Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the United States Declaration of Independence, wrote: “All power is derived from the people” – but this power is not wielded by the people: “They possess it only on the days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their rulers, nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused.”

In the over polarized politics of Uganda, populism could explain the wave of a radical democracy that swept the Buganda region in the election turnout. The electorate finally saw and heard a person they identified with and as such, they voted in that regard.

A wave of the populist revolt led the people to vote out all those that created a polarized environment and didn’t identify with the plight of the people they represent in parliament—this revolt was essential to the vitality of Uganda’s politics.

With the continued repression of protests and processions and with the evolution of suppression of such civic collective engagements. Equally, the political disorder they create stands in tension with the need for a more stable, peaceful form of collective participation.

The electorate is evolving their collective self-assertion into deliberate and sane voting, by provisionally entrusting some of their powers to elected representatives. In other words, it is no longer okay to be against the people. The Buganda region vote against 24 ministers and the Vice president was an assertion of the collective power of a people. It is a call to work and a reassurance that the will of the people will prevail over the politics of the day.

The Buganda region vote turnover was the renaissance of the democratic spirit. It was a message to the dictatorial regime claiming a popular mandate that anyone hoping to play a more direct role in political decision-making should be a servant to the people or else risk being called back and voted out. Ugandans have embraced solidarity and will continue to rally around a leader who emphasizes to stand for the will of the people.

When crowds of ordinary people unite to demand an impartial share of basic services – and to claim for themselves a larger share in more truly democratic institutions. A populist revolt against remote elites is necessary to the vitality, and viability, of modern democracy – even as (and precisely because) they challenge the status quo.

From the start, Magufuli has situated himself as a dynamic populist. Standing as an anti-elite figure on the side of the ordinary people, he moved to slash government waste, cutting foreign travel and diverting money from the inauguration ceremony for MPs to pay for hospital beds. At the same time, he announced a war on corruption, promised a crackdown on big businessmen and tax avoiders, and fired several civil servants said to be underperforming in one way or another.

While the longevity of populist leaders is still in contention, given their outward bend towards people pleasing and radical manipulation of the law while in service. It should be applauded that populism has reshaped democracy for the electorate. More than ever, service to the people and an ally in the electorate counts for more, especially in highly corrupt and autocratic nations. Now, the extremities are between serving the electorate or losing the seat in parliament.