O-blog-dee-o-blog-da

Zohran Mamdani’s alleged Ugandan Extravaganza Adds to the Political and Ethical Questions raised by his failures on Antisemitism:

By Melanie Nathan, August 02, 2025.

What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander—but when it comes to Zohran Mamdani, the double standard is glaring. The political values he champions in the United States—equity, humility, and solidarity with the marginalized—stand in stark and unsettling contrast to his actions on African soil. The disconnect between his public persona and private behavior is not just troubling—it’s politically and ethically disqualifying:

Zohran Mamdani, New York State Assemblymember, is a self‑described democratic socialist who is running to become New York City’s mayor on a platform built around housing justice, public service expansion, and economic democracy. His agenda, known as “Zohranomics,” seeks to freeze rents, expand affordable housing, eliminate fares on city buses, introduce universal childcare, and establish city‑owned grocery stores—funded through higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, along with municipal bonds and redirected subsidies.

However mere months after winning the New York Mayoral Democratic Party primary vote, Mamdani set off on an odyssey to the land of his birth, Uganda, where his actions overtly do not match the principles he so loudly espoused for his U.S. campaign.

If Mamdani is given a pass for displaying such blatant elitism on African soil, can we take seriously his proclaimed opposition to inequality in the United States—or is it simply a performance, selectively applied? These are the questions we must confront, beyond merely branding him a “hypocrite.”

Mamdani recently marked his marriage—already celebrated in Dubai and New York—with an alleged lavish, three-day wedding at his family’s estate in Buziga Hill, an exclusive enclave overlooking Lake Victoria near Kampala, Uganda. The event drew widespread scrutiny for its excess—not only for clashing with his democratic socialist branding in New York, but also for its disturbing tone-deafness given the political and human rights realities in Uganda.

As a country conditions expert witness in U.S. and international asylum cases involving Uganda, the following issues come sharply to mind—each one deeply troubling in the context of his presence and likely orchestration of the event:

1. Militarization of a private celebration: The presence of heavily armed Special Forces Command, loyal to one of the continent’s most repressive regimes, raises alarm. This is not mere pageantry—it is complicity with state machinery known for systemic brutality.
2. Celebrating under dictatorship: Mamdani chose to host a spectacle in a country ruled by President Yoweri Museveni, whose 40-year grip on power has seen the crushing of political opposition, censorship, and extrajudicial violence. To party amid such repression is to normalize it.
3. Stark inequality on display: While many Ugandans struggle to afford even one full meal a day, the event reportedly featured fleets of luxury vehicles, elite catering, and guarded perimeters—an obscene juxtaposition by any standard, but especially for someone preaching economic justice.
4. Silence on LGBTQI+ persecution: Uganda’s 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, dubbed the “Kill the Gays Bill,” has triggered a wave of violence, forced displacement, and asylum claims across the globe. Mamdani’s public silence on this humanitarian crisis—while celebrating in the same country—suggests willful avoidance. Many LGBTQI+ Ugandans have fled to New York, the very city where Mamdani seeks higher office, yet he fails to acknowledge or advocate for them.
5. Endorsing a state with a dire human rights record: Uganda remains one of the worst human rights offenders on the continent, as documented repeatedly in U.S. State Department reports. For a U.S. politician to host such an event there is not just a political misstep—it’s a statement of values.
6. Snub: Perhaps also a mention that the celebration occurred during the mourning period for a Ugandan Supreme Court Judge, a cultural snub to the land of his birth.

In the broader context of political avoidance and public trust, Mamdani’s record reveals a disturbing pattern: a willingness to sidestep moral clarity when it challenges his image—whether in matters of elitism, human rights, or antisemitism. His lavish wedding celebration in Uganda, guarded by state security forces in a country marked by dictatorship, extreme poverty, and anti-LGBTQI+ violence, clashed sharply with the values he claims to champion in New York. The dissonance was not just about extravagance—it was about complicity, silence, and calculated distance from accountability.

This same pattern emerges when Mamdani is confronted with the rise of antisemitic rhetoric. While pledging to combat antisemitism in New York, he has conspicuously avoided condemning the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada”—a slogan that, in today’s context, is often read as a call to global violence, including against Jews. Rather than directly addressing the harm such language inflicts, Mamdani offers intellectual parsing and deflection, providing academic definitions of intifada while ignoring the real-world consequences of its usage.

The core issue is not just what Mamdani says, but what he refuses to say—and what that reveals about his political judgment. Whether evading the realities of Ugandan authoritarianism while hosting a private spectacle or refusing to confront inflammatory, dangerous rhetoric at home, he reveals a pattern of selective outrage and performative solidarity.

If Mamdani cannot confront elitism, repression, or antisemitism when doing so might cost him politically, how can he be trusted to lead with integrity—let alone speak for the most vulnerable?

Citations:

• India Today featured a detailed breakdown of security arrangements, including armed masked guards, cell-phone jammers, luxury transport, and lavish festive visuals—all occurring during a local mourning period The Economic Times+5uk.radio.net+5MEAWW News+5.

• Firstpost offered an explainer-style piece, describing guest logistics, security presence, and the symbolic optics that clashed with local realities New York Post+3Firstpost+3www.ndtv.com+3.

• Moneycontrol (Indian-based, but sourcing Western inputs) emphasized the contrast between the estate’s VIP glamour and surrounding inequality and cultural context Moneycontrol.

• MEAWW mirrored this narrative, calling it a “socialist” politician activating exotic privilege in a repressive setting MEAWW News.

• NDTV contextualized details such as the cell-metering, elite military security, duration of the event, and nearby mourning context—all drawn from eyewitness accounts originating from Western journalism The Economic Times+5www.ndtv.com+5MEAWW News+5.

• The Economic Times (abridged coverage sourced from Western outlets) also noted local backlash, the timing during national mourning, and themes of privilege-versus-politics The Economic Times+1The Economic Times+1.

---

📰 Is there coverage by major U.S. legacy media?

As of now, mainstream U.S. legacy outlets such as The New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN have not independently reported on the wedding. Instead, their coverage has largely cited The New York Post or international media. The lack of reporting from these mainstream U.S. outlets may reflect editorial caution or a wait-and-see approach, given The Post’s tabloid reputation and potential political bias

————————————————————————————————