Can a political establishment that has governed Uganda for four decades credibly lead its own reform? That is the uncomfortable question raised by Gen Salim Saleh’s proposal for a new national political settlement as debate grows over what happens when President Yoweri Museveni eventually leaves power. Saleh and Prof Ogenga Otunnu have produced a 128-page document proposing a national agreement to address sectarianism, political exclusion, regional inequality and longstanding grievances. Its central argument deserves serious consideration: Uganda cannot build lasting stability through private agreements among powerful politicians while leaving ordinary citizens outside the conversation. The proposal is particularly striking because it acknowledges weaknesses within the political system Saleh has helped sustain. It questions the effectiveness of elite reconciliation, the credibility of elections, the independence of institutions and an education system that increasingly reproduces inequality rather than overcoming it. These are not minor admissions. They concern the foundations of Uganda’s democratic and economic future. Yet good intentions, however convincingly expressed, cannot substitute for institutional reform. Uganda has seen political accommodation before. Opposition figures have entered government, alliances have shifted, and former adversaries have found common ground. But agreements among leaders do not automatically resolve the grievances of the people they claim to represent. A young graduate without employment gains little from a political handshake. Neither does a farmer facing a land dispute or a parent unable to afford decent schooling. Saleh’s document recognizes this contradiction. It insists that any agreement must be “a written, public document, not a backroom arrangement.” That principle should become the foundation of any credible national dialogue. The opposition’s scepticism is understandable. Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda questions Saleh’s mandate and suspects that the initiative may be another experiment in managing Museveni’s eventual succession. Such suspicions remain political interpretations, not established facts. Nevertheless, they expose a legitimate concern: who authorizes the negotiations, who participates, and who decides their outcome? Saleh’s involvement in Dr Kizza Besigye’s medical situation may demonstrate a willingness to reach across political divisions. But humanitarian intervention cannot replace due process, judicial independence or the constitutional rights of political opponents. Nor should Uganda dismiss dialogue simply because its advocates belong to the ruling establishment. Negotiated reform can reduce political confrontation and create space for compromise. The danger arises when dialogue becomes a substitute for accountability rather than a means of achieving it. The government should therefore establish a transparent, independently facilitated consultation process with clearly defined objectives, public proceedings and meaningful representation from opposition parties, civil society, religious institutions, youth and marginalized communities. Parliament should scrutinize the proposals, while any resulting reforms must strengthen electoral credibility, judicial independence, public accountability and equitable access to services. Commitments should carry implementation deadlines, budget provisions and measurable outcomes. Above all, the process must not become a contest over which powerful individual inherits the presidency. Uganda’s democratic future requires more than an orderly succession. It requires institutions that can protect citizens regardless of who occupies State House. If Saleh’s initiative is genuinely intended to end exclusion, its first achievement must be to end Ugandans’ exclusion from decisions about their own political future.The post Uganda’s future must not be negotiated behind closed doors appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.