By: Byaruhanga Frank | Communications Officer.

In a recent episode of PAZASAUTI, we explored a vital question for millions of young Ugandans: What does leadership look like for a generation that makes up roughly 70% of the population, yet remains largely excluded from key decision-making spaces? 

The discussion featured Esther Faith Apadet, a fourth-year law student at Cavendish University, alongside Shadrack Mwanguzi, a second-year law student at Kampala International University, a debater, and a public speaker. What made the dialogue so compelling was not just Shadrack’s leadership framework, but the spirited debate that erupted midway through. 

That differing perspectives illuminated the episode’s core dilemma: Should young people adapt their tone to gain influence within existing systems, or do demands for moderation simply shield powerful institutions from uncomfortable truths? 

The Influence Framework 

Shadrack argued that leadership is fundamentally about influence, nothing more, nothing less. In his view, the capacity to move people is the primary baseline for leadership. When asked whether youth currently possess that influence, he offered a nuanced answer: yes, but primarily among themselves. Youth influence tends to stay within peer circles, rarely penetrating older generations or institutions holding genuine power. 

To bridge this gap, he outlined three pillars young leaders must cultivate: 

• Character: Integrity when no one is watching. 

• Relationships: Strategic networks and associations. 

• Knowledge: Deep expertise, drawing on the analogy that a leader operates like a bottle cap, you can generally only lead those who know less than you on a given topic. 

While this offers a structured, self-improvement approach, it is ultimately one perspective. Crucially, it places the burden of adaptation almost entirely on young individuals rather than on the systemic barriers they face. 

 Tone vs. Rights: The Core Debate 

The focal point of the episode arrived when Esther directly challenged this framework. If the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, she asked, doesn’t urging young people to “speak wisely” or temper their outrage effectively ask them to compromise a fundamental constitutional right? 

Shadrack countered that expression must be strategic, asserting that raw anger seldom yields practical results and that youth must adopt language that power structures actually heed. Esther pushed back firmly, emphasizing that this dynamic forces young people to self-censor out of fear, shifting accountability away from restrictive environments onto the speakers themselves. 

This exchange captures a pervasive tension across modern civic life: how marginalized groups navigate calls for “measured” rhetoric from those in power. 

“Free expression is a right, but rights aren’t absolute. Choosing your words strategically isn’t abandoning that right, it’s making it effective.” — Shadrack 

Conversely, as Esther highlighted, expecting marginalized groups to constantly tone-police themselves can act as a quiet tool of suppression, blaming those seeking change for being ignored rather than addressing systemic refusal to listen. 

Movement Structure and Systemic Exclusion 

Shadrack also pointed out that youth movements frequently lack long-term organization. Driven by immediate reactions to injustice, they gain quick momentum but often dissolve without clear goals or leadership pipelines, reinforcing perceptions of youth engagement as volatile and disorganized. 

However, viewing spontaneous movements solely as failures overlooks a broader reality: sustained organizing requires capital, institutional access, and safety resources that young people are regularly denied resources regularly denied to young people. Attributing structural deficits entirely to youth ineptitude, rather than institutional exclusion, reflects a specific narrative choice rather than an objective truth. 

Looking Forward 

How can young leaders balance strategic advocacy with the risk of letting “tactful communication” become a permanent excuse for leaders to defer meaningful action? 

Catch the full conversation and join the debate on the latest episode of PAZASAUTI.