NRM Elections and Their Impact on Service Delivery

The recently concluded NRM primary elections highlight the disconnect between Uganda’s political practice and the ideals of democratic theory. In theory, elections are meant to make leaders accountable by giving citizens the power to retain effective leaders and vote out underperformers. Yet Uganda’s experience tells a different story.

In these primaries, 82% of incumbent NRM MPs lost the party flag. This follows a long-standing pattern: of the current 536 MPs, only 105 served in the previous parliament, meaning over 75% are newcomers. The same trend repeats across local government, where more than two-thirds of elected officials are voted out in every election cycle. The only exception is President Yoweri Museveni, who has entrenched himself in power, while every other political leader faces intense electoral turnover.

Despite this apparent vigilance by voters, Uganda’s government remains strikingly unresponsive to the public good. Schools decay, hospitals deteriorate, roads are riddled with potholes, garbage piles up, sewage flows into streets, and wetlands are destroyed in the name of investment. Yet business continues as usual, with little sign of change.

Comparing Uganda with neighboring Rwanda makes the paradox even clearer. By textbook definitions, Uganda appears more democratic: it has more competitive elections, a freer press, more vibrant civil society, dynamic political parties, and frequent leadership turnover. Museveni faces tougher electoral challenges than Kagame, and Ugandan MPs are more electorally vulnerable than Rwandan legislators. On paper, Uganda should be more responsive. In practice, it is not.

Rwanda, often labeled authoritarian, displays extraordinary commitment to the public good. Public institutions there — schools, hospitals, roads, parks, libraries, airports, even military and police stations — are maintained to a higher standard than many private businesses. Officials take responsibility: police respond to traffic jams, potholes are quickly fixed, and public spaces are regularly cleaned and beautified.

Critics often attribute this efficiency to fear of Kagame’s authoritarian rule. There is truth in the claim that his discipline has created an effective administrative state, but that is not the full story. Kagame has also articulated a compelling national vision, inspiring Rwandans to believe in both personal and collective greatness. This sense of shared purpose — not intimidation alone — drives the country’s commitment to public service.

Rwandans actively hold officials accountable. Complaints on social media about failing services trigger swift responses because authorities know higher powers will act if they don’t. In Uganda, by contrast, citizens have learned to resign to poor services; even mass campaigns against potholes often yield no response.

Thus, Uganda’s vibrant civic activity often reflects despair rather than hope, while Rwanda’s quieter public life reflects trust in quick and effective solutions. Where Ugandan politics breeds violent competition for public office, Rwandans organize collectively around serving the common good. That is the crucial difference between the two nations.