Questions, however, linger on whether institutionalising IPOD will address the challenges of political parties.
The Leader of Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, said, “No, it won’t. You see, on many occasions the government deceives themselves and then later gets convinced of their own deception.
You can’t force political parties into the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue, which is supposed to be optional.”
The FDC Vice Chairman for Western Uganda, Robert Centenary, said: “The Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill, 2025 will not help political parties. This is just a way of clamping parties down financially.”
The Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) was introduced in Uganda in 2009 on the invitation of the Government of Uganda four years after Uganda returned to multiparty democracy with the aim of pursuing and promoting inclusive democracy and the fundamental principles of democracy, good governance, human rights, and others.
The parties, however, are concerned that the ruling NRM cannot stand by the ambitious IPOD principles it brought.
“How do you dialogue with someone who is stepping on your throat? UPC has been in dialogue but are complaining; FDC withdrew in protest,” the Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi complained.
Even to the architecture of IPOD the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy the newly amended Political Parties and Organisations Amendment Bill, 2025 does not go unchallenged.
Primus Atukwatse, Country Representative of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, said: “It was in a rush. They ought to have consulted well with all the stakeholders so as to get a common position.”
To the political scholar Rev. Dr. Simon Feta, Ugandans will take long to appreciate and understand the importance of IPOD due to doubt associated with the founders. He believes the government institutionalised IPOD in fear of its status.