I've realised that a significant number of people on social media don't differentiate between stupidity and misuse of intelligence. And as consequence, many of them rate almost all regime apologists as stupid individuals.
It's not right that all are stupid and it's very dangerous for the opposition or Ugandans that are discontented with the status quo to believe that apologists are unthinking.
It's dangerous because if the official opposition and other Ugandans satisfy themselves that apologists are stupid people, there won't be significant efforts to counter them.
Many apologists trade in propaganda and blackmail. For propaganda to be successful, one has to be deliberate and attentive to things like people's mindsets, psychology, patterns of specific events etc.
Such attention to detail isn't an attribute of the stupid.
On several occasions, apologists succeed in creating narratives, winning over opponents or making some voices less radical and consequently defeat opponents on a larger scale. When you engage some people in society, you can discern, from people's jazz and beliefs, that some people surely fall victim to propaganda.
Actually, some regime apologists are far more intelligent than those who insult and dismiss them. When you task all government apologists to articulate the ills of their government, many of them will accurately describe them better than many opposition sympathisers and other prominent opposition leaders.
When you listen to or read some apologists, you can appreciate the intellectual rigour they employ when constructing some of their arguments.
I believe, if the current opposition gets power, it can unreservedly and proudly employ or informally work with some current regime apologists.
For those that have read George Orwell's book, Animal Farm, you can't say that Squealer was stupid. You can debate whether his efforts to sanitize or justify acts of Napoleon's administration were moral, but you can't doubt Squealer's intelligence.
It could be ( and sometimes it's absolutely) unethical to defend a government that's no longer pro-people at its core, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its defender is stupid. Not all immoralities are irrational. Leading a successful bank heist is immoral but it takes intelligence to execute.
I think the main reason why many opposition politicians and sympathizers can't construct rational counter-arguments is that when regime apologists construct their arguments, the opposition just gets emotional.
Other than dismissing apologists as stupid, we should ask ourselves: What are the motivations for their actions? Acquisitiveness -- the need to hoard as much wealth as possible -- I think is the main spring for their actions.
For some people, if the prospect of accumulating wealth is higher on the side of defending an unpopular government, morality can become inferior to the need to make money.
Probably there are other motivations such as the love for power, rivalry, vanity etc. Yes, a speaker of parliament is certainly more powerful than many opposition politicians and definitely, many find that power attractive.
If people who prop up rogue regimes were as stupid as people presume, those regimes wouldn't last as long as they do.
Many people in the opposition can't successfully defend opposition stances on several occasions. But regime apologists usually do. One can argue that regime apologists have a wider platform and resources but the fact remains that many opposition fanatics can't effectively challenge many regime apologists.
We should stop seeing those people as stupid. They are simply misusing their intelligence.