So the United States government has come out boldly, through its UN representative Samantha Power, and declared newly re-elected President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda to be a “threat” to the country’s future stability.

The declaration is in keeping with the view that Museveni, once almost universally regarded as something of a gift to Uganda, is now a liability.

The US government is not alone in holding this view. Some Ugandans say the same thing and have been doing so for some years now. They are a mix of the current and past supporters of both Museveni and the National Resistance Movement, and active and casual supporters and enthusiasts of political parties that seek to unseat him.

Academics, analysts and commentators have long joined in in echoing this sentiment. The subtext to the claims is that, unless he leaves power soon, Uganda will again descend into the political turmoil and the instability he aspired to end for good at the time he ascended to power 30 years ago.

It is hardly beyond imagination that his continued stay in power may lead to violence and instability. One way it could happen is if his political rivals who have become impatient waiting for him to leave and have failed to dislodge him through elections, may decide to try other means. As I see it, there is nothing to stop them from trying.

As to whether they can pursue other means sustainably, however, is a question well worth pondering. For one thing, “other means” is usually understood as “violence.”

If one considers that Museveni’s residual popularity is the product of the belief, still entertained by many, that only he can guarantee peace, it suggests that support for violent upheaval ought not to be taken for granted.

Also, when talk that he would rig the recent elections and that the rigging would cause an uprising started circulating, the government took measures that left no doubt that it was preparing for such an eventuality. And as soon as claims that his victory amounted to an illegal power grab that would be challenged in the streets emerged, it did not take long to notice increased security activity.

And then opposition leader Kizza Besigye, whom the government suspected of wanting to organise the uprising, was confined to his house. Then voters who had been angered by the entire electoral process and its outcome and might have been tempted to go into the streets, decided to stay home and out of trouble. Goes to show the challenge of applying “other means” in a country where long memories of upheaval and its terrible consequences conspire to influence behaviour.

There is also another side to this that the consensus around the likelihood of violence disregards. It is equally possible that Museveni’s continued stay, at least for now, however much it may unsettle, disgust, frighten, and displease those who watch from the sidelines, is necessary to guarantee stability in the short term and also to lay the foundation for it in the long-term.

The key issue to consider here is the state of Uganda’s opposition political parties and the prospect of any one of them taking power and keeping the country together.

There is no suggestion that this is necessarily impossible. However, an opposition win at this moment would be fraught with risks. For one thing, no opposition party can claim to have a presence in every part of the country.

As a problem, this is hardly insurmountable. If they joined hands and worked together, they would expand their reach considerably and narrow the space within which the ruling party plays virtually without challenge. The question is whether they have it in themselves to join hands, pursue a collective agenda, and stick together.

The evidence we have so far is that this is a very steep challenge. It is not obvious how a fragmented, mainly urban-based opposition made up of factionalised parties pursuing individual agendas can remove a president as entrenched as Museveni, with all the advantages of incumbency he enjoys.

It seems to me as if right now the decision about when he steps down is entirely in Museveni’s hands. Which leads to another important question: What would happen if he stood down today?

For pointers, one has to examine the state his own party is in. If opposition parties are beset with factions and internally incoherent, so is the National Resistance Movement.

Additionally, it is now clear to observers that the NRM is at great risk of disintegration should Museveni depart without sorting out its internal mess – stemming from rivalries, intrigue, opportunism, and the absence of obvious alternative leadership.

It seems to me as if this would be a far greater threat to Uganda’s stability than his presence at the helm of both the NRM and the country. It is also true, that Museveni will not last forever, that one day he will leave the political stage.

Uganda’s continued stability, it again seems to me, will depend on him managing his own exit and handing over to a cohesive NRM that Ugandans can then vote out of power. One day.

Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: [email protected]