NRM’s CEC Elections Expose Uganda’s Politics as a Money-Making Scheme

 

The recent whispers surrounding the ruling party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) elections have once again ignited debate over Uganda’s political culture. A common refrain now gaining traction is that “leadership in Uganda is more of a business, not a service.”

This assertion captures the frustration of many citizens who increasingly view politics as a transactional enterprise rather than a platform for public service. Allegations of delegates being ferried across borders and showered with cash during internal party contests highlight how money has come to dominate Uganda’s political space.

In principle, leadership is meant to be about service: solving citizens’ problems, uplifting communities, and steering national development. Yet in practice, elections at every level—from local councils to the national stage—have become arenas where financial muscle often outweighs merit. The question voters quietly ask is no longer “who has the best ideas?” but rather “who can spend the most?”

The case of NRM’s CEC elections illustrates this vividly. Reports of lavish spending, “snuggled” meetings, and inducements extended to delegates in foreign settings point to the extent leaders are willing to go to secure positions. Once these seats are won, the natural temptation is for winners to treat them as investments to be recouped, rather than as responsibilities to be fulfilled.

The long-term cost of this monetization of politics is immense:

Erosion of trust as ordinary citizens feel alienated from processes dominated by money.

Weak institutions as leaders prioritize personal returns over public service.

Entrenched poverty as resources that could fund schools, health facilities, or roads are instead redirected to sustain political patronage networks.

Uganda’s democratic experiment, now in its fourth decade under the NRM, faces a paradox. While institutions and elections exist in form, their substance is undermined when financial inducements take precedence over principles of accountability and service.

The question lingers: as the country heads toward the 2026 general elections, will leadership continue to be seen as a lucrative business venture, or can it be reclaimed as a noble ser

vice to the people?