Amb. Simon Mulongo

In The Observer this week, there is a lyrically crafted piece responding to an appeal I made to President Museveni on January 8, 2025. (Dear reader, I am suggesting you start by reading Amb. Simon Mulongo, before continuing with my response).

I should say, dear reader, my interlocutor, Amb. Simon Mulongo, is a wonderful gentleman. He is a colleague and friend with whom we have debated many, many aspects of Uganda. In all these encounters, I have found him knowledgeable, fastidious and a diligent fellow, who unfortunately, like all of us, has lived under an ‘order of things’ that denies one’s brilliance to shine.

Ironically and sadly, – this is Mulongo’s otherwise cowardly choice – he has immense respect for the man presiding over this ‘order of things,’ and, were the gods to allow it, he would back him for a thousand years.

That said, I read his response with a bemused face. [I enjoyed the rejoinder especially since the administrators of Makerere University, where I am based, decided to issue another denunciation of my affiliation when the letter recently reappeared online]. As you have seen, Mulongo’s pen is testament of a brilliant mind sadly trapped in Karl Marx’s material conditions.

He writes pointedly, elegantly, oftentimes lyrically. But as is true of cowardly brilliant minds, their skills are ever dangerous when put to the sinister causes. Indeed, Bwana Mulongo is subtly, carefully misleading, and a master of obfuscation.

I will reiterate the appeal that attracted this lyrical response from comrade Mulongo. Titled,Dear Yoweri Museveni, Give Uganda a Chance When You Still Can I ask the president – I am still asking – to give Uganda a chance when he still can.

Specifically, working with advanced age (81), and 40- years of doing the same thing, I plead with Bwana Museveni not to stand again in any elections. Basing on the fact that elections are simply procedural – as he is often declared winner no matter the results – I ask him to be contented with his 40 years of trying, be fair to his health, be generous to his friends in big offices, and not wait for a time to die in office.

My thesis is that death in office will bring untold mayhem to the country. Instead, I ask him to oversee a guided transition from himself to someone else, who will still anchor the country while he still lives.

Anyways, as we know now, he heeded neither this call of mine, nor of his friend, Sir Richard Kaijuka who reiterated my message at the memory of their departed contemporary, Eriya Kategaya. He is standing, and by all means, he will be swearing in after January 15. Again, it does not matter whether he won or lost, he will be declared winner.

MULONGO’S MISREADINGS

In his loftily crafted piece – with many abstract nouns making it read like an academic journal article – Mulongo accuses me of being a moralist, which he finds problematic to statecraft.

Instead, he urges that we ought to have faith in the democratic regime that Museveni brought to Uganda in 1986.

He writes that, “Uganda has experienced constitutional continuity unprecedented in the Great Lakes region, multiple electoral cycles, and the reintroduction of multiparty politics in 2005.”

While crediting Museveni for these democratic electoral cycles, Mulongo ignores a key fact that these electoral cycles have only produced the same result for the last 40 years: Yoweri Museveni. But to cover his tracks – and appear balanced – Mulongo points out that “these [democratic] processes are imperfect, often illiberal, and rightly contested, but to dismiss them as mere theatre is to engage in political negation rather than critique.”

What Mulongo is doing here is making the inherent defects, the ever-exploitable aspects of a system to appear like minor, ignorable imperfections that can be remedied after a period.

Dear Simon, what advocates of electoral liberal democracy often overlook is how loose and whorelike this thing is: its most delicious parts – that is, victory at the polls – are not only available to whoever has enough cash, but the strongest of them all.

Democracy (just like neoliberalism) never thrives on the strength of its ideas, but on violence and corruption. Indeed, as Yoweri Museveni would tell country, he knows every political actor has a monetary price.

Folks like Col Kizza Besigye and many others who exhibit non-buyable characters are instead met with violence. In an even more disingenuous turn, Mulongo decides to spin the fates of Sudan and Libya as products of moralists’ exits.

He writes: “Contemporary Africa offers sobering evidence. Sudan’s celebrated transition after 2019 yielded renewed militarism and catastrophic civil war. Libya’s 2011 revolution dissolved the state altogether.

Mali, Guinea, and Niger illustrate how morally compelling exits can trigger elite fragmentation and authoritarian relapse when institutional scaffolding is thin.” First of all, Libya and Sudan were and are not “morally compelling exits.”

These were forced exits where, like Yoweri Museveni, Gaddafi and Bashir held onto power for ages, and had to be forced out through revolution and violence. Mali and Niger are coups.

In fact, one of the biggest fears for me is that Museveni is precisely and exactly seated where Gaddafi and Bashir were to the point that sudden exit spells doom for the entire country.

Notice that Mulongo never addresses the core tenets of my appeal. My letter was rooted in (a) that we are not immortals, and that old age comes with a myriad of health complications, including death.

What will happen if Museveni suddenly disappears? He simply downplays this, calling it a “nonanalytical category.” (b) that Yoweri Museveni has emasculated all other institutions that would give Uganda order if calamity struck him: parliament, judiciary, religious institutions, cultural institutions, elders – all of these have been humiliated and emasculated.

In all seriousness, under Museveni’s regime of things, electoral democracy will not deliver any transitions. Ironically, like Daniel arap Moi in 2002, Museveni has the chance to give this Uganda a transition while he still can. Dear Simon, it is high time we stopped burying our heads in the sand like ostriches. The reality is fast coming at us.

yusufkajura@gmail.com

The author is a political theorist based at Makerere University.

