By: Olivier BAKOMEZI,
Director of the Refugees Parliamentarians for Peace-RPP
and Chairman of the Congolese Urban Refugee Community.
Date: 21 April 2026
Uganda is widely recognized as one of the most progressive refugee-hosting countries in the world. With policies that allow freedom of movement, access to land, and the right to work, it has become a place of relative hope for people fleeing conflict from neighboring countries such as South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Somalia. Within these settlements and urban centers, refugee communities have demonstrated remarkable resilience in organizing themselves, forming leadership structures, and advocating for their rights and development.
Yet beneath this progressive framework lies a quieter, more complex challenge: the politics of divide and conquer. While often associated with external systems of control, this dynamic is increasingly visible within refugee communities themselves, where internal divisions are fragmenting leadership and undermining collective progress.
A Context Shaped by Diversity and Pressure
Uganda’s refugee population is not homogeneous. It is composed of multiple nationalities, ethnicities, languages, and political histories. In settlements such as Bidi Bidi, Nakivale, and Kyangwali, this diversity can be a source of strength, but also a point of tension.
Competition for limited resources, whether humanitarian aid, livelihood opportunities, or representation in decision-making spaces, can intensify these divisions. Leaders are often expected to advocate for their specific constituencies, which can inadvertently reinforce identity-based fragmentation rather than broader community cohesion.
Urban refugees, particularly in Kampala, face an additional layer of complexity. Without the structured systems of settlements, leadership becomes more informal and often more contested, with multiple actors claiming legitimacy.
Internalizing Divide and Conquer
What makes this reality particularly sorrowful is how divide-and-conquer dynamics are sometimes reproduced by refugee stakeholders themselves. Community-based organizations, youth groups, and informal leaders may find themselves in competition rather than collaboration.
Funding structures play a significant role. When opportunities are scarce and highly competitive, organizations may prioritize visibility over partnership. Instead of building coalitions, they operate in silos, guarding information and resources. This can create parallel structures within the same community, each claiming to represent “the people,” yet lacking coordination.
At times, mistrust emerges along lines of nationality, tribe, religion, or political affiliation. Historical grievances from countries of origin may resurface in exile, further complicating efforts to build unified leadership.
Undermining Legitimate Leadership
A particularly damaging manifestation of this dynamic is the marginalization of duly elected refugee leaders. In some instances, individuals or organizations deliberately ignore or disparage recognized leadership structures, choosing instead to engage with unrecognized actors who align more closely with their own interests.
This practice is not merely a matter of personal preference; it has serious consequences. By bypassing legitimate leaders, stakeholders weaken established systems of accountability and representation. It sends a message that leadership can be circumvented, eroding trust within the community.
In certain cases, this behavior is driven by egoistic or strategic interests: working with less accountable or self-appointed individuals can be easier, faster, or more beneficial for those seeking influence or control. However, the long-term impact is deeply harmful. It creates confusion about who truly represents the community, fuels internal conflict, and delegitimizes leadership processes that are meant to ensure fairness and inclusion.
Most critically, this fragmentation puts the community at risk. Leaders are not only representatives, but they are often the first line of coordination in protection, conflict resolution, and communication with authorities and humanitarian actors. When their role is undermined, the entire protective framework of the community is weakened.
Fragilizing Leadership Structures
The cumulative effect of these dynamics is a fragile and often ineffective leadership landscape. Instead of presenting a unified voice, refugee communities in Uganda may appear divided, reducing their ability to advocate for their rights and needs.
Emerging leaders, especially women and youth, face additional barriers. In an environment marked by contestation and mistrust, they may struggle to gain recognition or may be discouraged from participating altogether.
Questions of legitimacy become persistent and destabilizing. Without respect for established leadership systems, communities risk falling into cycles of dispute, where authority is constantly challenged and rarely consolidated.
The Role of External Actors in Uganda
It is essential to recognize that these internal challenges are influenced by broader systemic factors. Humanitarian agencies, donors, and policymakers can unintentionally reinforce divisions through selective engagement and competitive funding models.
When external actors bypass elected leaders or fail to uphold community governance structures, they contribute directly or indirectly to the erosion of legitimate leadership. Even well-intentioned interventions can have unintended consequences if they do not align with principles of inclusivity and accountability.
Pathways Toward Stronger, Unified Leadership
Addressing these challenges requires deliberate and collective action.
Refugee stakeholders must reaffirm the value of legitimate leadership structures. Respecting elected leaders does not mean ignoring accountability; rather, it means engaging constructively to strengthen governance systems instead of undermining them.
Inclusive dialogue platforms can help bridge divides, bringing together formal leaders, informal actors, and community members to foster mutual understanding. Transparency in decision-making and resource allocation is also critical in rebuilding trust.
Community-based organizations should prioritize partnerships over competition, recognizing that unity enhances, not diminishes, their collective impact.
At the same time, external actors must commit to principled engagement. This includes recognizing and working through legitimate leadership structures, supporting inclusive processes, and designing funding mechanisms that encourage collaboration rather than rivalry.
Conclusion
Uganda’s refugee model stands as a symbol of possibility, but its long-term success depends on the strength and cohesion of community leadership. The politics of divide and conquer, especially when internalized, threatens to undermine this foundation.
The marginalization of elected leaders in favor of unrecognized actors is not a sustainable path. It weakens representation, erodes trust, and places communities at greater risk.
Rebuilding unity requires courage, accountability, and a shared commitment to collective well-being. By respecting legitimate leadership while fostering inclusivity and collaboration, refugee stakeholders in Uganda can transform this sorrowful reality into an opportunity for stronger, more resilient community development.