Norbert Mao, president of the Democratic Party, has ignited fresh political debate after boldly declaring that he is on course to become the next Speaker of Uganda’s Parliament, a position currently dominated by figures aligned with the ruling establishment. His statement has drawn both curiosity and skepticism across the political spectrum.
Speaking to journalists in Kampala, Mao projected unwavering confidence, framing his bid as both strategic and inevitable despite the strong backing that the ruling National Resistance Movement has already given to its preferred candidates. His tone suggested a man who believes he is steps ahead of his competitors.
The race for Speaker has largely been viewed as tilted in favor of incumbent Anita Among, whose leadership has been closely tied to the ruling party’s agenda and parliamentary dominance. Her position, reinforced by party loyalty, presents a formidable barrier to any challenger.
In addition to Among, Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa has also emerged as a key figure in the succession equation, further tightening the ruling party’s grip on the contest and complicating Mao’s path to victory.
Yet Mao appears unfazed by these realities, insisting that conventional political calculations do not apply to his campaign.
He has repeatedly emphasized that his strategy is unconventional and intentionally opaque, leaving both supporters and critics guessing about his next move.
Using a metaphor that captured attention, Mao explained that all his “cards are facing down,” underscoring his belief in secrecy and surprise as essential tools in his political arsenal. This approach, he suggested, has allowed him to outmaneuver opponents in the past.
He pointed to his own parliamentary victory as evidence of his unpredictable style, noting that few anticipated his candidacy or success until it was already unfolding. For Mao, this unpredictability is not a weakness but a deliberate strength.
Beyond tactics, Mao argued that his political identity is widely misunderstood, even among those within his own party and the broader opposition.
He suggested that many have formed premature judgments about his capabilities and intentions.
According to Mao, the true measure of his leadership will only become evident once he assumes the Speakership, a statement that reflects both confidence and a challenge to his critics to reconsider their assumptions.
His remarks also touched on tensions within the ruling party, where some members have questioned whether an opposition figure should be entrusted with such a powerful institutional role. This line of criticism has become a central talking point in the unfolding debate.
Mao pushed back strongly against this argument, highlighting what he described as inconsistencies in how the Democratic Party is portrayed depending on political convenience. He suggested that such narratives are driven more by fear than principle.
He noted that, in the past, critics accused the Democratic Party of being too closely aligned with the ruling establishment, even going as far as claiming it had been “sold” to the government. These accusations, he implied, undermined claims that DP is purely opposition.
Now, as the Speakership contest intensifies, Mao observed that the same critics are emphasizing DP’s opposition identity to argue against his candidacy, revealing what he views as a contradiction rooted in political self-interest.
Central to his argument is the cooperation agreement between DP and NRM, particularly Article 7, which Mao insists is a legitimate and publicly available document outlining the terms of engagement between the two parties.
He expressed frustration that some members of the ruling party appear to be distancing themselves from this agreement, suggesting that their denial is motivated by the high stakes of the Speakership race rather than any genuine dispute over its existence.
Mao framed this development as a sign of political opportunism, where alliances and narratives shift depending on immediate goals, rather than long-term commitments or ideological consistency.
In positioning his bid, Mao sought to elevate the conversation beyond party lines, arguing that his ambition is rooted in a broader vision of parliamentary transformation and national representation.
He emphasized that his campaign is not merely about securing a prestigious office, but about redefining how Parliament operates and whom it ultimately serves, placing “the people” at the center of his message.
His declaration that “we are going to take over the House in the name of the people” reflects an attempt to resonate with citizens who may feel disconnected from elite political maneuvering and institutional power struggles.
Observers note that Mao’s rhetoric could energize segments of the opposition while simultaneously unsettling elements within the ruling establishment, particularly if his message gains traction among undecided lawmakers.
As Uganda approaches the formation of its 12th Parliament, Mao’s bold assertions have ensured that he remains a central figure in the unfolding political drama, with his unconventional strategy continuing to spark debate about what is possible in a tightly controlled political landscape.
