The President's Ex, the Opposition's Leader's Wife

“The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power.” – Yoweri Kaguta Museveni

Enemies and friends alike are not eternal in Politics. Once close ally and personal physician to Yoweri Museveni, Dr Besigye, as recently as November 2024 was abducted in Kenya, detained and brought before a military court in Kampala, Uganda, facing charges including treachery and illegal possession of firearms. The intensification of this ongoing political conflict has raised concerns over human rights and democratic government in Uganda. Interestingly, Dr Besigye’s wife, Winnie Byanyima who is the Executive director of UNAIDS and active in Opposition, once had a relationship with President Museveni, but says this is not relevant. I could not find concrete evidence in the news about the nature of this relationship. However, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the chief of the defense forces of Uganda, and the son of President Museveni and also rumored to potentially succeed him, responding to Byanyima saying she had a “normal relationship” with his father said, directed to Winnie, on X, formerly Twitter; “There was NOTHING normal about your relationship with my father. You found a happy home and tried to wreck it. You’re a DISASTER of a woman!! You didn’t leave. Mzee kicked you out of the house in December of 1986, dragged you to the car while you were crying and sent you to your parents.” While it may be interesting to find out what impact or influence this past relationship has now on the way President Museveni is treating Besigye, but this is not this blog’s intention. This blog also cautions readers from the tendency to reduce women in politics (or the corporate world) to their sexuality and nothing else, interesting conversations have been happening on Zimbabwean X about Ministers, Young women for ED, and “Honey Traps” used for political gain or distraction – later, I will write a blog to explore this. This blog aims to get you to think about term longevity. That is, the amount of time a head of Government or state stays in office for.

I have always wondered; what is inherently wrong with political leaders staying in power for too long? And what is the understanding of ‘too long.’ Does serving for a shorter time, as the two terms enshrined in the American constitution, automatically mean that the president or prime minister will be good (keep in mind Donald Trump’s first 100 days of his second term.)? What does term longevity (in and of itself) have to do with either goodness or badness of leadership in democracies, or countries that are trying to become democracies?

My opinion is that under certain conditions there is nothing essentially wrong. These conditions are satisfied when the general population is presented with regular and realistic chances to elect their leaders in free and fair elections, and the political landscape allows opposition politicians to mobilize and stand in for elections without harassment or unfair treatment. Lastly, my conditions would also be satisfied when in-between elections, the civil society (people, groups and organizations other than the Government) is allowed realistic opportunities to hold elected officials accountable (activism, journalism, petitioning, right to information etc.) freely and with protections from functional institutions that do not disproportionately favor the elected official.

As you can see, my conditions are unconcerned with the economic outcomes produced by the leadership in power. This is to say, even if there was high unemployment, high poverty and corruption, a declining or stunted economy, but the above conditions are satisfied – my position on term longevity would roughly be the same. However, as you can imagine, a disgruntled, hungry and frustrated population would use the conditions I mentioned above to quickly get rid of an ineffective, corrupt and useless government or leadership. Unless one can come up with a framework of thinking where people can freely and willingly, repeatedly vote for a leader who destroys their lives.

My conditions are also not directly concerned with the sociological and psychological implications of leaders staying in power for too long – and that is problematic. I believe that Robert Mugabe who ruled Zimbabwe from its independence in 1980 until he was removed in a coup in 2017, had become somewhat of a mythical legend who was both eternal and unbeatable in all elections (except in 2008, although he refused to give up power.) His stay in office, I think, imbued the presidency with the impression that it was not only a political position, but a sacred one to which one has to be anointed by God – rhetoric that was employed by his wife, Grace Mugabe, in 2017 when the factional battles within ZANU PF were intensifying.  

When leaders stay in power for too long, the walls that separate monarchy from elected positions start to collapse, president-king narratives start to emerge. President-king narratives are a form of a cult, a personality cult, built around the person of the leaders – Zimbabweans my recall the Mbare Chimurenga choir which sand cultic songs about Robert Mugabe. Or even now, the songs and slogans being about Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, rather than the ZANU PF party itself and what it stands for. This is why in one of my blogs I spoke about how leadership changes in regimes like ZANU PF can be divisive and scathing to the unity of the party.

So, what is it with African leaders wanting to stay in power for so long? Do their populations love them enough to wish to keep them in power for this long? Do voters actually believe the propaganda they are made to sing? In Zimbabwe right now, as the ZANU PF party raises voices about extending Mnangagwa’s term limit, has been using the rhetoric of “Kutonga kunoda ajaira” or “This is the will of God” and whether the people want it or not it will still happen to the point of threatening to tear up the constitution. Despite the fact that countries like Zimbabwe are languishing in poverty and high unemployment how do leaders retain the support of the masses? Take a look at this table of some of the longest serving African Heads of State.

To conclude, autocratic leaders have incentives to stay in power for too long for reasons that have little to do with the masses they lead. One could be maintaining benefit streams – monopolizing access to national resources and the expense of poor, suffering and dying masses. Secondly, beyond being corrupt, autocratic leaders are criminals or allow criminal activities to be carried out by their cronies, supporters and benefactors, such that if they lost power, over the judiciary and law enforcement, they would be incarcerated and tried freely and fairly and imprisoned. Thirdly, I believe power is addictive, the benefits of running an autocratic regime are greater than running a democratic one to the Leader, that is why someone can be president 39 years and still want to run in the next election – it probably feels good to be in power.