Kampala, Uganda | By Michael Wandati | The ongoing anti-government protests in Kenya, driven largely by Gen Z, has captured international attention. Meanwhile, Uganda, despite facing similar socio-political challenges, remains notably quieter on the protest front.
This disparity begs the question: why is it so difficult for Ugandans to mobilize anti-government protests similar to those seen in Kenya?
A deep dive into the political, social, and historical contexts of both nations reveals the answer.
Political repression and fear
Uganda’s political landscape is heavily shaped by President Yoweri Museveni’s long tenure, extending his rule for nearly four decades. Mr. Museveni’s government has been characterized by stringent control over political activities and a robust security apparatus designed to stifle dissent.
The Uganda Police Force and other security agencies are often quick to crack down on demonstrations, frequently employing force and arrests to disperse crowds. This pervasive state surveillance and the threat of severe repercussions have fostered a culture of fear among potential protestors.
In contrast, Kenya, despite its challenges, has a more vibrant democratic space. The post-2010 constitution significantly expanded civil liberties and provided a framework for peaceful protests and political expression.
While the Kenyan government does crack down on protests, the legal and social structures are more accommodating to dissent compared to Uganda.
Generational dynamics and social media
Kenya’s Generation Z has leveraged social media platforms effectively to organize and galvanize support for protests. These platforms serve as crucial tools for disseminating information, coordinating activities, and mobilizing crowds.
The relatively freer internet environment in Kenya allows these digital natives to use Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and WhatsApp to their full potential.
Uganda, however, has experienced significant government interference with internet freedoms. The government has frequently shut down social media platforms during elections and periods of unrest, hindering the ability of young activists to organize.
Additionally, the introduction of the social media tax in 2018 created an economic barrier to online activism, disproportionately affecting the youth.
Economic conditions and youth unemployment
Economic conditions also play a crucial role in mobilizing protests. In Kenya, high unemployment rates among the youth have fueled frustrations, pushing them to demand change.
The devolution of government and the existence of county governments provide multiple layers of accountability, giving the youth tangible targets for their grievances.
Uganda, while also grappling with high youth unemployment, faces a different scenario. Many young Ugandans are engaged in informal sector jobs, which occupy their time and limit their capacity to participate in prolonged protests.
Additionally, the lack of decentralization means grievances are often directed at a singular, seemingly insurmountable, national government.
Civil society and opposition
A strong civil society and a dynamic political opposition are critical in sustaining protest movements.
Kenya boasts a robust civil society sector, with numerous non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups supporting the rights of protestors and providing organizational support.
The opposition in Kenya, although fragmented at times, remains a significant force in the political landscape.
Uganda’s civil society, while vibrant, operates under severe restrictions.
Previously, the Non-Governmental Organizations Act 2016 now Non-Governmental Organizations (Amendment) Act 2024 imposes stringent regulations on NGOs, curtailing their ability to operate freely.
Moreover, the Ugandan opposition has been systematically weakened through co-optation, imprisonment, and intimidation, limiting its capacity to mobilize the masses.
Historical context and national Identity
The historical contexts of both nations also influence their protest cultures.
Kenya’s struggle for multiparty democracy in the 1990s created a legacy of political activism and a sense of empowerment among citizens. The violent aftermath of the 2007 elections further galvanized the populace to demand better governance.
Uganda’s history of violent conflicts, including the brutal regimes of Idi Amin and Milton Obote, has left a lasting impact on the national psyche.
The protracted civil war in Northern Uganda and the memories of state violence have created a more cautious approach to mass mobilization.
The perception that the state can and will respond violently to dissent discourages large-scale protests.
Additional dimensions to consider
Public perception and trust in institutions
In Kenya, public trust in government institutions has been shaped by a more open political environment post-2010 constitution. Despite challenges, there is a greater perception of accountability and responsiveness to public concerns compared to Uganda.
The Kenyan public’s willingness to participate in protests is often bolstered by a stronger belief in the potential for governmental change through collective action.
Conversely, Uganda’s longstanding political stability under President Museveni has fostered a more skeptical public attitude towards government institutions. High levels of perceived corruption and a lack of accountability have eroded trust, discouraging widespread participation in protests.
Fear of reprisal and a history of state violence further inhibit public mobilization against the government.
Role of international and regional influences
Kenya’s proximity to regional political movements and its status as a diplomatic hub in East Africa amplify the impact of international and regional events on local activism. Examples include solidarity protests with neighboring countries and global attention on human rights abuses, which often embolden Kenyan activists and influence government responses.
