Introduction
Building on the cessation of hostilities after the end of the Cold War, the world had an opportunity to foster peace and prosperity among nations. However, some communities have been unsuccessful in doing so and today suffer from basic threats to human security, such as poverty, ethnic violence, and international terrorism (Abaho, et al., 2019). Human security refers to globally accepted indicators of human welfare, such as threats to the survival, livelihood, and dignity of the people (United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, 2021). Abaho et al. (2019) define the threats as those that could harm people, property, or systems. They have significant implications on the health and wellbeing of societies because of their relationship with the economic, political, and social performance of a state (Abaho et al., 2019). Indeed, prolonged conflicts affecting human security are likely to have negative implications beyond the typical political environment.
Different forms of human security issues affect nations – all of which have an implication on people’s overall wellbeing. Economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security issues are the main indicators of human progress that signify a country’s overall quality of life for its citizens (United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, 2021). If these indicators are positive, it means that a country is faring well in terms of the robustness of its political and governance systems. However, a poor performance of the same indicators would indicate weak institutional systems or political intolerance and immaturity. For example, they may cause a degradation of physical infrastructures, such as schools and hospitals, thereby affecting the quality of life of the citizens.
From an economic perspective, human security issues cause the degradation of physical infrastructure, thereby leading to economic losses and the entrenchment of poverty in most communities. Consequently, threats to human security have a significant impact on the quality of life of residents (Mbazzi et al., 2020). However, tackling this problem requires a succinct understanding of factors that cause them in the first place and the influence that context-specific factors of a state would have on the ability to initiate transformational change (Sedmak, 2019). This paper focuses on the impact that the domestic politics of Uganda have had on the human security record of the East African state. The analysis stems from extant literature, which shows a link between the political stability of a nation and human security progress (Abaho et al., 2019; United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, 2021; Mbazzi et al., 2020). However, before delving into these discussions, it is important to understand the relationship between politics and human security.
Relationship between Politics and Human Security
The relationship between politics and human security can be traced to the “universalism of life” philosophy, which suggests that challenges affecting peace and security in one part of the world can have implications on another. Therefore, its proponents suggest that it is improper to ignore human security issues affecting one state based on the assumption that they would not affect another (Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, 2020). The UNDP assumes a territorial understanding of this concept because it recognizes state jurisdictions when managing human security challenges (United Nations Development Program, 2020). However, the “universalism of life” concept does not acknowledge such boundaries and looks at human security challenges as a threat to humanity in its totality (Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, 2020). Thus, the political stability of a state creates conditions for development to occur. This is why countries that have significant human development challenges also suffer from political instability. Similarly, nations that have enjoyed long-term political stability have the best records in economic performance and human development.
It is important to underscore the relationship between politics and human security to understand the extent that domestic politics have affected the human security environment of Uganda. The relationship between politics and human security is complex because both concepts are people-centred but serve different purposes (Sedmak, 2019). On one hand, human security interests are aimed at promoting people-centered interests, while politics are designed to perpetuate a common political ideology, which may not be necessary linked with human welfare. Researchers have demonstrated that negative politics affecting human security are mainly experienced from incidences that cause the loss of life and destruction of property (Krause & Williams, 1996). These issues are also likely to have a long-term impact on the socioeconomic development of a state because it redirects a country’s interests from issues that should promote the wellbeing of its citizens to those that promote self-preservation of ruling regimes.
People’s basic dignities can also be violated in an environment characterized by conflict. For example, women can be forced into prostitution to earn an income, while minors could be recruited as child soldiers to fight a cause they do not understand (Abaho et al., 2019). At the same time, threats to human security could negatively affect the survival, livelihood, and dignity of citizens because they come with a significant psychological cost on victims. For example, many victims of violence suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) because they are forced to live in a constant state of fear and trauma (Mbazzi et al., 2020). These problems have compounded the negative experience that victims endure because their vulnerability to human security issues exposes them to personal and community losses. Loss of land, family, friends, and social networks are some outcomes associated with prolonged security challenges in a state.
Human Security Situation in Uganda
It is important to understand the human security situation in Uganda to have a contextual understand of the scope of the impact of its domestic politics on the welfare of the citizens. Uganda has been affected by several threats to human security, including those from quasi militia groups, such as the Lord Resistance Army (LRA), which mainly operates in Northern Uganda (Abaho, et al., 2019). Conflicts between these groups and government forces have led to the massive displacement of human populations in several parts of the country (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021). This has trend has created a growing population of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Uganda
Northern Uganda remains one of the most affected regions of the country due to human insecurity challenges. It is estimated that about 85% of the local population in Northern Uganda where government presence is scanty are IDPs (Abaho, et al., 2019). There are inadequate water supplies and poor sanitary conditions in many of the camps where they live in. Domestic violence, sexual abuse, and limited access to healthcare are other problems that affect inhabitants in these settlements (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021). Relative to these harsh conditions, an estimated 25,000 children living in Northern Uganda have been recruited as child soldiers and sex slaves (Abaho, et al., 2019). Therefore, government ineffectiveness in controlling the activities of military groups operating within the state is responsible for the poor human security record of the country. At the same time, these activities of militia groups operating outside of state control have undermined economic and social development in parts of Uganda, thereby worsening the human security situation in the country.
