2 months ago
6
Last week, Paul Kagame of Rwanda was sworn in for his fourth term in office, thereby adding another five years to the 24 he has spent. By the time this new term is over in 2029, he will have officially governed Rwanda for 29 years without taking into consideration the unofficial six years he was in charge of Rwanda.
As the former rebel commander of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, whose forces swept to power in 1994, Kagame was the vice president and minister of defence of Rwanda between 1994 and 2000. However, he was seen as the de facto president because he wielded more power than the de jure president, Pasteur Bizimungu, who eventually resigned, with Kagame taking over. It is alleged that Bizimungu was forced to resign. In 2001, Bizimungu founded the Party for Democratic Renewal, but Kagame’s new government immediately proscribed it. Bizimungu was subsequently tried and handed a 15-year jail term for attempting to form a militia, inciting violence, and corruption, but was pardoned three years later by Kagame.
Therefore, if those six years of Kagame as the de facto leader of the country are added to the 24 years he has governed Rwanda, that will be 30 years in power, with another five years secured this year.
Another interesting point about Kagame’s victory in the July 15 Rwandan election was that he won with over 99.18 per cent of the vote cast, thereby beating his own past records. Kagame, who will be 67 in October, set a record when he won the 2017 election with 98.63 per cent of the vote. In 2010, he won with 93 per cent, while in 2003, he secured 95 per cent.
Rwanda’s National Electoral Commission, which said that voter turnout was a staggering 98 per cent, had disqualified some presidential aspirants, including Kagame’s fiercest critics, from participating in the election. It allowed two candidates to contest against him. While the Democratic Green Party’s candidate, Frank Habineza, scored 0.53 per cent, Philippe Mpayimana, who ran as an independent candidate, got 0.32 per cent of the vote.
Kagame has been one of the best presidents Africa has produced in the 21st century. He has brought stability and progress to Rwanda, turning it from the land of obscurity and genocide to a preferred tourist centre in Africa. The country has always featured among the fastest-growing economies, not just in Africa but in the world. Its capital Kigali is also called the cleanest city in Africa.
Under the leadership of Kagame, Rwanda has also consistently held the record of the country with the highest percentage of female representation in parliament. The percentage of women in the Rwandan parliament is usually above 60. In 2023, while Rwanda had 61.25 per cent female legislators, only two other countries had more women than men in the legislature: Nicaragua (51.65 per cent) and New Zealand (50.42 per cent).
However, Kagame’s critics accuse him of suppressing all forms of opposition and dissent. Kagame is accused of having an image of a champion of democracy and good governance abroad, which conflicts with the dictatorial image he has at home.
This does not faze those who have the view that third-world countries need “benevolent dictators” to speedily transform them and catch up with the developed countries. They cite countries like Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and China as examples. They argue that developing countries have weak institutions that cannot take independent steps that can transform countries.
But despite Kagame’s achievements, it seems history may repeat itself in Rwanda. It’s most unlikely Kagame will ever want to live in Rwanda as an ex-president. Therefore, Kagame may want to cling to power and be a life president.
Muammar Gaddafi of Libya was a great leader to Libyans but he did not end well because he stayed too long in power. Robert Mugabe led the Zimbabwean independence in 1980, making Bob Marley to sing a song for the country titled “Zimbabwe”, but Mugabe did not end well because he stayed too long in power.
For anybody who truly wants to create some milestones while holding a political post, especially that of the president of a country, about 10 years is enough for that. That Kagame has not been able to find a successor after over two decades points to a problem.
Some could argue that Kagame is building “a solid foundation” for Rwanda. They could point at Singapore where Lee Kuan Yew governed as prime minister from 1959 to 1990 (31 years). But the lure of power is dangerous. The moment political leaders see themselves as the only people who can govern a country successfully, it blunts their sense of judgement. They equate themselves unknowingly with the state. They start to see their desires as the desires of the country. Anybody who opposes them becomes an enemy and a saboteur that must be taken out. The only people they trust become those who praise them and tell them only what they want to hear.
Kagame has done well for Rwanda. One wishes that there were more African leaders with his type of vision and commitment to development. It is surprising that it is the same Rwanda that had gory scenes of genocide in 1994 that one sees these days. He discovered that ethnic loyalty is perhaps the biggest problem most African countries face, which creates perennial crises and stunts their growth.
Therefore, he took decisive legislative steps to eliminate ethnic identification. In 2001, laws against ethnic divisionism and discrimination were passed and are enshrined in the 2003 constitution. The penalty for breaching these laws includes long prison terms and heavy fines. The Rwandan state promotes the ideology of ndi umunyarwanda (“I am Rwandan”) or Rwandan nationality as the only welcome identity. Rwandans now see themselves as Rwandans and not as Hutu or Tutsi or Twa. Rwandans are now taught that Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa ethnic identification was a divisive mechanism imposed by Belgian colonials who wanted to make their rule more successful.
It is now considered rude and divisive for even a visitor to ask Rwandans about their ethnic groups. The idea behind this is to make it easier for Rwandans to build a nation in which they see one another as compatriots and judge people based on the strength of their character rather than their ethnicity, which was what led to the 1994 genocide and the decades of backwardness and strife that preceded the genocide.
Some people may argue that ethnic identity should not be suppressed with legislation, but that patriotism should be taught and allowed to naturally take root. However, there are some subtle parallels in developed countries. In most Western countries, it is against the law to ask someone: “Where are you from?” It is also against the law to ask people their gender, age, race, marital status, and the like during processes like recruitment. These are seen as discriminatory tools. Those who have been asked such questions can sue those who asked the questions.
But despite the achievements recorded by Kagame, there is a need for him to think about what Rwanda will be without him. Does he ask himself what will happen to Rwanda if he suddenly has a fatal heart attack or plane crash? Has he built a country that can survive and continue to run seamlessly without him? Even if he does not believe in allowing democracy to choose a successor, why has he not groomed someone in the 30 years he has been in power to succeed him?
It is dangerous to hang the fate of a country of 14 million on one human being. It will be heartbreaking for the progress made by Rwanda to be reversed by an unforeseen circumstance or an uprising caused by discontent. No matter how good a leader is, the followers will one day become weary of seeing the same face for decades. Africa needs to start creating several examples of true democracies.
–X: @BrandAzuka
English (US) ·