As Uganda enters another political season, one thing has already become clear: women are still judged by standards that have nothing to do with ability or intelligence.
The barrier is not biology. It is the gender roles society created, and the explanations we attach to women’s behaviour.
Attribution Theory brings it out clearly: “People explain others’ actions either by blaming their character (internal attribution) or the situation (external attribution). In Uganda, this theory plays out unfairly against women.
When a female candidate is firm during a debate, many voters say she is proud, emotional or aggressive. But when a male candidate behaves the same way, he is praised as strong and confident. The behaviour is identical, only the gender lens changes the explanation.
In Buganda, a woman who raises her voice at a rally may be labelled mannish, yet a man is celebrated for “commanding authority.”
In Busoga, a woman campaigning late into the night may be criticized for abandoning her home duties, while a man is commended for hard work. In Iteso or Acholi communities, women who challenge corruption may be perceived as troublesome, whereas men become heroes for the same actions.
This is not biology at work. These are socially constructed gender roles deciding how Ugandans judge political figures. When a male politician fails, supporters blame external factors: “the system frustrated him,” “funds delayed,” “saboteurs were involved.”
But when a woman faces the same challenge, the blame becomes internal: “women are not natural leaders,” “she is too soft,” or “she cannot handle pressure.” These explanations are cultural, not factual.
Even after women reach parliament, their performance is scrutinized through unfair gender lenses. Contributions to debates are undervalued; leadership roles in high-profile committees are harder to secure; and mistakes are attributed to personal shortcomings rather than systemic issues.
Critical Mass Theory reminds us why: until women reach a significant proportion in decision-making bodies, their voices can be marginalized (Kanter, 1977). Uganda’s parliament still shows this reality, limiting women’s influence even when they are capable and committed.
Cultural and social expectations compound these challenges. Women juggling parliamentary duties and family responsibilities are criticized for neglecting the home, while men doing the same work receive praise.
The message is clear: competence is interpreted differently, depending on the gender of the leader. Double Bind Theory explains the challenge perfectly: women in leadership are often caught between contradictory expectations: they must be assertive to lead but also feminine enough to be socially-accepted (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Uganda’s democracy cannot grow when women are evaluated through stereotypes while men enjoy the benefit of excuses and cultural protection. As we head into elections, voters must ask themselves hard questions:
• Am I interpreting her actions fairly, or through society’s gender expectations?
• Am I giving men allowances I deny women?
• Am I confusing gender roles with leadership ability? If we judge women based on their real performance and not the stories culture attaches to their gender, Uganda will gain stronger leaders, richer debate, and a more inclusive democracy. It is time to stop blaming biology for what society created.
The writer is an advocate for Gender social inclusion
Thank you for the article. I know you didn’t mean, but are Iteso and Acholi men the most corrupt in Uganda? You could have made a better pick of the most corrupt tribes in illustrating your point.
Real men cheer women when they either make or attempt to make upward social mobility.