In terms of physical security, Kampala, the Capital of Uganda, suffers from an acute lack of security. This situation has led to the growth of private companies providing security services to residential homes and businesses (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021). They remain profitable because of state ineffectiveness in managing physical security issues in the nation. Consequently, as opposed to state-guaranteed security, alternative sources of protection are being sought through private enterprise (Fabricius, 2021). This trend undermines the role of the state as the ultimate guarantor of security services. It also contributes to the growing perception of the irrelevance of the state as a significant player in the provision of physical security for the citizens of Uganda. Therefore, government ineffectiveness has contributed to the degradation of physical security in the country.
In terms of poverty index, Uganda is ranked among the poorest nations of the world. About 55% of its population live below the poverty line, while an additional 24% are deemed to be vulnerable to multidimensional forms of poverty (United Nations Development Program, 2020). The extent of population deprivation is estimated to be at 48% of the national population and many are food insecure (United Nations Development Program, 2020). There is also a significant percentage of the Ugandan population, which lives above the poverty line, but suffer from deprivation, in terms of other human development indicators, such as quality healthcare and education. The link between poverty and human security challenges highlight the poor record of the Ugandan government in improving the basic rights of its citizens and guaranteeing their safety in the sovereign state.
Extent that Domestic Politics has Affected Human Security in Uganda
The link between the domestic politics of Uganda and its human security record can be traced to the post-colonial period when state power was consolidated for the benefit of the maintaining state power. Towards the end of the Second World War, Uganda and other African nations were forced to join the conflict to fight on either the east or western side (Poku et al., 2007). During this time, colonial powers did not care much about the human security challenges of the state and neither did governments that came thereafter. Instead, most western powers were focused on propping dictatorial regimes and ignoring human rights abuses. so long as they had their objectives met (Makofane et al., 2014). Post-independence regimes have followed the same plan to hold on to power with mixed results.
The colonial history of Uganda, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the emergence of the African Union (AU) from the defunct Organization of African Unity (OAU) brought hope to Ugandans that their government would be more responsive to their needs. In other words, they believed that a new securitized environment of the state would pave the way for democracy and human rights reforms in the country (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021). However, decades later, this dream has not been fulfilled because Uganda does not adhere to democratic practice in elections and remains one of the most policed states in Africa with little to show for human development (Makofane eta al., 2014). This statement means that, while the AU and member states have committed themselves to protecting the security interests of the state, Uganda has been retrogressing on the same (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021).. In other words, the government has not moved away from a state-run policy framework of human security to a human-centred focus of operation.
In understanding the influence of politics and humans security in Uganda, it is important to review its history and contributions to the current state of affairs. Uganda’s political history has been characterized by military coups and human rights abuses. The first regime to have perpetrated these vices was that of Idi Amin, which lasted between 1971 and 1979 (Khadiagala, 1993). The Milton Obote administration that ruled between 1981 and 1986 also had a history of political violence, mistrust, and poor socioeconomic growth (Omara-Otunnu, 1992). In 1985, the current President, Yoweri Museveni took power and has been president since then. His regime is also characterized by claims of human rights abuses and the suppression of political will (Oba, 2005). These poor records in governance have contributed to the degradation of human security in the state. However, the current regime of Yoweri Museveni has seen an improvement in the social and economic development of Uganda.
Developments that have been witnessed in the last two decades attest to this fact because there have been positive changes reported in the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), life expectancy, and human development index in his administration. For example, between 1992 and 2011, Uganda’s GDP increased by an average of 7.1% per year, which was higher than the regional average of nations in East Africa (United Nations Development Program, 2020). During the same period, Uganda’s Gross National Income (GNI) increased by up to 125% (United Nations Development Program, 2020). It is also reported that the life expectancy at birth also increased by 4.4 years within the 1992 to 2011 period and the mean years for schooling increased by 3 years as well (United Nations Development Program, 2020). These statistics suggest that although the political environment in Uganda is still intolerant to change, significant economic gains have been registered in the current regime
Uganda’s performance on the global Human Development Index (HDI) shows that it is among nations with the lowest performance. According to the United Nations Development Program (2020), the country has a performance of 0.544, which places it at position 159 out of 189 countries in the world. This poor performance is partly rooted in the country’s failure to address historical issues that have led to entrenched poverty and inequality in the society (Sedmak, 2019). Indeed, the country still lags behind others in various indicators of quality of life. Particularly, the protracted war between the government and the LRA has significantly impoverished people in the Northern part of the country (Abaho, et al., 2019). Replicated in other parts of the country, such conflicts have contributed to the poor human security record of the East African nation.
