It is without doubt that Rwandans inside the country are much more united than their compatriots outside. This apparent lack of unity is likely a result of limited access to information about the status, progress, and remaining challenges in their homeland.

Also, their main source of information are our exiled elites and the international media both of which, going by a series of events, it appears cannot be relied upon to provide fair and balanced information on developments in this country.

As if in cahoots, the level of coordination suggests that international media is, to a rather perplexing extent, dependent on Rwandan exiles for information they use in their stories.

That in itself would not be a problem; however, it seems that the media takes the information thus provided on face value without going the extra mile as is called for by their profession to ascertain its validity, especially when it should be expected that exiles and political opponents are likely to hold hostile views about their home country.

But if the interest of exiled elites is regime change, what about that of the international media?

Speculation abounds that powerful foreign governments are behind this dubious practice, influencing media houses to practice a different form of journalism, with lower ethical and professional standards, than they do in their home countries.

This practice, it is suggested, is predominant in order to influence outcomes particularly in their former colonies.

The target is the recalcitrant leader. The objective is to tarnish his (usually a he) image in the hope of eroding his support not only among ordinary citizens in and outside the country but also to pressure powerful international actors to abandon him by suggesting that in his association they are damaging their legacy.

Elsewhere this has been called the process of regime destabilisation that, if successful in gradually eating away an unwanted government, has regime change as its ultimate goal, replacing the leader with a more agreeable personality. Some are likely to consider such as a cynical view. For them, it is the gullibility of the international media that keeps them uniformed and therefore susceptible to manipulation at the hands of the exiled elite.

The platforms they provide are abused, it is argued, without their prior knowledge and are therefore not active participants in the disinformation campaign. As such, this view holds, theirs is a crime of omission.

The tragedy is that, toxic as their information can be, these are the two major sources of information for ordinary Rwandans in the Diaspora. With no accurate and reliable information on their country, they are susceptible to manipulation. This entrenches divisions that many Rwandans inside the country have transcended.

Even worse, this robs them of any meaningful interaction with their country. Ignorance about real developments in the country, more importantly, is a loss for all of us: it retards the development of a national consciousness, otherwise known as patriotism, and negates the pursuit of a common understanding as well as the nurturing of a collective sensibility around key issues of national concern.

While it is the work of opponents of government to wish for its replacement, there ought to be a certain decorum under which such ambitions are pursued and going outside such parameters ought to garner collective popular outrage.

The Global Jewish Diaspora

It is the absence of this decorum that prevented the kind of outrage that would be expected after the airing of a documentary such as the BBC’s "Rwanda: The Untold Story.” Said another way, the audacity to air such a film is simply one of the ways in which the absence of a collective consciousness manifests itself.

Such an abomination cannot happen against Israel vis-à-vis the Holocaust. That is because they are a mobilised people with a national consciousness. Those inside and outside the country understand the key principles that the state stands for and, for the most part, are prepared to defend them.

Most Jews, for instance, understand that the history of the suffering of their people has shaped the way they view the world. Most importantly, many Jews oppose aspects of the pre-emptive self-defence doctrine, the disproportionate use of force against Palestinians, and the building of settlements in Palestine, and many other controversial government policies.

However, in circumstances where their country comes under anti-Semitic assaults, almost all of those who disagree with the above policies are quick to rally around the nation, in its defence.

Among its elites, therefore, the unstated agreement is that all other issues are fair game and subject to discussion and questioning, except attempts to encourage the denial of the Holocaust disguised as intellectual discourse.

What this suggests is that there is room for our elites to style up. And for the rest of us to develop the courage to become outraged whenever they overstep the boundaries of decorum. lonzen.rugira@gmail.com