In Uganda, while international and regional events do influence local discourse, the government’s historical tendency to resist external pressure and its strategic alliances within regional bodies can stifle the effectiveness of international advocacy.
This dynamic contributes to a more isolated protest environment, where local activists must navigate both domestic and external challenges.
Gender dynamics in protest movements
Kenya has seen a growing involvement of women and non-binary individuals in protest leadership roles, supported by legal frameworks that promote gender equality and activism. Gender-specific issues, such as gender-based violence and economic disparities, are often central to protest agendas, fostering inclusive movements that resonate broadly.
In Uganda, while women have historically played crucial roles in civil society and activism, the patriarchal societal norms and limited legal protections can pose barriers to gender equity in protest leadership.
Women activists in Uganda face unique challenges, including heightened risks of intimidation and violence, which can deter participation and leadership in public demonstrations.
Evolving tactics and strategies
Kenya’s protest movements have evolved with advancements in digital activism and creative expressions. Social media platforms are integral for mobilizing and organizing protests, leveraging hashtags and online campaigns to reach broad audiences.
Artistic expressions, such as music and street art, often serve as powerful tools for conveying protest messages and galvanizing public support.
In Uganda, while digital activism also plays a significant role, government restrictions on internet freedoms, including periodic shutdowns and social media taxes, present formidable challenges.
Activists must navigate these barriers while employing creative strategies to sustain momentum and amplify their messages effectively amid censorship.
Media and information landscape
Kenya benefits from a more liberal media environment compared to Uganda, where press freedom is restricted and journalists face intimidation and censorship. Independent media outlets in Kenya provide diverse coverage of protests, offering platforms for activists to amplify their grievances and reach a wider audience.
In Uganda, government control over mainstream media limits coverage of dissenting voices and critical perspectives. Independent journalists and media houses operate under stringent regulations, risking closure or harassment for reporting on sensitive political issues. This restricted media landscape constrains the visibility and impact of protest movements.
Legal and constitutional framework
Kenya’s 2010 constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including freedom of assembly and expression, which provide a legal basis for peaceful protests.
While the government occasionally enforces restrictions, such as permit requirements, legal challenges and public advocacy often uphold the right to protest.
In contrast, Uganda’s legal framework places more significant hurdles on protest organizers, requiring stringent permits and facing arbitrary denials from authorities.
The Public Order Management Act (POMA) imposes restrictions that undermine the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, contributing to a climate of uncertainty and risk for protesters.
The planned anti-corruption march in Uganda
Adding to the complex dynamics of Uganda’s political landscape, there is significant anticipation surrounding an anti-corruption march scheduled for July 23, 2024, directed towards Parliament. However, the Uganda Police Force has issued cautionary statements, declaring the march illegal due to lack of official clearance.
“We are informed of an ongoing mobilization calling for people to march to Parliament but we want to warn organisers that given the lack of transparency and a potential of disorder, we are against this march,” stated Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Kituuma Rusoke on July 15, 2024.
The movement, largely mobilized through social media platforms, aims to voice dissatisfaction with alleged government misconduct in handling public funds. Despite the intentions articulated by organizers, police spokesperson ACP Kituuma Rusoke emphasized that law enforcement had not been formally notified about the protest.
Rusoke expressed concerns that clandestine mobilization efforts could lead to disturbances in Kampala’s streets, underscoring the need for organizers to engage with police for proper guidance on peaceful assembly.
“We respect the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and assembly, but we are wary of individuals with ulterior motives who may hijack these activities,” Rusoke cautioned.
Recent events, notably the deadly protests in Kenya triggered by the controversial Finance Bill, 2024, have further heightened tensions and government scrutiny. These protests, which led to fatalities and the eventual withdrawal of the contentious legislation, serve as a backdrop against which the Ugandan government has warned its citizens against emulating.
Also Read: Three killed as Kenyan anti-government protests intensify again
In this charged environment, the planned anti-corruption march in Uganda not only underscores ongoing discontent but also highlights the challenges and risks associated with exercising the right to protest in a tightly controlled political climate.
In essence, Uganda is not Kenya when it comes to mobilizing anti-government protests due to a confluence of factors.
The heavy-handed political repression, limitations on internet freedoms, economic constraints, a weakened civil society, and a history marked by violence and fear create a formidable barrier to large-scale protests in Uganda.
While Kenya’s Generation Z continues to push the boundaries of political activism, Uganda’s youth face a more daunting and perilous landscape in their quest for change.
Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the unique political dynamics at play in each nation.