Role of Non-Political Factors in Contributing to the Degradation of Human Security in Uganda
It is important to make a distinction between political and non-political factors that affect human security to determine the extent that domestic politics influence human security in Uganda. Indeed, non-political factors are also responsible for the improvement of human security in nations (Sedmak, 2019). For example, the high GDP growth rate of Uganda, which was reported between 1992 and 2011, has been criticized as stemming from non-political factors affecting the state, as opposed to direct government support (Tapscott, 2021). Particularly, this positive economic performance is linked to an expansion of the country’s service sector, as opposed to the political stability that the nation has been enjoying during the Museveni era (Tapscott, 2021). Changes in population growth and export performance have also been raised as explanations for the economic improvements and not state support. Based on this statement, it is critical to estimate the impact that population literacy, terrorism, disjointed economic structures, and religion have played in contributing to the human security landscape of Uganda.
Disjointed Economic Structures and Citizen Disenchantment
The role of political factors in influencing the human security environment of Uganda should be examined within the role of citizen participation in maintaining peace and promoting good governance in a country. As is the case in many central and West African countries, a majority of the population live in rural areas and rarely take interest in the political running of the state (Mwenda, 2007). They do so because government action, or inaction, appears to have no effect on their lives. This statement is partly true because of government neglect for traditional social and governance systems, which are actively used today in rural Uganda (Abaho, et al., 2019). The outcome has been the creation of an informal relationship between politics and the economy.
As is the case in many African countries, the size of the informal economy in Uganda is often bigger than the formal one. Given that successive governments have ignored the interests of rural economies when developing the country’s human security policies, they appear to serve the interests of formal businesses only (Poku et al., 2007). When juxtaposed with the role of the informal economy on the state’s economic performance, the formal economy appears to be serving the larger informal economy, as opposed to the informal one serving formal enterprises. This position has created a negative impression of the state’s role in managing the socio-political affairs of Uganda because majority of people deem it as foreign and predatory (Ahluwalia, 2021). Similarly, a smaller group of people who are in close proximity to power see the state as a resource that should be milked. Therefore, the Ugandan population has a general lack of belief in the role of the state as a political entity aimed at serving citizens.
The isolation of a majority of the Ugandan population from the management and economic running of the state explains why non-state actors could affect human security outcomes in the country. This statement means that non-political factors could also influence human security outcomes (Mwenda, 2007). Given that citizen participation is important in addressing the human security challenges of a state, if a majority of the population living in rural areas are unbothered by how the government is managed, it becomes difficult to wholly blame the entity for the challenges affecting the state. Citizen participation thrives in an environment where there is people empowerment and people understand their rights and roles in the political management of a state (Poku et al., 2007). However, in the Ugandan case, this freedom is minimized due to low levels of civic education about the human security implications of political choices. Given that Uganda does not enjoy such freedoms, the general disinterest in a majority of the population towards the management of the state has grown and slowed down efforts to manage human security challenges of the East African nation (Ahluwalia, 2021). This analysis shows that citizen disenchantment and the economic isolation of rural Uganda have contributed to its worsening human security performance.
Interplay of Religion and Human Security
Religion plays a significant role in shaping the behaviours, cultures, and norms of a society. Research shows that religion has the power to affect human welfare, as can be evidenced in its ability to inspire people to violence and peace in equal measure (Sedmak, 2019). A body of research has also linked religion and poverty because of its ability to influence people’s beliefs on materialism and wellbeing. For example, focusing on spiritual wealth as opposed to material wealth could influence a person’s financial performance (Chitando, 2019). From this statement, it could be argued that human deprivation is partly a consequence of a community’s religious beliefs because human security is a function of material wealth (Sedmak, 2019). Similarly, a position could be advanced, which claims that religion plays an equal, if not more powerful role than politics, in shaping the human security landscape of a country.
