has emerged, closely tied to the regime. While liberalising the economy, the state retains control over strategic sectors (oil, security, large contracts). Dependency has shifted from London to Washington/Brussels/Beijing, but the structure of an externally reliant economy serving a central elite continues.

Ideology of legitimacy

Under British colonial rule there was what I can characterize as The Civilising Mission. This was justified by racism (the “White Man’s Burden”) and the need to end slavery and bring Christianity, commerce and civilisation. In other words, legitimacy of the state was highly paternalistic and explicitly hierarchical.

Under NRM rule there was initially the “Fundamental Change” Mission. It was justified by the need to end decades of chaos (Obote, Amin), eliminate sectarianism, and foster democracy and development. The NRM positions itself as a modern, pragmatic and transformative force against the “old” politics of tribe and religion. However, over time it has become an authoritarian, personalist party manifesting more like a dictator’s paradise.

It is actually a sycophantic party, although President Tibuhaburwa Museveni recently dismissed opposition parties as sycophantic. However, in the context of this article, is a party which does not any alternative to its leader, takes him or her as the sole leader and engaged in praise-singing his name. Members regard him as the only thinker and full of wisdom. That is one reason why some of the members, such as the speaker of parliament call him God. None can dare challenge his thoughts and choices even if they are wrong or misleading or anti-people or anti-nation.

Resistance and dissent

Under British colonial rule resistance was met with brutal military suppression (e.g. the Bunyoro resistance, the 1945 and 1949 riots in Buganda). Political organisation was tightly controlled, leading to nationalist movements (UNC, UPC, and DP) that ultimately negotiated independence for the country.

Under NRM rule, opposition is managed through a sophisticated of complex blend of coercion, denials, legalism, conscience buying and co-optation. The security apparatus (UPDF, CMI, police) is used against serious threats such as Kyagulanyi’s National Unity Platform or Kyagulanyi himself. The judiciary and parliament are often manipulated by the president for personal gain of power and influence.

Elections are held but within an uneven playing field marked by intimidation, patronage, political buying and constitutional manipulation (like removing age and term limits); besides, the electoral commission is not independent of presidential and military influence although it is called The Independent Electoral Commission of Uganda.

Recently, for example, the President Tibuhaburwa Museveni interfered in the electoral process towards the 2026 Presidential and Parliamentary elections by imposing Biometric Voting, which is not provided for in the Uganda Constitution 1995 nor was legislated into law by the Parliament of Uganda the way the UPDF Act 2025 was. Also, the Chief Defence Forces (CDF), General Muhoozi Kainerugaba disregarded the constitutional provision that people stand 20 metres away from the ballot box after voting and ordered Ugandans to vacate the voting site after casting their votes, without realizing he was causing the military to capture and militarise the electoral process, violate the Constitution and disempower the electoral commission, rendering it inconsequential.

Continuum: Where the parallels converge

Over-mighty centre

Both systems – the British colonial system and the NRM neo-colonial system – concentrate immense power in a single, unchallengeable centre: the colonial governor then, the presidency or state house now.

Security as the ultimate arbiter

The army/militia – also known as National Resistance Army or now Uganda People’s Defence Forces UPDF – is the ultimate guarantor of the regime, deeply intertwined with political power, and through NRA and UPDF the military has captured all the civilian spaces. During the colonial times it was the Kings African Rifles (KAR) to guarantee the legitimacy and political power. However, unlike today when soldiers build houses and stay in public spaces, mixing with civilians, that was not the case during colonial times.

Managed ethnicity

Both regimes practice a form of ‘ethnic engineering’ and cleansing. The British rigidified ethnicity; the NRM manages it through a delicate balance of appointing loyalists from various groups while maintaining a core ethnic or regional power base. During colonial times, ethnic cleansing was emphasises in the social sectors such as education and health while Africans we’re not allowed to grow crops such as tea, not run businesses, which were left to Indians and Europeans.

However, diluting NRM time most businesses are in the hands of Indians, Chineses and Banyarwanda. Politics and money are used to disable and displace or replace indigenous businessmen and business women. Besides, it has power and money to displace people from their traditional lands, thereby destroying cultural natural belonging and dentistry of the indigenous people. It has used privatisation to ethnically cleanse indigenous people’s children from certain schools and hospitals. All these things are akin to apartheid-like governance.

Political management of the periphery

Whether through Baganda agents, colonial chiefs, or RDCs/LCs, both systems rely on local intermediaries who are accountable upward to the centre, not downward to the people. NRM excludes alternative political actors in alternative parties from interacting with people in the periphery except during elections. Even then the movements and actions of the political leaders are closely controlled by police and army. This electoral year we have seen Bobi Wine’s electoral trail over-militarized and denied to use certain roads or campaign in urban centres, claiming businesses will be distrupted.

Legacy of a ‘captured’ state

The colonial state was an instrument for extraction and control. Critics argue the NRM has similarly “captured” the state, transforming public institutions into instruments for regime maintenance and personal enrichment for a connected elite. Increasingly, the public state of elected officials is being replaced by a Mafia state or deep state although elections are held every five years just for legitimisation or acceptance of the regime by outsiders as civilised enough to be democratic. Yet, what obtains is deceptive democracy or disguised democracy.

Conclusion: Change within continuity

NRM did bring change: ending civil wars, macroeconomic stability, advances in public health (like HIV fight), and a rhetoric of popular participation. However, the deep structure of the Ugandan state – its centralised, personalist and security-centric nature – reveals a continuum with its colonial predecessor. The conquest was different, the masters are now Africans with exogenous routes and the ideology is modern, but the essential model of power – distant, supreme and dispensing patronage through a hierarchical chain -: remains hauntingly familiar. The title holds: these are Two Conquests on one continuum of state power in Uganda.

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).