By Dayo Yusuf
Uganda, an East African country of 48.6 million with a chequered history, has a parliamentary system that sets it apart in the legislative landscape.
The first is size. The Ugandan parliament has 556 members, nearly triple the number in neighbouring countries like Burundi and Rwanda.
What truly makes it one-of-a-kind, however, is a unique feature unprecedented in African governance — the active participation of military representatives as lawmakers and influential voices in governance matters.
The military's involvement in parliamentary democracy evinces no discomfiture within the polity. On the contrary, most parliamentarians feel a sense of pride about being part of this system.
"When the National Resistance Army (military wing of the National Resistance Movement) captured power back in 1986, the leaders of the time thought it wise for the military to be part of the civilian authority," explains Linos Ngompek, MP and vice chairperson of the defence and internal affairs committee.
"It was meant to make the military understand how a civilian governance structure works."
Contextual integration
Uganda remains one among only a handful of countries worldwide that have had constitutionally approved military representation in parliament at different stages of their respective political evolution. The philosophical underpinnings of these systems differ significantly, though.
The Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) has had seats in the legislature since 1995 when the country's new constitution allowed for their inclusion. The idea was to integrate the military into governance while ensuring its loyalty to civilian rule under President Yoweri Museveni, who came to power through a military-led struggle in 1986.
The rationale behind this integration centres on the military's crucial role in maintaining national stability and security.
"The UPDF having representation in the Parliament of Uganda helps them to understand the geopolitical aspect of the country, by participating in politics and also understanding the political terrain of the country and legislation and also advising on security matters of the state," MP Ngompek tells TRT Afrika.
Given Uganda's history of unrest and coups, many analysts credit the military's parliamentary inclusion with maintaining political and social stability.
The military MPs contribute their expertise to security matters, ensuring well-informed decisions on defence-related policies and budgets. Involvement in governance also allows the military to participate directly in national policy-making.
"Making them a part of the legislature has helped us ensure political and security. Whatever decision parliament makes, the UPDF is briefed, and so is the army leadership. They can then make decisions based on the country's politics," says Ngompek.
Varying perspectives
The concept of military presence in civilian affairs often raises red flags.
While countries like Ethiopia and Somalia commonly display military presence in public spaces, other nations such as Kenya and Tanzania maintain a more distinct separation. In the latter countries, military visibility often signals unrest.
Uganda remains unique in its formal military parliamentary representation, allocating 10 seats to military representatives who elect their members.
Other African nations maintain varying degrees of military influence in governance, including Burkina Faso, Sudan and Mali, which have had military-led governments or transitional councils with members of the armed forces integrated into governance structures.
Then there is Egypt, which maintains a strong military influence in politics without direct parliamentary representation.
Zimbabwe's military plays an active governance role outside formal parliamentary structures.
Acceptance within
Recently, some parliamentarians suggested that military MPs should forgo their uniforms during sessions, citing concerns about a martial atmosphere. However, the rest shot down this proposal, with many MPs saying the current system works for them.
Ngompek has a compelling argument for the military sticking to its sartorial rules even in a parliamentary setting.
"This is what defines the army and the UPDF. The army cannot come to the House wearing civilian clothing. Since they are representing the UPDF, they must wear military attire, as defined by law. And that is the ceremonial and military combat attire," he tells TRT Afrika.
The presence of military personnel in parliament continues to evoke varied responses. Whether this arrangement proves beneficial remains a matter of perspective, shaped largely by cultural and historical context.
➤ Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel for more stories.