Religion is deeply rooted in Uganda, meaning that it is difficult for most social, economic, or political projects to succeed if they do not align with mainstream religious beliefs. The relationship between religion and human welfare explains why religious support has been a necessity in the implementation of government projects (Chitando, 2019). It is difficult to make a distinction between religion and politics in Uganda because of the intertwined nature of their relationship, which has existed since colonial times (Sedmak, 2019). Although the current regime of Yoweri Museveni has seen vast alterations to the relationship between the state and the church, there is still a widely held belief that religion shapes the political culture of a state (Chitando, 2019). From this position, it is important to understand the politicization and de-politicization effects of religion on the politics and human security situation of Uganda.
It has been argued that the religious doctrines practiced in Uganda largely represent the political inclinations of the speakers, as opposed to deeply rooted ideological beliefs on human security or religious matters. As is practiced in the country’s political circles, the manner religious leaders influence people’s belief is largely influenced by politics of patronage and ethnicity (Mwenda, 2007). This environment leaves most Ugandans with a fragmented political and religious system that creates further disenchantment of the population and makes it difficult to think of real solutions to their problems (Sedmak, 2019). However, from the perspective of politicians and religious leaders, they believe that their practices are the only to make change in a constrained political environment (Sedmak, 2019). Therefore, the link between the political environment of the state and religious practices is established in this description.
From a human security perspective, religion has played a significant role in the disenfranchising the population by making it difficult for them to support real solutions that could improve their welfare due to religious reasons. Therefore, the work of improving human security challenges has been relegated to government agencies, which have a weak presence in large swaths of territory in the country, including Northern Uganda where most paramilitary groups thrive (Tripp, 2004). Therefore, religion has played a key role in numbing the population towards seeking solutions to the challenges that affect their security and to the extent that disinterest in government activities is profound.
Religion in Uganda has also impacted public opinion on issues of national importance, such as its human security challenges. Most people appear to follow what their religious leaders say, as opposed to scientific evidence, thereby creating a disconnect between real and perceived solutions to addressing human security issues (Ahluwalia, 2021). Therefore, the convictions of religious leaders on important security matters affecting citizens play a significant role in shaping public opinion on the same. The power of religion in shaping people’s views has an impact on the political order of the country because government legitimacy stems from community support (Makofane et al., 2014). The ability of rebel groups to thrive in the forests and among largely unmanned territories within Uganda also depends on such type of social support (Makofane et al., 2014). Therefore, religion plays a moderating role in understanding the relationship between domestic politics and human security in Uganda.
It is possible to predict the impact that religious leaders have had on human security in Uganda by analysing the tolerance for factors that cause insecurity in the first place. For example, contentment with living in conditions that would be deemed “uninhabitable” partly stems from the social reassurance that religious leaders and religion have given to the people about their lived experience on earth (Sedmak, 2019). Consequently, these beliefs in an afterlife may encourage them to tolerate wars, conflicts, and bad governance because of hopes for better rewards in the afterlife. Therefore, it could be argued that the tolerance of community members towards human security challenges is a function of their religious beliefs.
Religion also has the power of influencing people’s willingness to take part in processes targeting the development of solutions for human security challenges affecting a community. For example, there is a widely held belief in most African societies that God is in control and not humans. This philosophy has been abused in local Ugandan communities to justify disinterest in government or political activities, thereby creating a widely misinformed generation of people regarding the role of politics on their lives and welfare (Sedmak, 2019). Similarly, the negative image associated with materialism in most religious doctrines practiced in the state has influenced community contentment with conditions, practices, and beliefs that create poverty and other human security challenges in the first place. Given that human security is a function of the socioeconomic conditions of a country, the link between religion and human security becomes apparent in this analysis. It underscores the role that non-political factors play in the management of human security challenges of a state.
Terrorism
Terrorism is a new threat to the political stability of Uganda because the government has used it as an excuse to supress democracy and civil liberties. Uganda has suffered a series of terror attacks, some of which have targeted civilians. For example, in October 2021, there was an explosion in the capital city, Kampala, which killed one person and injured several others (Fabricius, 2021). Two days after this attack, a suicide bomber detonated a bomb in a bus, killing himself and injuring several others (Fabricius, 2021). These incidences have been linked to an existing relationship between local and international terrorist organizations that largely operate within central and East Africa (Titeca & Vlassenroot, 2012). For example, the two attacks highlighted above were associated with the activities of Islamic State Central Africa Province (ISCAP) and the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), which mainly operate in Central Africa (Fabricius, 2021). They contribute to the destabilization of the state and compound its human security challenges.
