Uganda's Electoral Landscape and Voter Readiness
This report presents findings from an independent voter readiness survey conducted by Evidence And Methods Lab ahead of the January 15, 2026 general elections. The survey aimed to provide evidence-based insights into electoral preparedness, barriers to participation, and citizen confidence in democratic processes. Data was collected from 514 respondents across Uganda between January 8-11, 2026, just days before voting commenced.
Uganda's electoral journey has been consistently marked by political dynamics and institutional weaknesses, contributing to persistent challenges that impact democratic participation. For instance, the 2021 general elections saw a decline in voter turnout to 59.35% from 67.61% in 2016, with international observers noting that these elections 'fell short of international standards' due to issues like arbitrary killings, voter intimidation, and a lack of Electoral Commission independence. These historical contexts indicate barriers preventing effective voter-candidate engagement, making the upcoming 2026 general elections a critical juncture for reassessing and enhancing democratic integrity.
This assessment examines voter readiness across six key dimensions: Electoral Knowledge (awareness of electoral processes and voter rights), Practical Preparedness (registration status and logistical readiness), Institutional Trust (confidence in electoral bodies and processes), Security and Access (barriers to participation), Information Environment (media consumption and sources), and Political Efficacy (belief in democratic impact). The following sections present findings organized by these dimensions.
Sample Demographics and Patterns in Voter Readiness (N=514)
The survey included 514 individuals. Gender distribution was 52% Male, 45% Female, and 3% Prefer not to say. Regional representation included Central (58%), Eastern (18%), Northern (14%), and Western (10%). The age profile showed 48% aged 25-34, 26% aged 35-44, 14% aged 18-24, 10% aged 45-54, and 2% aged 55-64+. Regarding living environments, Urban areas accounted for 62%, Rural for 28%, and Peri-urban for 10%.
Analysis reveals significant demographic variations in voter readiness. Gender differences show male registration at 80% compared to female registration at 76%, while females reported feeling unsafe at 75% versus males at 65%. Age variations indicate the lowest registration rate at 72% for 18-25 year-olds, peaking at 83% for those aged 36-45. Trust in the voting process was highest at 25% for 18-25 year-olds, declining with age. Education also impacts readiness, with registration increasing from 68% for primary education to 86% for tertiary.
The Education Paradox
Interestingly, while higher education correlates with increased voter registration, trust in the vote counting process shows an inverse relationship: decreasing from 35% for those with primary education to 25% for those with tertiary education. This suggests that while education may empower participation, it may also lead to greater skepticism about electoral integrity.
Key Findings:
1. Electoral Knowledge
This dimension examines citizens' awareness of electoral processes, positions on the ballot, and understanding of their rights as voters. Electoral knowledge forms the foundation of informed participation, enabling citizens to navigate voting procedures, understand their rights, and make informed choices.
The findings reveal a paradox: while 92% of respondents demonstrate awareness of presidential elections and 80% express confidence in the overall voting process, significant gaps persist in specific knowledge areas. Awareness dropped significantly for lower-level positions, with only 58% aware of other local government roles and 8% unsure of any positions on the ballot. Furthermore, 14% of respondents were unaware of the upcoming election date, and a combined 28% either did not know their polling station location (18%) or planned to ascertain it later (10%). Critically, 46% rated their knowledge of voter rights as 'Fair' or below, underscoring areas for targeted intervention to improve civic participation.
2. Practical Preparedness
This dimension assesses registration status, logistical readiness, and participation in voter education programs. Practical preparedness measures whether citizens have completed the necessary steps to vote and possess the logistical knowledge required for successful participation.
The data reveals moderate-to-high preparedness: 78% of respondents are registered to vote and 80% express intention to participate. However, logistical gaps persist, with only 71% knowing their polling station location and just 33% having attended voter education sessions. Notably, 38% of those who haven't attended voter education express interest, indicating strong unmet demand. The primary barriers to registration include lack of knowledge about the process (32%), distance to registration centers (28%), and missing required documents (18%), despite 95% possessing valid National IDs.
Registration Status (N=514)
An analysis of 514 individuals revealed that 78% (n=401) are registered to vote, with 15% (n=77) unregistered and 7% (n=36) undisclosed. Among the unregistered individuals, significant barriers to registration included not knowing how to register (32%, n=25), being too far from a registration center (28%, n=22), and lacking required documents (18%, n=14), while 22% cited other reasons. Despite 95% (n=488) of all respondents possessing a National ID, these statistics underscore that valid identification does not inherently guarantee voter registration, pointing to persistent accessibility gaps that targeted interventions must address to improve civic participation.
Voter Education Participation (N=514)
Regarding voter education participation, 28.0% of respondents attended multiple sessions, 18.0% attended once, and a significant 38.0% had not attended but expressed interest, indicating a strong unmet demand. This means 84% of respondents either participated or were interested in civic education. For enhanced voter preparedness, the top factors identified were a safer environment for political participation (68.0%), more voter education sessions (42.0%), better access to candidate information (38.0%), and clearer voting procedures (35.0%).
3. Institutional Trust
This dimension measures confidence in electoral bodies, vote counting processes, and the integrity of democratic institutions. Institutional trust represents citizens' belief that electoral processes will be conducted fairly and that their votes will be counted accurately—a fundamental prerequisite for electoral legitimacy.
The findings reveal a critical trust deficit that threatens democratic participation. A substantial 77% of respondents express low trust in the Electoral Commission, while 70% do not trust that votes will be counted accurately. Only 30% trust information provided by the Electoral Commission. This widespread skepticism exists despite high voting intentions (80%), creating a paradoxical situation where citizens participate in a process they fundamentally distrust. Specifically, 70% of respondents expressed little to no trust in vote counting accuracy, yet 67% believe voting can bring positive change and 80% intend to vote—demonstrating persistent democratic commitment despite widespread concerns about electoral integrity.
4. Security and Access
This dimension examines barriers to participation, including security concerns, distance, and other logistical challenges. Access barriers can prevent even registered and motivated voters from exercising their democratic rights, making this dimension critical for understanding actual versus potential participation.
Security concerns dominate all other barriers, with 78% of respondents identifying security as a major anticipated challenge on election day. This is compounded by widespread experiences of intimidation: 70% report experiencing intimidation either often or occasionally during the campaign period. The security crisis disproportionately affects women, with 75% reporting feeling unsafe compared to 65% of men. Other notable barriers include distance to polling stations (28%), lack of transport (24%), and work commitments (22%). The Northern region faces the most severe challenges, with 85% citing security concerns—the highest rate nationally.
5. Information Environment
This dimension explores how citizens access electoral information and the sources they rely on for political news. The information environment shapes voter knowledge, influences perceptions of electoral integrity, and determines vulnerability to misinformation.
Social media dominates as the primary information source, with 73.7% of respondents relying on it for election information and 82% using it regularly for civic purposes. Traditional media maintains significant reach: radio (53.9%), television (50.4%), and political rallies (45.3%). However, formal institutional sources rank considerably lower, with only 9.2% relying on Electoral Commission materials and 4.3% on NGO programs. This heavy reliance on social media, combined with low trust in official Electoral Commission information (77% distrust), creates significant vulnerability to misinformation and undermines efforts to provide accurate, verified electoral information to citizens.
Primary Information Sources (N=514)
Social media dominates as the primary information source (73.7%), followed by radio (53.9%), television (50.4%), and political rallies (45.3%). Traditional interpersonal sources include friends and family (33.5%) and community meetings (27.1%). Formal institutional sources rank lower: newspapers (21.0%), religious gatherings (13.6%), Electoral Commission materials (9.2%), and NGO programmes (4.3%).
Candidate Selection Criteria (N=514)
Respondents identified their top three candidate selection criteria. Development promises ranked highest (68%), followed by personal character (62%), track record (58%), and party affiliation (52%). Identity-related factors were less prominent: ethnic/regional background (18%) and religious affiliation (14%). This indicates voters prioritize performance indicators and personal integrity over identity-based considerations.
6. Political Efficacy
This dimension assesses citizens' belief in their ability to influence political outcomes through democratic participation. Political efficacy—the conviction that one's vote matters and can effect change—serves as a critical motivator for electoral participation and sustained democratic engagement.
The findings reveal moderate political efficacy with significant internal contradictions. While 70% of respondents believe voting can bring positive change, only 43% are confident that elected officials listen to citizens' concerns, creating a 27-percentage-point 'participation-influence gap.' This belief in voting's potential strongly correlates with participation: those who believe voting brings change are 34 percentage points more likely to definitely intend to vote. However, this efficacy is undermined by distrust in vote counting (55% distrust) and low confidence in government responsiveness. Demographic patterns show men (75%) express higher belief in voting's impact than women (65%), while younger voters (18-25: 80%) demonstrate greater optimism than older cohorts (46+: 65%).
Political Efficacy and Democratic Impact (N=514)
Analysis reveals a complex picture: 70% of respondents believe voting can indeed bring positive change, yet a significant 55% express distrust in the accurate counting of votes. This belief in voting's impact correlates strongly with participation, with those who feel voting can effect positive change being 34 percentage points more likely to definitively intend to cast their ballot. However, this potential for efficacy is undermined by low confidence that elected officials listen to citizens' concerns, with only 43% expressing confidence, thus creating a discernible "participation-influence gap."
Demographic trends highlight distinct variations in this belief. A notable gender gap exists, with men (75%) exhibiting a higher belief in voting's impact compared to women (65%). Age also plays a significant role, showing an optimistic outlook among younger voters (18-25 year olds at 80%), which then steadily declines with increasing age (down to 65% for those 46 and older). Furthermore, higher education levels correlate with a stronger sense of political efficacy, with 75% of those with Tertiary/University education affirming their belief in voting's influence.
Cross-Cutting Analysis
Beyond individual dimensions, several patterns emerge when examining relationships across demographic groups and behavioral factors. These cross-cutting findings reveal how different aspects of voter readiness interact and compound, creating systematic advantages or disadvantages for specific population segments.
The analysis identifies four critical patterns: trust in vote counting correlates strongly with voting likelihood (17 percentage point difference), intimidation experiences significantly erode institutional trust (26 percentage point gap), voter education demonstrably improves rights knowledge (0.9 point increase on 5-point scale), and social media reliance correlates with lower trust in the Electoral Commission (17 percentage point difference). These patterns suggest that interventions must address multiple dimensions simultaneously rather than treating challenges in isolation.
Regional Variations (N=514)
Regarding voter registration, rates varied from a high of 82.0% in the Central Region to 76.0% in the Eastern, 74.0% in the Western, and the lowest at 68.0% in the Northern Region. Similarly, trust in the vote counting process showed distinct regional differences: the Northern Region had the highest trust at 38.0%, followed by the Western Region at 35.0%, the Eastern Region at 28.0%, and the Central Region demonstrating the lowest trust at 25.0%.
Behavioral Correlations (N=514)
Analysis of voter behavior reveals several key cross-group comparisons regarding trust and participation. Notably, individuals who trusted vote counting were 17.0 percentage points more likely to vote, with 92.0% participating compared to 75.0% among those who did not trust the counting process.
Furthermore, the data highlight the significant impact of external factors on voter confidence and knowledge. Intimidation significantly eroded trust in electoral integrity, with only 22.0% of those reporting intimidation trusting vote counting, a stark contrast to 48.0% of those who did not experience it, marking a 26.0 percentage point difference. Conversely, voter education positively correlated with self-assessed knowledge, showing a 0.9 point higher score for educated voters (4.1/5) compared to their uneducated counterparts (3.2/5).
Finally, the influence of information sources also played a role in perceptions of electoral bodies. Reliance on social media as a primary information source correlated with lower trust in the Electoral Commission; only 18.0% of social media users expressed trust, versus 35.0% of non-users, representing a 17.0 percentage point difference.
The Youth Paradox (N=514)
The Youth Paradox presents a different challenge: voters aged 18-25 exhibit the highest political efficacy scores (3.2/5), indicating strong belief in democratic participation, yet simultaneously record the lowest registration rates at 72%, significantly below other age groups. This gap suggests that while young voters believe in democracy's potential, logistical or systemic barriers prevent them from registering at rates comparable to older cohorts.
Key Findings Summary
· High Voter Registration: 92.8% (n=477) of respondents indicated they are registered to vote, showing foundational engagement.
· Significant Trust Deficit: 70% (n=359) of respondents expressed low trust in the vote counting process, raising concerns about electoral integrity.
· Primary Barrier - Security Concerns: 78% (n=369) of respondents cited security concerns as a major anticipated barrier to participation.
· Paradoxical Voting Intention: Despite identified challenges and trust issues, 80% (n=411) of respondents still expressed an intention to vote.
· Northern Region Disparity - Registration: The Northern region showed the lowest voter registration rate at 68%.
· Northern Region Disparity - Security: The Northern region also presented the highest level of security concerns, cited by 85% of its respondents.
Recommendations
· Implement transparent communication strategies and independent oversight for the Electoral Commission and vote counting processes. (Electoral Commission, Development Partners, Civil Society)
· Deploy neutral security forces to ensure safety during the electoral period and promote peaceful campaign conduct. (Security Forces, Electoral Commission, Political Parties)
· Scale up voter education campaigns, emphasizing voter rights awareness and clear polling procedures. (Civil Society, Media, Electoral Commission)
· Provide accessible fact-checked information and implement media literacy programs to combat misinformation, especially on social media. (Media, Civil Society, Political Parties)
· Improve voter information systems and conduct targeted community outreach to ensure all voters know their polling station locations. (Electoral Commission, Civil Society)
· Implement targeted interventions and allocate resources based on specific needs to address regional disparities in election readiness. (Electoral Commission, Civil Society, Development Partners)
Conclusion
The survey reveals a core paradox in Uganda's electoral landscape. While a significant majority of citizens are registered to vote (78%) and intend to cast their ballots (80%), these strong indicators of democratic commitment are tempered by substantial concerns regarding trust and security. Specifically, 70% of respondents expressed distrust in the vote counting process, and 78% identified security as a primary barrier to participation.
These findings establish a baseline for a planned post-election assessment. The combined data will inform evidence-based reforms for strengthening Uganda's democratic processes.
About the Evidence and Methods Lab
The Evidence and Methods Lab is a civil society organization focused on citizen empowerment and governance improvement across Africa. Our approach utilizes data, evidence, and digital tools to:
· Support citizen participation in democratic processes
· Enhance the delivery of essential public services
· Promote accountable and inclusive governance
For additional information on our initiatives and impact, please visit our website at www.evidenceandmethodslab.org.
To download full report visit: https://shorturl.at/s8jIk
