Opinion | Buganda’s Waning Influence In National Politics: How The Region Can Reclaim Its Seat

By Kazibwe Jamil

In recent years, Buganda’s political influence at the national level has quietly declined. This is not because the region lacks capable leaders, but because internal divisions and political fragmentation have eroded its collective bargaining power.

Once a formidable force that shaped Uganda’s political and administrative direction, Buganda now finds itself underrepresented in the country’s most decisive circles of power. The current political landscape, from the Vice Presidency to the Speakership and key government portfolios, reflects a regional imbalance that raises questions about how political reward and representation are distributed.

Uganda’s post-independence history shows that regional political strength often translates into tangible benefits such as roads, infrastructure projects, and access to national programs. Yet, a look at the current political structure reveals that Buganda, once a core pillar of the NRM’s political base, now wields limited direct influence at the top.

The Vice President and Speaker of Parliament hail from the east, while the Deputy Speaker comes from the west. Many of the architects and implementers of national programs like the Parish Development Model come from regions outside Buganda.

This shift has sparked debate within Buganda’s political circles. How did a region that once produced towering national figures like Prof. Apollo Nsibambi, Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi, and Gilbert Bukenya lose its proximity to the country’s decision-making center?

The answer lies partly in national political dynamics, but largely within Buganda itself. Political competition in the region, split among the NRM, FDC, NUP, and other parties, has become more about rivalry than ideology.

Leaders often undermine one another instead of building a unified agenda for the region. Even those aligned with the ruling government sometimes face isolation or hostility from fellow Baganda, weakening the region’s collective influence.

When figures like Hajjat Hadijah Namyalo Uzeiye, who hold national mobilization roles, face more criticism than cooperation from within, it highlights a deeper problem: Buganda’s elite spend more time fighting each other than advancing shared goals.

Uganda’s political system tends to reward loyalty and unified voting patterns. Regions that speak with one voice often secure more appointments and projects. In contrast, Buganda’s fractured political identity has made it difficult for any government to know who truly represents its interests.

The result has been predictable: national power-sharing has tilted toward regions with clearer alignment, leaving Buganda with symbolic rather than strategic roles. This is not a question of partisanship but one of political arithmetic. When a region splits its vote and message, it loses leverage in negotiations for representation and development.

Buganda’s path forward lies in unity and strategic focus, not confrontation. The region needs to organize its politics around development priorities rather than party lines. Roads, education, industrial growth, cultural preservation, and youth employment should form the core of a shared regional agenda.

The Kabaka’s leadership provides a moral and cultural compass, but political actors must learn to speak with one voice when it comes to national interests. Constructive engagement, rather than internal rivalry, will determine whether Buganda reclaims its seat at the table.

If Buganda can move beyond the politics of personality and factionalism, it can once again become a power broker in Uganda’s political landscape, serving as a stabilizing and development-oriented force.

The question is not whether Buganda supports one political party or another, but whether it can organize itself to matter again in Uganda’s national equation. The region’s leaders must rediscover what once made Buganda central to governance: unity of purpose, respect for leadership, and a shared development vision.

Without that, Buganda risks remaining on the sidelines of power, watching others make the decisions that shape its future.