Splinter groups have emerged from the above-mentioned terrorist groups and have been linked to various terrorism acts in Uganda, some of which have involved planned assassinations of government figures. For example, the ADF is alleged to have been involved in the attempted abduction of a government minister – an incident that resulted in the death of two people, one of them being the minister’s daughter (Fabricius, 2021). Such acts of lawlessness have contributed to the worsening human security challenges in the state. However, they share a weak relationship with domestic politics, as it is conventionally practiced, given that terrorism in Uganda has an international origin (Titeca & Vlassenroot, 2012). Therefore, it could be argued that international terrorism links are partly the cause of insecurity in Uganda. This statement weakens the argument that domestic politics is responsible for the worsening human security situation in Uganda.
From a political and governance perspective, ruling elites in Uganda have used the fear of terrorism to stifle democracy. Consequently, political opposition figures have been arrested based on flimsy reasons bordering on national security concerns. For example, the police has disrupted campaign rallies organized by the leading opposition figure, Bobi Wine, because of terrorism fears (BBC, 2021). The same action has been taken on other opposition figures using COVID-19 rule enforcement guidelines as a justification (Ahluwalia, 2021; Mbazzi et al., 2020). These examples show of misuse of power demonstrate that the current regime is using national security interests to muzzle alternative voices in the country. Propagating such practices stifles democracy, and worsens the human security environment of the state.
Critical Analysis
Human Security in Uganda from the Broader African Perspective
The relationship between politics and human security in Uganda needs to be contextualized within the broader understanding the role that African political leaders have played in promoting state stability. Researchers that have investigated this matter have analysed the issue from two perspectives (Mbazzi et al., 2020). The first one is the role of domestic factors in shaping the socioeconomic outcomes of the state and the second one is about international factors affecting human welfare (Abaho et al., 2019; United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, 2021; Mbazzi et al., 2020). The global approach to examining human security issues on the African continent suggests that its position on the global stage is responsible for its human security challenges. This position advances the view that African governments are unable to finance their human security solutions due to economic mismanagement and poor leadership.
Contrary to the above sentiments, an argument could be made to undermine the role of political factors in causing the human security challenges of a state because of Africa’s role in the cold war. Towards its end, most African nations, including Uganda, were already flush with weapons which were used to fight liberation wars (Abaho et al., 2019). This situation created an environment where communities could arm themselves and pose a security threat to members and the state, if provoked. It explains why the current President, Yoweri Museveni, was able to form his own army in the bush and seize power in the process (Abaho et al., 2019). Therefore, the proliferation of weapons in the state after the Second World War made it possible to organize small paramilitary groups, which could challenge the legitimate government of Uganda. Most of these groups thrive in an environment of government neglect of rural parts of Uganda, which have minimal government influence.
Differences in the performance of African countries with respect to human security issues suggest that international factors are not the only issues that affect a state’s record. Instead, domestic factors also play a significant role in influencing outcomes. In other words, domestic factors have compounded the already difficult situation most African governments have experienced due to the post-colonial issues of state formation, such as ethnicity, weak institutional governance systems, patronage, and the likes, that affect them to date (Abaho et al., 2019). Therefore, Uganda joins a list of other African countries that have had inherent difficulty in unifying their countries under one concept of statehood without antagonizing disgruntled groups.
The zeal of the Ugandan president to hold on to power at all costs demonstrates that Africa’s post-independence leaders have demonstrated a unique obsession with attributes that made them liberators in the first place. This obsession has forced them to neglect issues that affect their citizens, including humans security challenges. For example, the current president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, has been in power for more than 30 years and still reigns as the post-independence ruler despite widespread calls for him to allow democratic space in the country to expand (Abaho et al., 2019). Given the refusal by the regime to grant such wishes, it is no coincidence that Uganda has a poor record of democratic practice. This is occasioned by the unwillingness of state actors to allow democratic practices that would threaten the political dominance of the regime to thrive (Ndlela & Mano, 2020). This is why most elections that have been held in the country have been characterized by state interference, military involvement, media suppression, and even open violence against protestors by the police.
The zeal of the political elites in Uganda to retain state power demonstrates that the regime is pursuing a self-gratifying and imperialist view of governance, even if it means threatening the basic human security rights owed to Ugandans. The acts of Museveni and other leaders in his party to supress democracy suggest that the country owes them an immeasurable right to rule over them at the expense of all other considerations, including human security (Izama & Wilkerson, 2011). Therefore, ruling elites have been preoccupied with looking for innovative ways to stay in power and develop their economic bases, as opposed to looking for new ways to advance the social and economic agenda of the state.
The mismanagement of human security challenges affecting Uganda contrasts with the political environment of Zimbabwe and the effects of the policies adopted by Robert Mugabe, who was also the post-independence ruler of the state and who hang on to power for more than three decades. His policies saw the economic decline of the state, as was witnessed during the 1999 to 2003 period, when the country’s Gross Domestic Product declined by 40% (Sedmak, 2019). The aftermath of the crisis also caused a 546% increase in inflation, which led to another crisis where about two-thirds of the country’s population was in need of food aid (Sedmak, 2019). The Zimbabwean example shows that Uganda’s political dynamics are not unique because they represent the experience of other countries that still practice personified brands of politics.
