Last week we were presented with two versions of Rwanda. The two could not have been farther apart.

One is set in 2014 and reflects the contemporary situation of the country that everyone is familiar with. It could well have been titled Rwanda Today. This one is easy to believe because it is based on fact and measurable data. The evidence is provided by ordinary citizens known for being frank and truthful.

The other was a 1970s version of African countries that still lingers in the imagination of outsiders and is fuelled by bias and wishful thinking. One even detects a willful reluctance to accept the current reality. Whether it is a result of ignorance, willful denial or time freeze, this version is difficult to believe. It is a fantasy tale crafted in the distant past by professional fabricators famous for embellishment and hyperbole.

On Saturday 20 September, Andrew Mwenda, the CEO of the Independent news magazine in Uganda, presented the first version to Rwandans attending Rwanda Day in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States.

He gave a long list of citizen assessments of their government. All were impressive and credible since the evaluation had been done by reputable international organizations.

According to various surveys, 98% of Rwandans trust the presidency and the army. Over 90% have faith in public institutions and judicial systems. Nearly 90% have confidence in the police.

Well over 80% trust the electoral process and say they have freedom assembly and that the media is free.

These are remarkable findings by any measure. Overall the picture is of a citizenry that is happy with the way it is governed and confident about the future.

This is Rwanda today.

Then there is the other one of yesteryear, and who to present it than Filip Reyntjens whose knowledge of the country stopped growing twenty years ago.

In an article in World Politics Review, he writes of military purges and political cracks in the Rwanda government (only he does not call it that, but Kagame’s regime) that spell its inevitable demise (according to him). As has become increasingly clear in the past few years, he is way off the mark.

First, he writes about non-existent purges. The choice of the word, of course, betrays his starting point. It is a word rarely used today, but one that had currency in the past.

It is often associated with the Stalinist period in the Soviet Union and the 1970s military dictatorships in Africa and Latin America. The word conjures up images of brutality and citizen helplessness – perhaps Reyntjens’ intention.

Reyntjens’ assertion of a purge is factually wrong and flies in the face of any logic. There was never any such thing, only the arrest and trial, as he admits, of a retired officer and a serving one on criminal charges, which point he deliberately omits. But even assuming that they had been dismissed for other reasons, would the removal of two officers constitute a purge?

Obviously this is a case of exaggeration intended to create the impression of a situation that does not exist. It can only be a projection of Reyntjens’ wish.

He then talks of a looming political crisis caused by so-called cracks in "Kagame’s regime”.

Again, this conclusion is rooted in 1970s analysis of politics in Africa. It is based on the big man perception, where the absolute ruler holds all power and citizens have no role.

There is a problem here. How do you reconcile this assumption and the actual evidence presented by different international polling organizations? It beggars belief to imagine that 98% of the people can bestow their trust on a person who oppresses them.

In typical 1970s fashion, Reyntjens disregards the evidence and instead prophesies doom. In his imagination (wish) the cracks will grow wider and before long a massive political eruption will take place. Such things happened in the past when he and others of his kind ordered events on the continent. They also happen in the mind.

Reyntjens seems to gloat over his depiction of a fantasy that he thinks Rwanda is and then rants against the real one, making incredible accusations against its government. One wonders why he should do this.

Is it perhaps a way of protesting his inability to influence the government as he used to do in the past? There is always the feeling that he would love to get involved and become relevant again.

Perhaps. But whatever the reason, his remarks should not be dismissed as mere idle talk of an embittered man. They may also reflect the thinking of certain quarters within the ruling establishment in some European countries.

And so we have these two versions of Rwanda: one sitting on a volcano about to erupt according to far-away "experts”; the other of some of the most optimistic and civic minded citizens in the world as President Paul Kagame put it in New York last week..

One is the real Rwanda today of confident people; the other a piece of scare-mongering fiction.