As the Ugandan presidential and parliamentary elections take place this coming week, at least one opinion poll has, surprisingly, shown a much stronger-than-expected support for the two leading opposition presidential candidates, Dr Kizza Besigye and former prime minister Amama Mbabazi.

Surprisingly because President Yoweri Museveni has — and has not failed to exercise — all the many advantages of incumbency. Ranging from far greater campaign spending than Besigye and Mbabazi, at least 12 times more by one accounting.

To greater access to all parts of the country for campaigning — using public transport. To greater media access and coverage, the latest drama being the stand-off with the Nation Media Group over the use of public drone footage. To, finally, the partisan nature of policing during the campaigns.

All of which combined allow us to conclude that, even before Ugandans cast their ballots, the playing field has not been level. That Besigye and Mbabazi are doing as well as they are despite their disadvantage is both to their credit and also, telling about the will for change among the electorate.

There is no use crying over spilt milk. But some reflections come to mind from the Kenyan experience of 2002 — when the opposition finally, under one umbrella, managed to dislodge both the chosen successor of the incumbent (who’d lorded it over Kenyans for 24 years (astonishingly, six short of Museveni’s now 30-year reign) and the political party in charge since Independence. What enabled the Kenyan political “transition?”

Arguably, four critical conditions: First, the fielding of a single presidential contender by the opposition following the recognition that its vote combined in both 1992 and 1997 had exceeded that of the incumbent.

Second, the apparent decision of the security services to communicate their expectation that Moi would respect the Constitution and step down — an indication given (diplomatically and politely) through their joint farewell reception for the incumbent.

Third, the gutting of the ruling political party following the incumbent’s decision to personally anoint a successor rather than let the internal “democratic” process determine its candidate. The resulting walkout to the opposition was the stuff of political legend.

Fourth, the call for constitutional reform had come — with much drama, sweat and tears over the preceding decade — to encapsulate all the changes that Kenyans wanted to see. An end to the dictatorship. An end to corruption and impunity. The possibility of life and livelihoods.

Do any of those conditions now pertain in Uganda? The opposition failed to field a single candidate under one umbrella. The security services continue to see themselves as working for the incumbent, not the public interest — going by the shocking statements by various security heads over the past few weeks.

While both Besigye and Mbabazi have their political roots in the National Resistance Movement, the NRM can hardly be said to be gutted by their defections — one a long time ago and one more recently. Finally, there is no national organising principle for the opposition. It calls for change but what does “change” mean?

As observers of our neighbours, it is probably safe to say Museveni will win. Protest will be contained. More or less quickly. And Ugandans will settle back down for another half-decade of Museveni and NRM rule.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, covering East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes.