Recent press remarks attributed to Norbert Mao describing Uganda’s 11th Parliament under Hon Anita Among as dysfunctional have stirred debate in the country’s political space. Criticism of public institutions is both legitimate and necessary in a democratic society. However, criticism must be grounded in fairness, evidence, and a sense of responsibility, especially when it comes from senior leaders within government itself.
Labelling the entire 11th Parliament of Uganda as dysfunctional is an exaggeration that does little to advance constructive debate. More importantly, it risks undermining public confidence in one of the country’s most important democratic institutions.
Parliament, by design, is meant to be a forum of competing views, vigorous debate, and sometimes messy politics. Disagreement and political tension are not signs of dysfunction; they are often the very essence of democratic legislative practice. What matters is whether the institution continues to perform its constitutional duties; passing laws, representing citizens, and exercising oversight over the executive.
By those measures, the claim that the 11th Parliament under leadership of Hon Anita Among and Hon Thomas Tayebwa as dysfunctional and needs fixing does not withstand scrutiny.
Since its inauguration in 2021, the current Parliament has continued to deliberate on national issues, pass legislation, and conduct oversight through its committee system. Numerous bills have been debated and enacted, shaping policies in areas ranging from economic regulation, constitutional reforms to public administration. Parliamentary committees have remained active in examining government programs, reviewing budgets, and questioning public officials.
These activities are not the hallmarks of an institution that has ceased to function. On the contrary, they demonstrate an institution actively engaged in fulfilling its constitutional mandate.
Criticism of Parliament should therefore focus on specific shortcomings; whether in the quality of debate, the pace of legislative work, or the balance of power between government and opposition. Those are legitimate areas for reform. But sweeping declarations that the entire institution under Hon Anita Among is dysfunctional are not only inaccurate; they risk trivializing the serious work carried out within parliamentary structures.
The context in which Mao’s remarks emerge also deserves attention.
In the past over thirty years, Mao built his political identity as one of the most outspoken critics of the government led by the National Resistance Movement. His critique often targeted governance practices, institutional performance, and democratic accountability under the leadership of President Yoweri Museveni.
Yet politics has a way of reshaping roles. In 2022, Mao accepted an appointment as Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs in the same government he had long criticized. That decision marked a significant turning point in his political journey, from an external critic to an insider entrusted with responsibility for strengthening Uganda’s legal and constitutional systems.
Such a transition naturally raised expectations. Many Ugandans believed Mao would bring his decades of criticism into government and translate it into meaningful institutional reforms. After all, it is easier to diagnose problems from the outside than it is to fix them from within.
That is precisely why Mao’s recent remarks about Parliament raise legitimate questions.
Before declaring Parliament under the leadership of Hon Anita Among as dysfunctional, it would be useful for the public to hear what concrete reforms have been implemented within the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs under Hon Mao’s leadership. Has the ministry introduced major legal reforms? Has it strengthened constitutional governance or advanced significant judicial or legislative reforms?
These are the kinds of outcomes that define effective leadership within government.
Equally relevant is Mao’s long tenure as president of the Democratic Party, one of Uganda’s oldest political parties. In the past more than fifteen years, Mao has led the party through a period marked by internal disagreements and declining electoral influence.
If the standard for institutional functionality is performance, cohesion, and political effectiveness, then the same questions asked of Parliament should also apply to the political organizations Mao himself leads.
Bringing in opposition political leaders into government was fairly a well thought act from NRM government, however, a person who has built his career in opposition, will continue to act as an opposition leader even in government, and therefore, it’s a high time for government to rethink some of these considerations of co-option. In any case, some faithful NRM leaders are crying foul, as they being under looked, as some leaderships roles are parcelled out to opposition leaders like Nobert Mao.
None of this is to suggest that Parliament is beyond criticism. No democratic institution is perfect, and Uganda’s Parliament is no exception. There are legitimate concerns about the quality of debate (especially with the lowered S6 requirements), the pace of legislative scrutiny, and the broader political dynamics that influence parliamentary decisions.
These issues deserve serious attention and reform.
However, reform begins with careful diagnosis rather than sweeping condemnation. Calling Parliament dysfunctional without presenting concrete evidence risks turning a serious institutional discussion into political rhetoric.
Uganda’s democratic institutions, Parliament included, are still evolving. Their strength depends on both constitutional provisions, as well as on the conduct and responsibility of political leaders who operate within them.
Once senior government officials publicly dismiss key institutions as dysfunctional, they risk weakening the very structures they are expected to strengthen. Responsible leadership requires criticism that is precise, evidence-based, and aimed at improvement rather than delegitimization.
Parliament remains one of the central arenas through which Uganda’s national policy is debated and laws are enacted. Its proceedings may not always satisfy every political actor, but its continued legislative work demonstrates that it remains a functioning pillar of governance.
It is also worth noting that Norbert Mao has recently expressed interest in the leadership of the next Parliament. Well, political competition for leadership positions in the forthcoming legislature is both legitimate and healthy in any democracy. However, one does not build credibility for future leadership by delegitimizing the current institution or its leadership, including that of Hon Anita Among. Political ambition should be accompanied by political maturity. If Mao intends to compete for speakership of the next Parliament, the country would benefit more from constructive policy ideas and thoughtful institutional reforms rather than rhetoric that undermines the credibility of the very institution he seeks to lead.
Ultimately, the real test of leadership lies not in rhetoric but in results.
If institutions require reform, and many do, the most effective approach is not to denounce them from afar but to strengthen them from within. For leaders who hold positions of authority in government, that responsibility is even greater.
Uganda’s democratic progress will depend less on dramatic declarations and more on patient institutional work; reforms, policies, and leadership that improve the systems through which the country governs itself.
That is the challenge facing Uganda’s political class today. And it is a challenge that cannot be met through rhetoric alone.
Dr Samuel B. Ariong is an academic, lecturer and scholar
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