The analysis presented in this paper about Uganda and its position in the African political history show that the country’s human security challenges are similar to other African countries grappling with the same problems. The politics of patronage, subversion of state resources to serve the interests of the president and his cronies, are some common challenges reported in Uganda and that are shared with other African states. Collectively, they have contributed to the worsening human security challenges in the country. The acceptance of these practices in the social and political fabric of Uganda means that the government is itself a threat to the security of the state.
Patronage Politics
As highlighted in this paper, Uganda’s ruling elite is preoccupied with hanging on to power as opposed to working for the citizens. This practice is enshrined in patronage politics, which is characterized by plans to reward cronies, friends, and family members using state resources because of their loyalty to the president (Ndlela & Mano, 2020). To understand this practice, it is important to mention the peculiar obsession that leaders in Uganda and other poorly managed African states have with amassing personal wealth at the expense of development (Abaho et al., 2019). Most of these leaders use their time in office to entrench their economic roots and those of their families in government activities, at the expense of addressing pressing problems affecting the state, including factors that worsen human security challenges (Ndlela & Mano, 2020). In this environment, the social and economic development of the people is derailed because of the high economic cost of patronage politics on the state. By extension, the adoption of these practices in Uganda has contributed to the devaluation of human security priorities.
There is adequate evidence showing the proliferation of patronage politics in Uganda. This practice has been defined through kinship relations and the appointment of friends and cronies of the president to key positions in government (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021). For example, the current regime is dogged by allegations that the President wants to perpetuate his regime through his son, who has been appointed to head the military (Ahluwalia, 2021). There is also adequate evidence showing the appointment of friends and cronies of the ruling regime to senior positions in cabinet (Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021). The entrenchment of patronage politics in Ugandan politics and other African governments should be examined through the adoption of post-colonial strategies to maintain political power. This plan has been adopted in many low-income countries with an ethnically diverse population (Ahluwalia, 2021). The choices and policies adopted by most African presidents through this brand of politics explain the position that Uganda is today, in terms of its human security challenges.
Based on the above insights, the link between the political environment of Uganda and its human security record is undeniable. However, its leaders continue to rule unabated because the citizens have little chances of redress due to the web of patronage politics that exist in the country to protect them (Tripp, 2004). Internationally, there is also little room for airing alternative views because many political leaders are not held accountable for their actions, locally (BBC, 2021). Therefore, Uganda’s system of patronage politics has compounded human security issues that were inherently existing in the post-colonial state of Uganda by minimizing the space for victims to find justice.
The lack of idea flow through suppressed democracy has also made it difficult to discuss some of the challenges that victims of human insecurity have experienced. Instead, there is a monolithic political hegemonic system controlled by people in positions of power whose main objective is to stay in power at all costs (Tripp, 2004). They disguise their intentions by maintaining a state-centered approach to governance as opposed to a people-centered one (BBC, 2021). This political philosophy needs to change if meaningful reforms have to be witnessed in the country. The citizens have to be made aware of the impact that state politics have on their livelihoods and possible actions they could take to improve it. This needs to happen through civic education because the solutions to the country’s human security challenges will have to come from within the country.
Human Rights Perspective
As evidenced in this paper, there is a gap in the manner Uganda addresses its human security and political challenges. The human rights approach is proposed as a framework to help the government to balance both interests (Welch, 2019). It refers to a minimum set of conditions, or rights, that the state needs to safeguard for its citizens to thrive, regardless of the political dynamics of the country (Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, 2020). In this context of analysis, human rights are not deemed “absolute rights” but, rather, guidelines that explain where the rights of an individual starts and those of the state ends. Thus, every right guaranteed by the state is provided in terms of absolute and specific security interests.
The human rights approach has been hailed for balancing state and people power. As highlighted above, the model is designed in a way that limits people’s freedoms but still absolves states from having an undue burden of seeking to protect its mandate as the guarantor of human security rights (Appiagyei-Atua et al., 2017). Many scholars have argued that human rights protection has superseded state responsibility to offer security because the balance is tilted in favor of human rights (Appiagyei-Atua et al., 2017). Nonetheless, with the history of despotism and tyranny that has characterized many countries around the world still fresh in the minds of most people, this balance is likely to be maintained to promote democracy and make governments accountable for their actions.
