Rwanda is on everyone’s mind again. Sixteen years after the country suffered through a civil war and endured the nightmare of a genocide, we’re once again concerned about the tiny east African nation, no bigger than Maryland. This time our concern is over the country’s “democracy” in the hands of president Paul Kagame, who won a second seven-year term last Monday.
Kagame has been Rwanda’s unlikely ruler since 2003. He is a soldier – a former guerilla to be precise, though his rail-thin frame and wire-rimmed glasses would lead you to believe otherwise. He trained in Uganda, as did many of his ethnic Tutsi brethren. Yup, the Tutsis – the Rwandan genocide’s main victims. They’ve had, as most minorities do, a difficult time under the “strong arm” of the majority Hutus.
Strong arm is exactly how many describe Kagame’s own “reign” over Rwanda today. He is accused of using “authoritarian” tactics to quiet, and thereby defeat any opposition to his rule. Among the tactics he is accused of using is the arrest of challengers, the shutting down of critical media outlets and possibly, according to several human rights groups, the ordering of the assassination of rivals. Kagame categorically rejects these “unfair” claims that “have no basis” or “evidence to back them up.”
Instead he points to his record from the past seven years – a record that shows Rwanda catapulting to become Africa’s safest, most prosperous and least corrupt. It is a country where the number of women in government is the highest in the world, where foreigners are pouring in investments, Rwandans are becoming entrepreneurs and poverty levels are diminishing. It is this record, Kagame claims, along with his strong leadership, that helped him get re-elected last Monday.
Strong leadership is something Kagame takes seriously. “The genocide that took place here in Rwanda,” he said the day after the election, “was due to bad politics; was due to weak leadership.” Weak leadership is something Kagame is not willing to risk. But how strong is too strong?
In the wake of the failed Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk barely wrestled a homeland for the Turks out of the colonial hands of the British, French, Greeks, Russians and Italians. Tasked with building not only a modern day state but also a single Turkish identity, he shut down mosques, banned women from the wearing of the Islamic veil and denied the formation of opposition parties. They were tactics, among others, many regarded as “authoritarian.” Ataturk felt they were a temporary necessity in order to propel Turkey forward to realizing its place as a European state. Today Turkey is a full-fledged democracy, a member of the G20 and is represented on the UN Security Council.
Authoritarianism is just as bad as weak leadership and anarchy. It creates fear. And as Rwanda saw in 1994, fear leads to unimaginable chaos and tragedy. But it is dangerous to accuse strong leadership of being anti-democratic. Strong leadership is the basis for security and trust – the root of any democracy. We see how the lack of those two elements has virtually destroyed Pakistan and Afghanistan and how it cripples Iraq today.
There is good reason for human rights groups to keep a close eye on Rwanda, just as there is good reason for Paul Kagame to take his landslide victory and continue leading his country into progress. There is less reason – or justification – for Western concerns about democracy in Rwanda, especially in the face of the West’s uneven history there.
3 Comments
I love your perspective. I was just there in December and am going back at the end of the year, and I know people who were there during rallies leading up to the election. The people of Rwanda really do love Kagame; it does not feel forced when you are there – not in Kigali City and not in outlying provinces. Your perspective is one of the most balanced I’ve seen and it does highlight the potential for the pendulum swing. The strong leadership needed to right the country’s political strife could, if gone unchecked, go too far, ironically leading it right back to where it was. However, I believe Kagame was the right person and fit to improve the country as a whole, and is the right person now…but he needs to show openness to opposition and to hearing the country’s voice. The people’s needs will continue to evolve as he elevates Rwanda’s position in Africa – and another leader may be better suited to take the country from there. I applaud your ability to observe and highlight the risks without perpetuating the solitary view that Kagame is oppressing the nation. Thank you for this post.
Elmira – I agree this is a fair and informed perspective. Western dictates on ‘democracy’ cannot apply in a country with Rwanda’s recent past, and, more importantly, ongoing threats from hostile forces at its borders. ‘Open’ elections and ‘free’ speech are luxuries afforded mature, secure democracies, and I believe that if opposition candidates like Ingabire were allowed to run on divisionist (and revisionist) platforms, there is a real danger of civil strife. Likewise, the two closed opposition papers were more intent on stirring up past hatred than reporting news. What Rwanda needs now is stability and security — Kagame has proven himself up to the task, and will continue leading the country forward with a steady hand and little tolerance for outside interference (or Western criticism). Authoritarianism pretty well sums it up.
That being said, I think Kagame’s ‘landslide’ highlights the dubious value of elections that aren’t open, in a society where past horrors and present fears dominate people’s decision making. I don’t agree with Kat’s comment that the people of Rwanda love Kagame. MANY people in Rwanda love Kagame. Some Rwandans (probably a small percentage, though there’s no way of knowing) do not love Kagame, and would, under different circumstances, openly oppose him. They wisely choose to keep quiet, and vote when (and for whom) they are told. The MAJORITY of Rwandans don’t love or hate Kagame, but appreciate the stability he has delivered, and endure the limitations on their personal freedom this stability ‘requires’. (Better the strong-armed leadership we know than the potentially catastrophic leadership we don’t.)
Having spoken with a number of people, friends and colleagues, in the run-up to the elections and afterwards, I know that many people vote here because they fear retribution if they don’t (“I’m on the district list, if I don’t vote THEY will know.”) And they vote for Kagame because doing anything else could invite more serious retribution than not voting at all. It’s not death or dismemberment people fear, but a life made incrementally more difficult, in an environment that is already quite challenging.
This obviously isn’t the case for everyone. The truth is that there weren’t alternatives on the ballot with the stature, experience, and reputation of Kagame — he WAS the best candidate. Despite this truth, fear and intimidation were leveraged across the population to quell dissent and ensure a ‘landslide’. Which is no surprise, really — authoritarian leaders have a knack for ensuring lopsided victories (http://bit.ly/9zaBob).
Is Kagame the right leader for Rwanda right now? Yes, absolutely.
Did 95+% of Rwandans freely anoint him as their candidate of choice? Not bloody likely.
Geez, that’s uenbielvable. Kudos and such.
One Trackback
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Elmira Bayrasli and Rwanda Works, Kit Cody. Kit Cody said: Rwanda: Progress or Democracy? http://bit.ly/cfFsnY thoughtful + perceptive post-election post by the always insightful @endeavoringE [...]