Leftovers for legacy: why rebel governance contributed so little to Uganda’s post-insurgent state

What causes insurgents to modify their rebel governance after they win? When the National Resistance Army/Movement defeated Uganda’s army, it vowed its wartime promises and practices of good government, especially democracy and proper conduct by soldiers, would become the basis of its policies as the state’s government. Certain wartime doctrines and practices were implemented at first, both to strengthen the new regime’s legitimacy and its significant, if limited, popular support. But the NRM deviated from them soon after forming its government and later contradicted most of the rest. Several reasons explain why. Fighting a civil war implanted habits of military command that undercut later acceptance of democratic accountability. Its mixture of pragmatic and moral purposes in constructing its rebel governance, narrow provision of rebel services, and the brevity of the war reduced its postwar commitment. The NRM’s efforts to protect its rule in response to significant military, political, and economic challenges after takeover likewise caused it to deviate from its rebel doctrines. It also reversed its commitment to institutional government and democracy because its leaders felt politically entitled, particularly President Museveni’s insistence on personal rule.