Uganda's Parliament on May 4, 2005 voted to hold a national referendum on restoring multiparty politics, marking a decisive turning point in the country's political direction after nearly two decades under the Movement system.
The motion, backed overwhelmingly by MPs, handed citizens the power to decide whether to reopen political competition.
Since 1986, the ruling National Resistance Movement had operated a no-party system that restricted formal party activity while promoting individual merit politics.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The parliamentary vote signalled a shift, shaped by a mix of donor pressure and internal political calculations.
The decision also unfolded alongside a contentious constitutional process. Just weeks later, Parliament moved to scrap presidential term limits, a development widely seen by critics as part of a broader political trade-off that cleared the way for continued leadership under Yoweri Museveni while reintroducing party competition.
The referendum was eventually held on July 28, 2005. Ugandans were asked whether to "open up the political space" to allow organised parties to compete for power.
Official results showed more than 92 per cent voting in favour, though turnout stood at about 47 per cent and was disputed by some observers.
The ballot used simple symbols, with a tree representing support for multiparty politics and a house representing continuation of the Movement system.
The return to multiparty politics reshaped Uganda's governance.
The 2006 general elections became the first under the new system, leading to the formal establishment of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and giving rival parties structured roles in national politics.
Groups such as the Forum for Democratic Change and later the National Unity Platform emerged as key challengers, intensifying political competition.
Parliament itself changed, with the introduction of party whips strengthening discipline but also prompting criticism that voting increasingly followed party lines.
At the same time, debates over civil liberties persisted, particularly around laws governing public assembly and the management of political activity.
