And, to make things worse for the Republic, even the only other serious contender against Museveni is himself a total secularist sell-out. He has scores of Mozzies working under him, and therefore has no right to stand against the President, when he himself is not bringing an improvement.
If anybody does such a thing as brand the very beginning of his electoral campaign with concilliatory attitudes towards Muslims, and seeking to make them a core pillar of his support base, he is even worse than Museveni (because, for starters, he is not Museveni, and neither is he Christian-sacralist).
The only reason we are even necessary, before we even get to talking of our being legitimate over and above the President and his Republic, is because the Republic is secularist. If anybody speaks of maintaining the secularism, he is already disqualified. God has qualified us, by Grace, and given us this ministry; and has revealed to us what He requires of us, and has made us desirous of it, and effortlessly-pious in our earnestness to serve this end. We do not tolerate anything less-pure, because we do not want anything less-pure. He has answered our prayer: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Then what makes us legitimate is that the nation, Uganda, was born into a sacralist order, which was lost only in 1966. To this day, people are still going back and forth about the events surrounding the rise of the secular Republic over-above the sacralist proto-Republican monarchy. The events speak of a pre-existing Uganda, but they are decidedly sacralist--"the Protestants", "the Catholics", and the "Muslims" all feature as distinct players in this history.
What makes us necessary is that democracy is a lie. Power doesn't belong to the people. The people do not choose who will lead them, and who will prevail over them. The Thirty Tyrants are sufficient proof, because they even prevailed in the days when Socrates was alive. Yet the people of Athens, fully convinced democrats in every thing and in every way, could do nothing but live humbly under the Tyrants, whom none of them had elected. Yet, in spite of this clear refutation of the basic assumption of Athenian democracy, in the lifetime of Socrates (and we learn about it from Plato, and in the writings of Aristotle), in spite of the brightest lights of Greek thought being impotent in the face of the will of God--as the Psalms declare all the time, that it is He who lifts up one and lays another in the dust of death--the stupid idea that democracy has somehow ever proven itself, or been true, or is true, just persists.
Nobody need set about disproving democracy; it soons shows through for the hollow lie it is. Yet the competition against Museveni is democratic. On top of being decieved, therefore, about whence cometh lifting-up, they have also yielded to the temptation of the hedonist promise of democracy. Museveni exploited it, by constitutionally (legally) remaining President, but not morally. Morally would have required that he never have denounced long reigns, before he embark on one himself. Morality would have required that he not be a hypocrite. But he said he would be a good democrat--which no good, strong leader can ever be, since all such are chosen by God, not by men--and he ended up being instead a good, strong leader who was being hypocritical (and therefore immoral) with regard to his democratic standard.
The solution would have been simply to not be secularist, so that the nation can refer to the God who gives both the definition of right and wrong, and also who raises a man to the throne and casts another down onto the floor before the throne. When the nation can do this, it can refer to a legitimate leadership that is actually in line with the reality. Even if the leader then institutes democracy, or socialism, or whatever, it is accountable not to the selfish people who are constantly brooding over evil from their youth, but to God's standard. A tyrant doesn't mind killing those who clearly have no power over him; but the sacralist tyrant has a King as terribly-sovereign over Heaven and Earth as the king does within his borders. If I am accountable only to the demos, and I am clearly more-powerful than it is (as all democratically-elected presidents and chancellors, like Hitler, are), why do you think that their having been humbled by my God-given charisma ("gift" of leadership) should make them any less-fitting as subjects of my state power, in all its forms, even my sword?
Better not to pretend, and then have a real, good reason as to why the leader should not be hard on his subjects; whichever you get, it is a better reason because it doesn't base on the lie that people are somehow rewarding the ruler with rulership when he treats them well. Only God gives rulership.
But the state can also not be a republic, because republics do not have a fixed cultural character. They are not familial state systems. They do not have staying power. They are materialist and shallow. Monarchies, on the other hand, are by their nature able to orient a nation and its state towards a particular cultural consciousness, without which no nation can long prosper. Anyway, if the revolution is about culture--the official religion, the national cult, and the culture that grows out of that--then it must root it and fix it in a continuing family obligation, in every household, and passed down from parents to children in all our generations. The head of state, then, hands down the responsibilities of the Christian monarch, including the maintenance of the Christian Free State, as head of state. Monarchy is natural. The rest are the ideas of the envious and the impious.