For those unfamiliar with Yusuf Serunkuma’s stance, as I understand it, he argues that Muhoozi Kainerugaba is the most realistic successor to Museveni.
He is the best shot at a stable, or at least least violent, path to and through a transition, and therefore perhaps the safest option.
The other part of the argument is that Muhoozi would be less authoritarian than his father because political society has changed and leaders can no longer get away with the kind of abuses they once could.
I find this part particularly problematic. There is a logic to the argument that as society becomes more politically-aware and legal and institutional safeguards develop, leaders have less room to commit serious abuses.
Perhaps this is true in the aggregate. But that is not the case for Uganda. Abductions, torture and disappearances did not begin with NUP foot soldiers or the recent generation of activists.
They have a much longer history. Yet, if Yusuf’s logic is correct, an increasingly politically conscious society should have pushed the Museveni regime towards greater respect for human rights. The opposite has happened.
Some abuses have not only continued; they are now carried out with a remarkable lack of embarrassment. The old fear of being caught doing something wrong appears to have been replaced by the confidence to do it with one’s chest out.
So, if Muhoozi can do what he does as CDF, what exactly stops him from doing more when he has the full powers of the presidency? On the question of probability, I am also unconvinced that the alternatives are as narrow as Yusuf presents them.
Much of the argument seems to begin with frustration: Muhoozi appears to be the most likely outcome; therefore, we should prepare for him. However, I think that political transitions rarely follow such neat calculations.
We are often reminded of Sudan, Egypt and Libya, where popular uprisings did not produce the outcomes citizens wanted. Fair enough. But Africa has experienced hundreds of changes of government.
There have been negotiated transitions, opposition victories, internal political realignments, transitional arrangements, and what might be called surgical operations within ruling establishments.
Kenya, from Moi; Zimbabwe, from Mugabe, transferred power within the same political establishment. Even if we rule out a mass uprising that successfully changes government and immediately delivers all the aspirations of citizens, there are still many possible forms of transition.
Pressure from citizens can be enough to force those controlling the system to look for a more balanced figure, either from within the establishment or outside it. The future has more possibilities than Muhoozi or chaos.
Politics, thankfully, has never been that obedient to spreadsheets. But even if Yusuf is right about the probability, I think there is a deeper problem. Yusuf has spent years building much of his intellectual legitimacy by criticising Museveni and, at different moments, Muhoozi.
Yet he is now helping normalise the idea that Muhoozi should be Uganda’s next president. Intellectuals do not merely analyse political possibilities. They shape what society begins to regard as possible, reasonable and acceptable.
They have preference-shaping power. Someone who is sceptical of Muhoozi may begin to reconsider simply because they trust Yusuf’s judgement.
Repetition across Yusuf’s many political talk shows, podcasts and other public forums can gradually turn a previously unacceptable possibility into something people begin to regard as inevitable. And then there is the defence that Yusuf is simply following the evidence.
There is a difference between predicting what is likely to happen and arguing that it is what ought to happen. This is why I am not persuaded by the argument that Yusuf is simply being courageous enough to tell us an uncomfortable truth.
Perhaps he is. But intellectual honesty is not the only obligation of a public intellectual. There is also a responsibility to care about what one’s conclusions do in society. You cannot simply say, “The data leads me here,” and stop there.
You must also ask: What does my platform make possible? What does it legitimise? Whose actions does it soften? What kind of political future am I helping people imagine?
Many have been quick to say Yusuf is doing this because he is afraid. He criticised Museveni for years and criticised Muhoozi too, and perhaps now he wants to avoid suffering the consequences.
I do not think that is so; I once asked Yusuf on a podcast where his courage comes from. He told me it came partly from his Muslim faith and his understanding that death is part of life.
I believed him then, and I still do. So perhaps this is not cowardice. Perhaps it is something more complicated: an obsession with being intellectually right at a moment when intellectual correctness may be disastrous for society.
Academics often become so committed to proving that their analysis is correct; that they forget they are also human beings living inside the consequences of that analysis. You can be intellectually-faithful and still be morally wrong.
In a country that has witnessed abductions, torture, and the shrinking of political space, I struggle to understand how the conclusion can be that the man commanding the security establishment is the person we should be preparing to hand the country to.
Maybe Yusuf is right about what is likely, but ‘me as me,’ I am not convinced that it is right to use his considerable intellectual authority to make it normal.
lawelfrayer253@gmail.com
The writer is a researcher with Agora Center for Research
He could have eaten something!
“Yet he is now helping normalise the idea that Muhoozi should be Uganda’s next president. Intellectuals do not merely analyse political possibilities. They shape what society begins to regard as possible, reasonable and acceptable” well said, I think intellectuals with clout such as Yusuf need to start showing the public how dangerous a muhoozi presidency is likely to be than just telling us its inevitability. Besides, it is not real until it happens, because man plans his destiny but God is a master Planner!!
This could be one avenue to lining up for the national cake perhaps, albeit a person like Dr Serunkuma has somehow won many income flowing springs through his academia. I implore Yusuf to consider the fact that a dog will never deliver a cow. Kindly let your academic pride perpetuate, all ills whether speculated or confirmed from this rotten thing should be put to light for the good of society. As if you’ve partly forgotten the pain of your father “the NYTIL thing!”
I would call it : cowardice , intellectual infidelity , opportunists , dodgy , treachery ,conjuring ….
I doubt if Mw. Docta Sserunkuma has succeeded in fooling many Ugandans .
This youngster is spot on. Quite refreshing, unlike the same old little narcissistic gaslighter who still continues to fool some of us with his many bogus articles.
Could he be taking the “mwenda” path?
Bweguba mugaati, gujja mutual.
Yusuf is positioning himself for a safe haven be ause he wouldn’t be spatedof his yesterday comments.
survival instinct -coward and saboteur.
Lawel, I often feel compelled to comment after reading just the first few paragraphs, and this piece immediately grabbed my attention. You write that Muhoozi is “the best shot at a stable, or at least least violent, path to and through a transition.” This specific narrative is exactly what Yusuf Serunkuma uses to exploit our collective fear of instability.
While it is true that Uganda has never experienced a peaceful transfer of power, we must acknowledge why. Museveni’s regime was built on violence, is maintained by violence, and relies on anarchy and dynastic family rule to survive. Yusuf’s warning of a violent transition is simple scaremongering. Furthermore, calling this path “stable” is a contradiction in terms. Is Uganda truly stable, or have we simply normalized Museveni’s monopoly on state violence? Are we expected to accept perpetual family rule just to avoid the friction of change?
As a native of Luwero, I have a deep, personal hatred for political violence. I know firsthand what Museveni did there—the mountains of skeletons along the Bombo-Luwero highway stand as a grim testament to the innocent lives sacrificed to bring him to power. By framing Muhoozi as the “safest option,” Yusuf is actively trying to cement the Museveni family’s hold on Uganda forever. It suggests we are permanently trapped, which seems to be exactly what Yusuf desires.
But Remase, it is not true that Uganda has never experienced or witnessed a peaceful transfer of power!
In other words, who in his/her right state of mind can deny that: the 9th October 1962, was a peaceful handover of colonial power through the Brits Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen (the best governor) to Apollo Milton Obote (RIP)?
Otherwise, where have you been?
Lawel, these two paragraphs hit the nail right on the head. Yusuf Serunkuma built his immense intellectual credibility precisely by offering sharp, fearless critiques of Museveni and Muhoozi. In fact, that is exactly why I fell in love with his writing. He was consistent and precise, to the point where many of us wondered how he managed to speak such truth to power without facing severe consequences in the Museveni era.
In Uganda’s political landscape, neutrality is an illusion—you are either fighting the regime or serving it. When you criticize this dictatorship, you are on borrowed time unless you capitulate. Sadly, Yusuf’s recent shift means he has now joined the ranks of individuals like Andrew Mwenda, Fool Figure, Norbert Mao, Betty Kamya, Katikiro Peter Mayiga and so many others. These figures are the very reason Museveni remains in power. They help normalize the regime, much like Bobi Wine (Kyagulanyi), who seemingly entered the political arena not to bring true structural change, but merely to replace Besigye, displace the FDC, and use NUP— [as] the largest opposition party in parliament—to enrich himself and his NUP elites.
Yusuf is a briefcase analyst – you’re a breath of fresh air, Muhwezi
In other words knowingly: to succumb, subscribe and submit to the intimidation and terrorism of Organized Criminal Organizations like the deceitful PLU, under our 87-years-old PROBLEM OF AFRICA, Gen Tibuhaburwa and his PROBLEMATIC son, Gen MK; is to lose one’s dignity, integrity and sense of ethics and morality, which surprisingly and seemingly many decent Ugandans like Dr., Dr. Yusuf, even the former and current Speakers have caved into.