THE NEW UGANDA CABINET: Reading the Political Signals–What Does It Tell Us?

Uganda’s 2026–2031 Cabinet is a significant moment in our women political history. The Vice President Jessica Alupo, Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja, and First Deputy Prime Minister Rebecca Kadaga holding some of the key cabinet positions held by the women in government

Political moments are rarely defined by a single decision. They are defined by patterns. The unveiling of Uganda's new cabinet has generated both celebration and concern. On the surface, the numbers appear encouraging. Women now occupy nearly half of cabinet positions—approximately 49 percent, representing a notable increase from the previous cabinet. For many observers, this reinforces Uganda's longstanding reputation as a regional leader in affirmative action and women's political representation.

Yet feminist politics has always taught us to look beyond numbers. The question before us is not whether women are present in government. The real question is whether women have power within government.

For decades, Uganda has been praised for increasing women's representation in Parliament, local government, and cabinet. These gains matter. They have created important opportunities for women's visibility and leadership in public life. However, feminist scholars have long distinguished between descriptive representation and substantive representation. Descriptive representation asks whether women are present. Substantive representation asks whether women's interests, rights, and priorities are shaping policy, budgets, and political decisions.

The presence of women in leadership does not automatically translate into transformative outcomes. Women can occupy seats of power while the structures that produce inequality remain intact.

This is the central tension revealed by the new cabinet.

While women occupy many ministerial positions, the strategic centres of state power; security, finance, political control, economic planning, and resource allocation, remain concentrated within longstanding political structures that continue to be overwhelmingly male-dominated. This raises a difficult but necessary question:

Are women being included as participants in power, or are they being empowered to reshape power itself?

The First Signal: Symbolism and the Politics of Appointment

One of the most surprising appointments has been that of a man to head the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development.

From one perspective, gender equality is not a women's issue. Men must be active participants in advancing gender justice. Feminist movements globally have consistently argued that dismantling patriarchy requires the engagement of men and boys. It’s a moment to put this to test!

However, viewed through this lens, the appointment could be interpreted as an attempt to reinforce shared responsibility for gender equality. Yet politics is never only about competence. It is also about symbolism.

The Gender Ministry is not merely another administrative institution. It is the state's principal mechanism for advancing gender equality, protecting women's rights, addressing gender-based violence, promoting social protection, and coordinating national responses to persistent inequalities affecting women and girls.

The question, therefore, is not whether a man can lead the ministry. The question is what message the appointment sends in the current political moment.

At a time when women's movements across Uganda are demanding stronger action on gender-based violence, unpaid care work, economic exclusion, climate injustice, and shrinking civic space, many activists may legitimately ask why the country's foremost gender institution was not entrusted to a woman.

Leadership appointments communicate priorities. They signal whose voices are trusted to lead and whose experiences are considered central to the institution's mission.

The Second Signal: Follow the Money

Perhaps more politically significant than any individual appointment is the government's decision to discontinue funding for national commemorations, including International Women's Day celebrations. Officially, the decision has been justified as a fiscal measure intended to redirect resources toward priority development sectors and strengthen fiscal discipline.

From a budgetary perspective, such an argument can be defended. From a feminist political perspective, however, the implications are more complex. Women's Day is not merely a celebration. It is one of the few nationally recognized platforms where women's issues receive concentrated public attention. It creates opportunities for advocacy, accountability, mobilization, and public engagement around issues affecting women and girls.

Removing state funding may therefore reduce more than expenditure. It may reduce political visibility. This contradiction becomes even more striking when viewed against recent national commitments calling for increased investment in women's rights and access to justice.

Budgets are political documents. They reveal priorities more honestly than speeches. Governments do not simply govern through policies; they govern through resource allocation.

The question therefore becomes: Can a state simultaneously call for greater investment in women while withdrawing support from one of the country's most visible platforms for advancing women's rights?

The Third Signal: Representation Without Transformation?

The celebration surrounding women's increased presence in cabinet is understandable. Yes, representation matters. Women deserve to occupy decision-making spaces from which they have historically been excluded.

But feminist political theory warns us against confusing representation with transformation. Women can be visible while feminist agendas remain underfunded. Women can be appointed while decision-making authority remains concentrated elsewhere. Women can sit at the table while the rules governing the table remain unchanged.

The challenge for Uganda's women's movement is therefore not simply to celebrate numbers but to interrogate power. Who controls national budgets? Who determines development priorities? Who allocates resources? Who defines economic growth? Who decides what counts as a national crisis and what does not?

These questions often reveal more about the state of gender justice than cabinet statistics alone.

Is This a Backlash?

Some observers may interpret these developments as evidence of a growing backlash against women's rights. The reality may be more complicated.

What we may be witnessing is not an outright backlash, but a more subtle political phenomenon: the preservation of representation alongside the weakening of the institutions, resources, and civic spaces necessary for transformative gender change.

Modern backlash rarely announces itself openly. It does not always remove women from leadership. Instead, it often appears through budget cuts, shrinking civic space, weakened institutions, symbolic commitments without financial investment, and the gradual depoliticization of women's rights.

Women remain visible. But the infrastructure supporting gender justice becomes increasingly fragile. This is why the women's movement must pay attention not only to who gets appointed, but also to what gets funded, what gets prioritized, and what gets quietly removed.

The Political Question Before Us

The true test of this cabinet will not be how many women sit around the cabinet table. It will be whether the decisions made at that table redistribute power, address unpaid care work, strengthen protection against gender-based violence, expand women's economic opportunities, invest in climate resilience, and improve the lives of ordinary women and girls.

Representation matters. But resources matter more. Visibility matters. But influence matters more. Appointments matter. But political commitment matters most.

The critical question for feminists in Uganda is not whether women are present in power. It is whether power itself is being transformed.

And that may be the most important political question facing Uganda's women's movement today.