From a theoretical perspective, the role of the state in influencing human security issues could be analyzed from the Hobbesian approach, which suggests that the state is a powerful organ that saves societies from their default natural state of chaos (Wickham, 2014). By its inherent nature, the state is represented by chaos and wars of supremacy and dominance, as people struggle to be in a position to wield this power. The fight is precipitated by the need to protect human rights and manage the existence of a counter force that seeks to take it all away (Suhrke, 1999). The Hobbesian theory suggests that the state becomes the absolute authority in such a situation (Wickham, 2014). This theory is especially important in making the decision of whether to interfere with the politics of another state, or not. The theory shares a close relationship with the realist model of developing securitization architecture in most states, including Uganda. It focuses on the use of force to address real and perceived threats. This philosophy promotes the securitization of a state through the supression of human rights (Suhrke, 1999). This action can be implemented through military and non-military means.
The Copenhagen view of securitization shares a similar approach in promoting securitization. It suggests that security issues are “speech acts” that require immediate or emergency interventions that fall outside the normal bounds of political discourse. In this environment, the state is allowed to take all necessary steps to promote its viability in the wake of any type of threat (Suhrke, 1999). Overall, these theories assume that securitization is a special brand of politics that affect human security planning. Thus, it could be argued that securitization is a special kind of politics or an extreme version of the concept. Most public issues affecting human security can be located within this spectrum of analysis (Suhrke, 1999). For example, state and non-state-based actions fall within this continuum of analysis with the actions of non-state actors referring to political issues that do not require government involvement, while the latter demands the same (Suhrke, 1999). Securitized issues are unique because they not only require state intervention but may demand the mobilization of other resources for emergency assistance. In other words, the actions demanded fall outside of the normal political routine of a state.
Thus, the Copenhagen securitization strategy is largely representative of what the Ugandan situation should be because it is focused on the use of state power to guarantee human security needs (Oliveira, 2020). To demonstrate this fact, it uses national security as the main metric of assessing national priorities, meaning that human security issues are internally protected (Suhrke, 1999). In the current political system of Uganda, there is no distinction between state power and individual power because people who wield power are considered “national security assets,” hence the preoccupation with the patronage system and the politicization of state activities (Oliveira, 2020). This matrix of assessment easily loses human security issues as a priority area. It is also open to abuse because the ills of a government and its leaders can easily be masked under the veil of national security interests.
Summary
This paper has shown that the threats to human security in Uganda have had implications on the development and wellbeing of locals. From the onset of this study, the main research goal was to understand the implications of domestic politics on the human security situation in Uganda. The analysis showed that two levels of factors impacted human security and they mainly included domestic and international factors. Domestic factors related to the country’s constrained democratic space, poor governance systems, and citizens disenchantment. These issues are domestic and have impacted human security in the country. Internationally, the links between local and global terror groups, as well as Africa’s weak position on the global stage, have been highlighted as causes of the human security situation in Uganda. In this analysis, it appears that domestic factors play a significant role in influencing the human security situation in the country, but its role is not absolute. Non-political factors, including the influence of global systems, regional political actors and religion have played an equally, if not more significant role, in influencing the human security situation in Uganda.
A disenchanted population, religion, and poor civic education emerged as the main impediments to the transformation of Uganda. This is because a blend of these attributes is needed to create significant reforms at political and economic levels of the country’s governance system to realize significant human security gains. The concept is holistic and requires the involvement of different parties in this endeavor. Based on these insights, it is important to examine the threats to human security affecting Uganda holistically. At the core of the analysis should be an understanding of the importance of protecting basic human freedoms. This analysis should be advanced on the need to build on the strengths, or processes and systems that are ideally supposed to help people to fulfill their aspirations. Pegged on this hope, Uganda should strengthen its political, cultural, social, political and environmental systems to guarantee basic freedoms that are the essence of life in the country. Focusing on these core areas of support will help Ugandans to develop the building blocks to survival and improve their dignity through the livelihoods they have.
To achieve the above-mentioned goals, there should be a new focus on security, which moves away from the idea of protecting the viability of Uganda as a state to a process aimed at fostering nationhood through people-centered processes. This paradigm shift will guarantee the value of looking at security issues from the perspective of their impact on people’s welfare, as opposed to the security of the nation. The plan is likely to yield a multi-sectorial understanding of security issues affecting the people, including the possible causes of current challenges. The change will not only ensure that security issues are examined from a political and economic perspective but will also ensure that they also encompass environmental, health, community, and health-related factors.