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. Doc, State capture in Uganda is no longer a theory; it is a lived reality. M7’s 1986 critique of African leadership now serves as an indictment of his own 40-year rule, which is built on the pillars of corruption, nepotism, patronage and impunity. When Amb. Simon Mulongo urges faith in this ‘democratic regime,’ he is merely defending the system that created him. The ‘fundamental change’ promised in 1986 has devolved into a personal state governed by a narrow circle of family, relatives, tribesmen, and bush war veterans, proving that the struggle was not for liberation, but for total ownership of the nation’s resources.”
    Figures like Mulongo are direct beneficiaries of this entrenched system, thriving in an environment where state capture has replaced the ‘fundamental change’ Museveni once promised. Instead of the democratic renewal he championed, Uganda has seen the state consolidated into a family-and-militant-led oligarchy that prioritizes regime survival over national progress. M7 has successfully morphed his administration into a family-and-militant oligarchy that believes it owns Uganda by right of conquest. They are prepared to protect this ‘private state’ through any means necessary. Mulongo’s cowardly assertion of ‘immense respect’ for M7 and his hyperbolic wish for a thousand-year reign—is the ultimate proof of state capture. It shows that for the beneficiaries of this broken system, the goal is no longer democracy, but the eternal rule of a single lineage.
    When Mulongo suggests he would back Museveni for a thousand years, he is merely confessing his loyalty to the patronage that sustains him. It is a chilling reminder that the ‘order of things’ in Uganda today is built on entitlement, not the will of the people.

  2. But Dr., Dr. Yusuf, with due respect; Hon Mulondo can’t be a ‘… wonderful gentleman.’ and a sycophant at the same time. He cannot be a wonderful gentleman and a coward at the same time.

    The guy cannot be a wonderful gentleman and becomes the Cheerleader and defender of a Self-confessed Wrongdoer.

    In other words, the gentlemanliness or ‘a brilliant mind’ as you have assigned Mr. Mulondo is not consistent with intellectual dishonesty and/or dependency.

    E.g., Confucius the father of Moral Order says that: “A gentleman can be broken, but cannot be dented. He may be deceived, but cannot be led astray (mislead). … A gentleman takes as much trouble to discover what is right as lesser men take much trouble to discover what will pay.”

    On governance he further said that: In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. … In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.

    Unfortunately this is where Hon Mulondo loses his honesty/morality as far as our 85-years-old PROBLEM OF AFRICA, Gen Tibuhaburwa is concerned and must be ashamed, if and ever he still has an iota balance of conscience in his soul.

  3. Lakwena, your observation is spot on: Amb. Simon Mulongo cannot possibly have it both ways. The attempt by Dr. Yusuf to ‘balance’ his character is a clear example of sugarcoating the inconvenient truth that Mulongo is not a ‘wonderful gentleman’—he is a committed sycophant. As a public official, Mulongo has a sworn duty to serve the Ugandan nation and its constitution. Instead, his actions and words consistently demonstrate his allegiance to M7 as an autocratic ruler, making a mockery of the very concept of non-partisan public service.
    The ‘great observation’ here is the logical impossibility of being both a ‘wonderful gentleman’ of integrity and a sycophant for an autocratic regime. By choosing to serve M7’s authoritarian agenda, Mulongo disqualifies himself from any claim of being a ‘gentleman,’ revealing himself as a regime enabler.

    1. Remase, when I think of it, it is bewildering. To the extent that probably I am among the Ugandans who are not in their right state of mind to rubbish Gen Tibuhaburwa as a BOGUS person and PRESIDENT of a country called Uganda.

      BOGUS because, who in his/her right state of mind can mobilize votes for the man who 38 years ago, in 1987; told the former OAU Heads of States Summit (now AU) and whol wide world (www) that: the PROBLEM OF AFRICA is leaders refusing to relinquish political power.

      But the same man became the PROBLEM OF AFRICA. 4 times worse off than Dictator idi Amin Dada (RIP).

      BOGUS because, who in his/her right state of mind can mobilize votes for the man who 9 years ago, on 26th Jan 2017, told his countrymen, women, children and and www that he is neither their servant nor employee?

      In other words e.g., at one of International Seminars in one of the Norwegian Universities, a Senior Makerere University Ethics and Human Rights academician made a Youtube Visual-audio presentation of such political statements scenarios; and the participants were dumbfounded that Ugandans would still tolerate and allow Gen Tibuhaburwa to continue MISLEADING the country.

      It is bewildering because, the NRM Party Voter Mobilization EC Chairperson is a retired Academic Historian Scholar, who should have known better that it is to be on the wrong side of history to mobilize votes for the PROBLEM OF AFRICA.

      It is bewildering because, except aggravating the political absurdity; the Chairperson of the National EC, is a Senior High Court Judge, who should be sober and Just enough to know that it is unjust to become the Principal in the Voter agency for the PROBLEM OF AFRICA to be one of the presidential candidates for 2026 General.

  4. Fellow Ugandans, Uganda faces a tragic irony: Mulongo is not an isolated case, but a symptom of a state where politics has been fully commercialized. By institutionalizing corruption and patronage, M7 has created a system that co-opts everyone. Even the opposition, including Kyagulanyi and the NUP, find themselves in a form of ‘oppositional sycophancy.’ On January 1, 2026, Kyagulanyi challenged Museveni to sack EC Chair Simon Byabakama if he truly believed the 2021 results were rigged. Yet, by proceeding to the January 15 polls without the very electoral reforms they demand, the opposition essentially validates the same commission they claim is compromised. They are playing a game where the winner is predetermined, effectively serving as the democratic facade M7 needs to maintain international legitimacy.
    Kyagulanyi is validating a rigged process. Participation without reform is not liberation; it is sycophancy in disguise. It allows M7 to claim a democratic victory on January 15 while his captured state remains firmly in the hands of his family, relatives and militants.

  5. It is noteworthy that not even one NRM historical has endorsed or campaigned for M7 in this election. Suggesting: Vote for him at your own risk!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *