By AGABA MUZOORA
The violence and insecurity witnessed during the Kawempe North by-election raise serious concerns about the state of democracy in Uganda. From nomination day to the election, security forces engaged in excessive and unprecedented violence, disproportionate for a mere constituency MP by-election. This included the roughing up of journalists, the arrest of party officials, the beating of party supporters, and the vandalization of electoral materials on Election Day.
Unjustified Use of Force
On nomination day, security agencies initially denied responsibility for the deployment of Joint Anti-Terrorism Taskforce (JATT) personnel, who were seen ruthlessly beating a candidate, his supporters, and journalists. Despite this, no arrests have been made for illegal possession of firearms and military uniforms, and neither the Uganda Police Force (UPF) nor the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) has shown any intent to investigate the matter. The fact that perpetrators were accompanied by officers in UPDF and UPF uniforms leaves little doubt that these actions were sanctioned and jointly executed by both forces.
On Election Day, an overwhelming security contingent—armed with war-grade paraphernalia—descended upon some journalists and voters, inflicting indiscriminate violence. This climaxed in the evening with the vandalization of electoral materials at multiple polling stations, preventing the declaration of results. Reports indicate that no fewer than eight journalists suffered violent attacks, some sustaining grievous injuries necessitating hospitalization. These attacks are not isolated incidents but part of an alarming trend of impunity against those seeking to inform the public about electoral processes.
In Whose Interest Is Security Operating?
The fundamental question remains: in whose interest do security forces operate when meting out violence on innocent civilians, including journalists?
In the case of Kwempe North, Some posit that the conspicuous security deployment and pre-election violence sought to bolster the fortunes of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) by deterring voters from overwhelmingly backing the National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate. However, this rationale is profoundly flawed. Intimidation does not selectively target opposition voters; it suppresses participation across the board, indiscriminately disenfranchising all citizens. Security forces do not distinguish between NRM and opposition supporters—especially in an election where political regalia were barred at polling stations. The net effect was a catastrophic voter turnout, adversely impacting all contenders, including the NRM’s candidate.
Furthermore, this approach is counterproductive for the ruling party –NRM. The party’s chairman—who also serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces—risks being perceived as an autocrat who condones state-sponsored violence against political dissenters. This perception is not merely corrosive; it is existentially perilous for the party, accelerating its alienation from the electorate. Election violence does not consolidate power. On the contrary Election violence backfires on the ruling party by alienating voters and diminishing trust in democratic processes, ultimately weakening NRM’s legitimacy.
Therefore, on these two accounts, election violence perpetuated by security forces does not benefit NRM –the ruling party.
Another possible justification for excessive security deployment could be intelligence reports suggesting potential election-related crimes. However, if that were the case, journalists should have been treated as allies rather than targets. Their presence could have served as a witness to the security forces’ professionalism. Instead, violence against journalists undermines the credibility of security operations and suggests ulterior motives beyond crime prevention.
Until security agencies themselves clarify their motives, the true beneficiaries of such violence remain unknown. However, this pattern of brutality does not serve democracy, the electorate, or even the ruling party in the long run.
Consequences of Election Violence
Regardless of intent, the consequences of election violence are far-reaching. Violence against civilians and journalists erodes public confidence in democracy as a means of governance. When people lose faith in democratic institutions, they may resort to alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations, increasing the risk of instability and bloodshed. Sustainable security can only be achieved when law enforcement agencies operate in the interests of the people who fund their operations through taxes.
Security forces must understand that their primary role is to protect citizens and uphold democratic principles, not to serve narrow political interests, if at all. A professional and impartial security force earns public trust, ensuring long-term stability rather than fostering resentment and defiance among the populace. The violence in Kawempe North highlights a broader assault on press freedom and civic engagement in Uganda. A free press is essential for transparency and accountability, particularly during elections. When journalists are targeted, the electorate is left vulnerable to misinformation and propaganda, further eroding trust in the electoral process.
Additionally, the violent crackdown on opposition members discourages political participation and creates an atmosphere of fear rather than one of free competition. If security forces repeatedly use violence to control political actors, public faith in democratic processes diminishes. People who no longer see elections as a viable means of achieving change may begin to consider alternative, often violent, methods. This could lead to widespread unrest and, ultimately, the breakdown of social order. When the state normalizes violence, it risks provoking an equally violent response from aggrieved citizens, pushing the country further toward instability.
The Need for Accountability
The Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) has acknowledged reports of violence against journalists and civilians, with the Ministry of Defense promising investigations. However, experience suggests that without concrete action, such acknowledgments remain empty rhetoric. Perpetrators must be held accountable. Failure to do so will embolden security forces to continue their acts of brutality with impunity, further deteriorating Uganda’s democracy.
Conclusion
The violence exhibited by security forces during the Kawempe North by-election represents a grave threat to democracy and human rights in Uganda. A democratic society cannot function when its citizens live in fear of violence for exercising their fundamental rights. The government must ensure that security agencies remain neutral in the electoral process, protecting rather than oppressing citizens. If Uganda is to maintain its democratic trajectory, it must prioritize the rule of law, transparency, and the protection of civil liberties over political expediency. The future of the country depends on upholding these principles.
The Author is a Ugandan citizen and development activist.