There are three categories of contenders for parliamentary office: candidates vying for the open seats, the reserved seats and special interest seats (the Youth, Elderly, Persons with Disabilities, Workers, and Uganda Peoples Defence Forces). The interest groups represent specific constituencies different from those of the other MPs as provided for by Article 78 (1a) and (1b) and Article 32 (1) of the 1995 constitution of the Republic of Uganda—an electoral college of members in the same group votes for the special interest seats. Candidates vying for the open seats are either male or female from diverse political backgrounds; they represent single constituencies and are voted by universal suffrage. Women contenders in reserved seats compete in an all-female contest, represent the whole district and are voted by women and men. MPs in Uganda are voted through a past-the-post system or majoritarian vote, in which the winner takes all in separate elections.
The electoral process in Uganda follows a sequence of pre-nomination, nomination, campaign and voting and has consequences for women’s electoral outcomes. Conducting women-only contests under the reserved seats and women versus men contests under the open seats creates a two-tier system for legislators (Bauer 2012:375; Goetz cited in Muriaas & Wang 2012:317). Consequently, there is a perception that women in reserved seats are inferior to members in non-reserved seats (Bauer 2012:381). There is a perception that elections for women in the reserved seats are less competitive than those in the open seat, based on the assumption that competing against men requires extra muscle on women’s side. Yet, studies have disputed the simplification of women’s elections, noting that, like other MPs, women parliamentarians gain their seats through competition; the only difference is that they compete with women and prioritise women’s concerns in electoral campaigns (Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) 2009:24; O’Brien 2012:58).
The constituencies of women on reserved seats are the entire districts, while MPs in open seats represent smaller counties. Even with the sub-division of formerly large counties and districts to create new districts, the constituencies of women on reserved seats have remained larger (MP Gulu & Kitgum 2021). Although some constituents consider these dynamics when evaluating women in reserved seats, many ignore these complexities, resulting in a negative perception of the performance levels of women MPs in reserved seats relative to MPs in open seats. The MPs in open seats are the primary representatives by the electoral and constitutional design, making women MPs in affirmative seats secondary representatives. Tamale (1999:178) points out the subordinate position of women in the reserved seats; for instance, they must consult open-seat MPs to implement activities in the constituencies to avoid a collision. The definition of constituency representation demeans women on reserved seats by affecting their independence, performance, and perceptions of them. Revising the implementation of reserved seats could address the reserved seat type ambiguities. Article 78 (2) of the constitution calls for reviewing the representation of special interest groups every five years, but this is not done, thereby sustaining the negativity towards affirmative action seats.
There are debates on the efficacy of women in reserved seats and whether these seats empower women. Theoretically, reserved seats, in the long run, would enable women to take on the open seats (Interparliamentary Union 2015). However, reserved seats in Uganda present a glass ceiling; from 1989 to the currently concluded 2021 elections, there has been stagnation and fluctuation in the number of women in open seats. Table 1 shows the trends of women in Parliament over the years.