Uganda could be approaching another missed opportunity to confront its longstanding political divisions if the national dialogue initiative associated with Gen. Caleb Akandwanaho, popularly known as Salim Saleh, fails to attract the participation of all major political stakeholders. At a time when political disagreements, mistrust and competing narratives continue to define the country’s political atmosphere, the need for a credible and inclusive national conversation has never been more urgent.
The initiative, which seeks to integrate the proposed Consociational Democracy Agreement (CDA) into the Uganda National Dialogue Framework established in 2018, offers an opportunity to revisit questions that have remained unresolved for years. These include political inclusion, electoral reforms, governance, national reconciliation and the relationship between government and opposition.
On November 13, 2026, a consultative meeting hosted by Gen. Saleh at his Kirema Heritage Farm in Nakaseke brought together representatives of the National Resistance Movement (NRM), Democratic Party (DP), Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), Justice Forum (JEEMA) and People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), alongside other stakeholders. Participants agreed to integrate the CDA initiative into the existing National Dialogue Framework rather than establish another parallel process. The proposed unified structure is to be led by former Prime Minister Dr Ruhakana Rugunda, with Justice James Ogoola serving as co-chair. An independent secretariat is also envisaged, while Gen. Saleh will remain a facilitator and promoter of the initiative.
However, the absence of two major opposition formations, the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) and the National Unity Platform (NUP), raises questions about whether Uganda’s political class is finally prepared to confront its differences collectively or whether partisan disagreements will once again undermine an opportunity for national consensus.
A Country Cannot Afford Endless Political Suspicion
FDC has questioned the neutrality of the venue and raised concerns about adherence to previously discussed dialogue protocols. Its president, Patrick Oboi Amuriat, maintains that the party supports constructive dialogue but wants a neutral venue and convenor, a clearly defined agenda, properly identified participants and guarantees for implementing the outcomes. NUP, meanwhile, has maintained its longstanding position of not participating in IPOD activities.
There may be understandable reasons why opposition parties approach the initiative cautiously. Some may fear that participating in a process associated with a senior figure closely connected to the establishment could be interpreted as endorsing government, legitimising the existing political arrangement or compromising their opposition credentials. Others may question the convenorship, agenda, neutrality and eventual implementation of resolutions.
These concerns deserve consideration, but they should not become insurmountable obstacles. Questions about venue, leadership, representation and procedure can themselves be negotiated within the dialogue. Indeed, if political actors cannot agree on how to sit together, how can they be expected to resolve the more complicated questions confronting the country?
More importantly, these discussions should not be reduced to a contest between political parties. The issues at stake concern every Ugandan, including those who belong to no political organisation. Political stability, democratic confidence, national reconciliation and economic progress are collective interests that transcend party manifestos and electoral ambitions.
Politicians must therefore be willing to cast aside personal and institutional interests and consider the bigger picture.
The Consequences Of Another Missed Opportunity
Uganda’s current political atmosphere cannot be divorced from the consequences of prolonged mistrust between political actors. When disagreements over elections, governance, political freedoms and institutional credibility remain unresolved, they risk deepening national divisions.
If the political class continues to avoid structured engagement, the consequences could include further polarisation, declining public confidence in political institutions, heightened political tensions and an environment in which ordinary disagreements become increasingly difficult to manage.
This is precisely why dialogue is long overdue. It provides an opportunity to establish common ground, identify areas of disagreement and develop mechanisms for addressing them peacefully.
There is also a political consequence to the opposition’s absence that its leaders should consider. When government or establishment figures extend invitations to dialogue and major opposition formations decline to participate, it potentially allows government supporters to portray the administration as willing to pursue peace and reconciliation while its critics are unwilling to engage.
Such a narrative could help the government present itself as a willing partner in national reconciliation, while attributing the failure of dialogue to opposition political ego or self-interest. Whether that interpretation is fair is a separate question, particularly where legitimate concerns about the process remain unresolved. Nevertheless, staying away risks surrendering the opportunity to challenge that narrative directly and demonstrate a willingness to negotiate substantive reforms.
Lessons From Other Countries
Africa’s political history offers compelling examples of what sustained dialogue can achieve.
In Kenya, the disputed 2007 presidential election triggered widespread violence that left more than 1,000 people dead and displaced hundreds of thousands. The subsequent Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation process, facilitated by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the African Union Panel of Eminent African Personalities, brought President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga into negotiations.
The February 2008 power-sharing agreement helped end the immediate political crisis and established a coalition government. The negotiations also opened discussions on deeper institutional challenges, eventually contributing to the reform process that produced Kenya’s 2010 Constitution.
South Africa provides another important lesson. The Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), launched in December 1991, brought together representatives of different political formations to negotiate an end to apartheid and establish a democratic constitutional order.
The process experienced disagreements, withdrawals and a breakdown in negotiations. Yet the parties eventually returned to negotiations through a broader multiparty forum in 1993, paving the way for the 1994 democratic elections.
These experiences demonstrate that successful dialogue does not require political actors to abandon their convictions. It requires them to recognise that the national interest sometimes demands compromise, patience and sustained engagement.
Gen. Saleh’s initiative should not be viewed merely as another political gathering but as an opportunity to revive a national conversation whose relevance has grown with the passage of time. Its credibility, however, will depend on inclusivity, transparency, independent coordination and the willingness to translate agreements into practical reforms.
The organisers must remain open to addressing concerns raised by absent parties, while FDC, NUP and other stakeholders should reconsider whether remaining outside the process serves the interests they claim to represent. No party should be compelled to endorse an agenda it disagrees with, but neither should it surrender its opportunity to shape the national conversation.
Uganda cannot afford another cycle in which political actors spend years debating the legitimacy of engagement while the underlying disagreements remain unresolved.
The responsibility is collective. Government, opposition, civil society, religious leaders, cultural institutions and ordinary citizens all have a stake in the country’s future.
Ultimately, the question is bigger than Gen. Saleh, NRM, FDC or NUP. It is whether Uganda’s political class can rise above partisan calculations and recognise that peace, stability and development are not rewards for political victory but necessities for every citizen.
Uganda must not wait for another political crisis to discover the importance of talking to one another.
The Author is The Assistant RCC Nyendo Mukungwe in Masaka City
The post ANDREW BABA: Why Gen Saleh’s National Dialogue Agenda Shouldn’t Become Another Missed Opportunity For National Cohesion appeared first on Watchdog Uganda.