Although Uganda has embarked on introducing a series of changes aimed at improving people’s welfare, a lot still needs to be done in healing some of the past wounds in the country, which threaten, if not compound current human security challenges. Future policy interventions should pay attention to unaddressed issues affecting the populace, such as isolation, alienation, and deprivation. These concepts represent the valuable aspect of people’s lived experiences underscoring the human security challenges of the state. Thus, there needs to be a robust debate that seeks to identify broader issues of importance to the state within a framework of narrow vs. broader impacts of the country’s social, political, and economic challenges affecting human security in the state.
The main idea advanced in the above-mentioned proposals is to put people at the center of all policy-making decisions involving state actors in Uganda. This action requires a paradigm shift within the country’s governance system to guide stakeholders in making decisions that prioritize human and security interests of the country. This policy action would pave the way for the adoption of multilateral systems in the country’s political and governance structures. Thus, it is possible to argue that the humanitarian security interests affecting Uganda have been able to be mainstreamed into the country’s human development vision. Consequently, the relationship between human security issues and the domestic politics of the state is apparent. Although these insights show that Uganda needs to do more to address human security issues affecting the state, the contradictions, lack of operational clarity, and validity issues affecting the adoption of human security, as a concept, need to be addressed.
References
Abaho, A., Mawa, M., & Asiimwe, S. (2019). Conflict threats to human security: The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) case, Gulu District, Northern Uganda. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 64-85.
Ahluwalia, P. (2021). Uganda elections: Museveni’s success at what cost? African Identities, 19(2), 121-122.
Appiagyei-Atua, K., Muhindo, T. M., Oyakhirome, I., Kabachwezi, E. K., & Buabeng-Baidoo, S. (2017). State security, securitisation and human security in Africa: The tensions, contradictions and hopes for reconciliation. Global Campus Human Rights Journal, 1(2), 326-349.
BBC. (2021). Bobi Wine: Uganda’s ‘ghetto president’. BBC News. Web.
Curtice, T. B., & Behlendorf, B. (2021). Street-level repression: Protest, policing, and dissent in Uganda. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 65(1), 166–194.
Chitando, E. (2019). Religion and Human Security in Africa. Routledge.
Fabricius, P. (2021). Uganda terror attacks point to deeper Jihadi coordination. Web.
Inter-American Institute of Human Rights. (2020). What is human security? Web.
Izama, A., & Wilkerson, M. (2011). Uganda: Museveni’s triumph and weakness. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 64-78.
Khadiagala, G. (1993). Uganda’s domestic and regional security since the 1970s. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 31(2), 231-255.
Krause, K., & Williams, M. C. (1996). Broadening the agenda of security studies: Politics and methods. Mershon International Studies Review, 40(2), 229–254.
Oliveira, V. (2020). The Copenhagen school and the securitization theory. Web.
Titeca, K., & Vlassenroot, K. (2012). Rebels without borders in the Rwenzori borderland? A biography of the Allied Democratic Forces. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 6(1), 154-176, doi: 10.1080/17531055.2012.664708
Makofane, B. J., Lubensky, M., & Ayala, G. (2014). Homophobic legislation and its impact on human security. African Security Review, 23(2), 186–195. Web.
Mbazzi, N. R., Kawesa, E., Nimusiima, C., King, R., van Hove, G., & Seeley, J. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 measures on children with disabilities and their families in Uganda. Disability & Society, 5(3), 1–24.
Mwenda. (2007). Personalizing power in Uganda. Journal of Democracy, 18(3), 23–37.
Ndlela, M., & Mano W. (Eds.). (2020). Social media and elections in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan.
Oba, A. A. (2005). Human rights concerns in Museveni’s Uganda. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 47(3), 351–360.
Omara-Otunnu, A. (1992). The struggle for democracy in Uganda. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 30(3), 443–463.
Sedmak, C. (2019). Evidence-based dialogue: The relationship between religion and poverty through the lens of randomized controlled trials. Palgrave Community, 5(8), 1-12.
Poku, N. K., Renwick, N., & Jaoa, G. (2007). Human security and development in Africa. International Affairs, 83(6), 1155–1170.
Suhrke, A. (1999). Human security and the interests of states. Security Dialogue, 30(3), 265–276.
Tapscott, R. (2021). Arbitrary states: Social control and modern authoritarianism in Museveni’s Uganda. Oxford University Press.
Tripp, A. M. (2004). The changing face of authoritarianism in Africa: The case of Uganda. Africa Today, 50(3), 3–26.
United Nations Development Program. (2020). The next frontier: Human development and the anthropocene. Web.
United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. (2021). What is human security? Web.
Welch, R. M. (2019). Domestic politics and the power to punish: The case of national human rights institutions. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(4), 385–404.
Wickham, G. (2014). Hobbes’s commitment to society as a product of sovereignty: A basis for a Hobbesian sociology. Journal of Classical Sociology, 14(2), 139–155.