By Julius Akanyijuka

As Uganda’s 11th Parliament winds down and the country prepares for the 12th Parliament following the January 2026 general elections, Speaker Anita Annet Among has rallied newly elected MPs at a Kyankwanzi retreat to prepare for fresh constitutional amendments. The headline proposal — extending the term of office for both Members of Parliament and the President from the current five years to seven years — has once again thrust the debate over electoral cycles into the national spotlight.

This is not the first time such an extension has been attempted. Similar efforts were made in 2017 during the age-limit amendment process, only for the Constitutional Court to strike down the parliamentary term extension on procedural grounds. With Uganda already grappling with grassroots service delivery challenges and mostly non responsive political actors, lengthening the electoral cycle would further insulate leaders from accountability, weaken democratic renewal, and entrench incumbency advantages in a context where power concentration has long raised concerns.

From the standpoint of democratic pragmatism, political theory, and empirical evidence from political science — including extensive research on electoral cycles across Africa — shorter terms (the current 5-year cycle used in Uganda for both the presidency and parliament) consistently outperform longer ones like the proposed 7-year term.

Uganda’s 1995 Constitution deliberately enshrined five-year terms as a vital safeguard against institutional decay the country suffered under previous regimes. In this context, pushing the electoral cycle to seven years would only compound the risks of entrenchment rather than address genuine governance challenges. Here is why we should keep a 5 year term.

1. Stronger Accountability to Voters.

Shorter terms compel elected officials to face the electorate more often, creating regular “electoral incentives” for responsiveness. Political scientists have long demonstrated that frequent elections serve as a powerful accountability mechanism: voters can reward performance or sanction failure before problems become entrenched. In Uganda, where Afrobarometer surveys repeatedly highlight public frustration with uneven service delivery, a seven-year window would further insulate leaders from citizen pressure. Longer terms weaken this vital link, allowing detachment — a pattern well-documented in hybrid regimes across the continent.

1. Reduced Risk of Power Concentration and Democratic Backsliding.

A five-year cycle inherently limits how long any individual or faction can consolidate control over state institutions, security forces, and patronage networks. Extending terms to seven years would only heighten incentives for incumbents to become “indispensable,” further eroding checks and balances.

1. More Frequent Infusion of Fresh Ideas and Generational Renewal.

Shorter terms promote higher turnover, injecting new talent, diverse perspectives, innovative approaches, and updated priorities. This counters stagnation, policy inertia, and “career politician” mindsets that often prioritise elite interests over the public good. Uganda’s youthful population — with a median age of around 16–17 — urgently needs leadership that reflects its energy, aspirations, and digital-era realities. Prolonged tenure under dominant-party rule has sometimes favoured continuity among established elites over bold generational change. Comparative African studies show that regular electoral resets broaden the talent pool and reduce inertia — exactly the democratic renewal Uganda aspires to.

1. Less Entrenchment of Special Interests.

With elections on a tighter timetable, officials have less time to forge deep, potentially schemy alliances with business elites, donors, or interest groups. Incumbency advantages — name recognition, access to state resources, and funding networks — become less overwhelming. Evidence from African election-cycle research links longer terms to intensified political-business cycles that entrench incumbents. Shorter electioneering cycles can disrupt these entrenched patterns and foster fairer political competition.

1. Higher Pressure for Visible Results and Legacy-Building.

Leaders operating on shorter mandates feel greater urgency to deliver tangible outcomes early rather than coasting through an extended period. This drives focused governance, quicker policy adjustments, and genuine efforts to build a positive legacy. In Uganda, where citizens consistently demand improvements in roads, healthcare, education, jobs and all sorts of kitchen table issues that affect day to day families, a five-year horizon forces results-oriented leadership. Frequent cycles also enable voters to assess and refine policies iteratively — compounding long-term governance improvements through ongoing electoral feedback rather than waiting seven years for meaningful course-correction.

1. Better Alignment with Voter Preferences and Reduced “Lame Duck” Risks.

Shorter terms keep policies more closely aligned with evolving public opinion, as leaders must continually earn support. Afrobarometer data in Uganda has shown strong public backing (often over 70%) for mechanisms that guarantee fresh leadership. Proposals for a seven-year term often claim they provide “more time to implement” development plans at the risk ignoring mid-term discontent and creating extended periods of unaccountable rule. This matter is central to democratic guardrails of Ugajda as a nation state. It is not a matter for parliament decide. This matter must be decided directly by the people through a referendum — not merely by Parliament — to restore legitimacy and ownership to our democratic framework.

Clearly, Uganda’s five-year cycle is not a flaw in need of “fixing” — it remains a crucial democratic guardrail. Extending it to seven years would tilt the balance even further toward executive and parliamentary insulation at the direct expense of citizen voice, institutional renewal, and long-term stability.

As a Ugandan committed to deepening our multiparty democracy, I would campaign vigorously for the 5-year term — and insist that any proposed change be put to the people in a free, fair, and transparent referendum.
This is the kind of evidence-based, citizen-centred conversation Uganda deserves as we shape the rules for the 12th Parliament and beyond.

Filled by Morrison Rwakakamba, Coffee farmer — Rukungiri.