It is tricky for us Rwandans eager to see more coverage of genuine and unbiased stories from our country. Yet, when that takes shape, western media coverage tends to make us cringe with disappointment, to say the least.

Take for instance, last week, The Times, a British daily national newspaper published a barrage of nonsensical articles which were undoubtedly meant to undermine the legitimacy of the Rwandan government as well as the close association enjoyed between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Kagame.

In one article, for instance, the paper lamented that "Mr Blair’s choice of protégé, of whom Mr Kagame is one of the best known, reflects poorly on his judgement.”

This, the paper contends, is especially true partly because President Kagame has ruled with an ‘autocratic hand’ and partly because the paper believes that he intends to stay in power after his tenure ends in 2017.

Additionally, although the London-based paper credits the President’s achievements in lifting many Rwandans out of poverty, this credit is expressed with a condescending tone, citing that he has been a grievous disappointment when it comes to him being a standard-bearer of ‘pluralism’.

This is, of course, typical of how western media dehumanises Africans many a time. In a parting shot, the British paper displayed its lack of quality analysis on Rwandan issues when it stated that Mr Blair should have cut all links with President Kagame long ago.

What started all this, I hear you ask? The onslaught which came in no fewer than four intertwined versions was a direct result of the UK government’s refusal to grant a Freedom of Information Act request made by the paper to see details of communications between Mr Blair and the UK Foreign Office on President Kagame and Rwanda, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s communications with Tony Blair, his charity Africa Governance Initiative (AGI) with whom Rwanda is a partner, and the Office of Tony Blair.

It is believed that The Times wanted to establish whether Mr Blair has any commercial interests in Rwanda.

Western reporting of Rwanda is often marred with factual errors, incomplete analysis and a heavy sense of ‘we know what is best for you’ type of attitude. The point is that when it comes to Rwanda and African nations with a troubled past, western media largely relies heavily and uncritically on sources which harbour hidden agendas.

Some development organisations come to mind, especially when it is obvious that their material is intended to attract more funding.

To them, what good would it be to decorate the Rwandan government with authentic compliments when the longer Rwanda enjoys stability and prosperity only serves to reduce the length of their stay in a blissfully calm environment of Kigali?

On the other hand, the most dramatic, unfounded and dark stories can only serve to a) prolong their stay, and b) advance the careers of those who scream the loudest.

Over time, I have come to learn how the readership in the west is obsessed with dark stories, and the media here know how to exploit that thirst. Reporting the steady progress being made in many areas in Rwanda and identifying those responsible does not catch the headlines.

Is Kagame an autocrat?

The answer to this largely depends on who you are. If your interests are selfish ones or for that matter you hold a personal grudge with the President himself, you may be foolishly inclined to answer yes.

However, if you are Rwandan and have been desperate for many years to see your country climb out of the limbo that characterises a lot of African nations, your answer is most likely; who cares!

Because, to you, although the term autocrat may bring a seemingly negative connotation, in reality, what you care more about is the efficient delivery of public services, zero tolerance for corruption, access to healthcare and education, gender equality, opportunities for all, peace, security and economic development.

By virtue of these responsibilities, in Rwanda we know that there is little margin for error, a situation that thus requires a leader with a strong visionary character.

Rwandans have for a very long time felt dehumanised, and for now, if what it takes to get us to that next level is to have a leader with a clear and determined vision, we will always answer ‘yes, definitely’ to the question, ‘are you better off now than you were before President Kagame took office?,’ because, quite simply Rwandans are tired of inaction.

The problem with articles written with hidden agendas is that they criticise our leaders for not living up to western ideals of democracy, and that is an absurd basis for criticism if you ask me.

Firstly, given her history, Rwanda is by no means comparable to the rest of the world. Our values and what we hold dear cannot be analysed with a one-size-fits-all approach commonly dished out by western media and co.  

This is by far not a matter of low expectations for our country; this is about recognising that we as Rwandans truly know where we have been, where we are currently, and where we ought to be. Others can, of course, have an opinion, but that will be just that.

On the whole, President Kagame and his government deserve credit for leading Rwanda toward a more secure and prosperous future; that much is beyond dispute.

If you are going to want me to take your criticism of my current government any seriously, I expected you to at least fault some policies as being below par rather than speculate on the working relationship of two men attempting to better our lives. 

Also, if you are in the business of forecasting post-2017 Rwanda, rest assured that in Rwanda, today, and now, is what counts. We will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Email: junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk