Museveni has been a strong and dominating leader in government, the armed forces and his party for more than 20 years.

But he has never been confident enough to have his way in all matters through the formal structures and channels. So he has always used informal structures to have certain things done which he thought he could not have done formally.

He has never outgrown the methods of work of his guerilla days and even now he remains suspicious of institutional pluralism. Even in institutions where his power is total, informalism is the method of work. Thus during elections, you had a proliferation of the Kakooza Mutale, kakuyege/nyekundiire type of activities, side by side with the formal task forces. You have the Cheeyes in intelligence and journalism; the Tinyefuza role in intelligence side by side with the Security Minister Amama Mbabazi; the Media Centre side by side with the Presidential Advisor on the media and a media spokesman (Onapito) and a Minister responsible for information who is also a spokesman of government.

You have an Inspector General of Police who is also a presidential military assistant. You have a Gen. Tumwine who is a serving military officer, an MP and a Chief Judge (3 in one) of the court martial, the complete negation of the separation of powers.

All these unusual things are not accidental. They inform everyone that what Museveni wants is the law and the norm. It promotes the image of omnipotence which grants him the latitude to do so many things outside the law and to use the structures and the normal channels of government accordingly. Legal niceties or checks and balances are dismissed off hand. So if he gives Shs 20 bn to Basajja, so what? Even if he adds another Shs13.4 bn to him.

If he allocates prime land, with government buildings on, to favoured companies and individuals, so what? That it is Museveni who has done it puts a full stop to any questions. So what if he sends Black Mambas to surround the High Court or boda boda to show his displeasure at judges who passed a “wrong” judgement against government. So what if he sends his opposition opponent to jail and Court Martial on tramped up charges.

So what if creates informal armies, Arrow Boys, Amuka etc… So what if he nullifies the results of elections - Ruremera in Kibaale.

So what if he invades Congo a number of times, makes incursions int the Sudan all without parliamentary approval. So what if creates other kings in Buganda. So what if he abuses religious leaders for not supporting his life presidency project. So what if he aspires to be President of the East African Federation without thinking of the expected requirement of complying with political convergence? Stage by stage he accumulated personal power controlling all appointments and promotions that matter and deciding on the allocation of government revenue.

What all this says is that he always gets his way with anything he wants. This is what is called absolute power, when power goes to the head. He has an infallibility complex. The sovereignty of the country is now resident in the President.

There is absolute concentration of power in the President. Kamuzu Banda put it more succinctly in 1972 when he said that: "Nothing is not my business in this country: everything is my business, everything. The state of education, the state of our economy, the state of our agriculture, the state of our transport, everything is my business."

Thus the multiplicity of offices and ministers goes with their disempowerment since all significant decisions are made in State House. This personalization of power is both cause and effect of the desire for longevity in power. How can the "father" who is responsible for the people's welfare retire? How can he have intermediaries between him and the people? And so on and so forth.

With this background, it becomes clear why disagreeing with him becomes treason. That is why Dr Kizza Besigye is considered to have gone too far. Not only did he disagree with him, but he dared to stand against him. Preposterous is it not?

He must be punished and severely too so that others may see what befalls those who disagree with him. That is the same with Brig Henry Tumukunde. That is why that "fellow" Ruzindana is a traitor as well. How dare he oppose the coveted life presidency and then compound it by not giving way when the President's wife expressed a desire to be an MP? What impudence, he is a traitor. Shun him.

Prof Ali Mazrui has an explanation for this traitor business. Writing on " Political Leadership in Africa: Seven Styles and Four Traditions" he had the following to say about the " monarchical tendency" (Sabagabe): "Even African societies which were not themselves monarchical were influenced by the royal paradigm. Kwame Nkrumah attempted to create a monarchical tradition in independent Ghana by declaring himself life president, by sacralising (making sacred) his authority with the title Osagyefo (Redeemer), by surrounding himself with a class of ostentatious consumers passing themselves as Ghana's new political aristocracy, and by increasingly regarding political opposition to the president as the equivalent of treason (a monarchical version of intolerance)".

In Uganda, the new political aristocracy with its ostentatious consumption is a fact of daily life. The labeling of political opponents as traitors comes from the Sabagabe himself. Intolerance is the order of the day. The "father" has graduated to king. What then is the status and fate of the Kabaka with his quest for Federo, another power centre?

Magnanimity also goes with absolute power. Thus those who have disagreed with him but later repented or recanted may be rehabilitated but at the expense of losing their standing in society. Museveni gives and Museveni takes away.

Historical precedents abound, but Mobutu's on-again, off-again relationship with Nguza Karl-I-Bond and Etienne Tshisekedi, in which the two men were brought back from disgrace and even prison, to occupy high level positions in Mobutu's Cabinet will do for now.

Meanwhile everyone fawns on him as wisdom incarnate. The diplomatic community makes faint polite protests and acquiesces and finances the goings on, on the pretext that there is no one else available.

"Who else" is the refrain. Civil society organizations busy themselves with innocuous causes; the academia gets co-opted; the urban populations grumble silently; and the peasants continue dancing at public events for visiting dignitaries. Everybody goes into hiding. Impunity prevails. National numbness and paralysis are mistaken for stability. This could be a prelude to a gathering storm.

The author is FDC Deputy Secretary General for Policy, Research and former Ruhaama MP.