Link: http://uganda-election-early-results-show-museveni-in-lead-as-violence-reported
According to Ugandan opposition MP Muwanga Kivumbi, security forces stormed his home at 3 AM and killed 10 of his campaign staff waiting for the results of the parliamentary elections. Kivumbi called this an “unprecedented massacre” claiming the soldiers forced their way into his home and fired at campaign workers hiding in his garage. However, the police have a different story, that opposition “hooligans” attacked a police station and polling place resulting in the security forces shooting back in self-defense. Kivumbi and his wife are adamant that the victims were all unarmed campaign agents. This occurred in the context of presidential elections that most expect will result in President Yoweri Museveni extending his almost 40 years in office.
This incident is another example of increasing authoritarianism in Uganda and the ways in which state security forces are used to suppress opposition. In addition to the competing versions of what happened, massacre or self-defense, we see a larger battle for truth in places where there is little institutional independence. Violence such as this weekend’s public confidence and increased fear, and serves to reinforce the message that political competition in Uganda is subject to the constraints of powerful coercive state action.
International observers might demand an independent investigation into the killing of these 10 people, whereas regional organizations, such as the African Union, may pressure Uganda to take responsibility for its actions. Civil Society Organizations may gather testimony from survivors and foreign governments may tie security aid to Uganda’s adherence to human rights. Opposition leaders may seek judicial remedy through domestic courts and advocacy abroad.
This incident represents the topics of authoritarian coercion, legitimacy, and state violence. As previously discussed, it also reflects how authoritarian regimes utilize security institutions to protect themselves and how the erosion of checks and balances enables human rights violations during elections.