By Isaac Christopher Lubogo
In Uganda’s political imagination, every party dreams of the presidency. The ballot paper becomes a crowded theatre of egos, each contestant claiming to be the people’s saviour. Yet in a country where the Constitution demands 50% + 1 in a single round, mathematics—not rhetoric—decides the outcome. Fragmentation is not strategy; it is surrender disguised as ambition.
It is against this backdrop that the Freedom Party Front (PFF) has announced it will not field a presidential candidate in the coming elections. Predictably, critics have accused the party of cowardice, even treachery. One opposition spokesperson has gone further, branding PFF “moles.” But strip away the mudslinging and one sees a rare thing in Uganda’s politics: restraint as strategy.
The Courage of Restraint
Declining to stand is not capitulation. It is the political equivalent of declining a desperate half-court shot in favour of running a disciplined play. By forgoing vanity candidacies, PFF opens space for what citizens have long demanded: a united opposition front. For once, numbers could converge rather than scatter.
History teaches us that coalitions, not lone heroes, dismantle dominant systems. Kenya’s NARC in 2002, Nigeria’s APC merger in 2015—both victories were born not of individual brilliance but of coordinated humility. Uganda’s opposition has stumbled precisely because it cannot master this discipline.
The “Mole” Question
The charge of being moles is not new. Infiltration is real in any dominant-party system. But the antidote is not mutual suspicion; it is institutional transparency. If the opposition agrees to open primaries, binding MOUs, and audited funding sources, then the genuine will be separated from the counterfeit. Accusations will wither under the light of accountability.
Beyond Heroes, Toward Institutions
Ugandan politics has been addicted to messiahs. Obote promised nationalism, Museveni promised “fundamental change.” Each man personalised the state, leaving institutions weak. The opposition must avoid repeating this tragic pattern. The real struggle is not to enthrone another hero, but to build resilient structures—independent electoral processes, disciplined parties, and a culture of shared struggle—that outlast personalities.
Conclusion
PFF’s decision not to stand is not cowardice but a call to maturity. It is a wager that unity is greater than ego, that strategy is deeper than visibility, and that freedom is not won by multiplying faces on the ballot but by multiplying votes behind a single banner.
If this path holds, history may remember that the opposition finally began to stand tall when PFF chose not to stand at all.