In this column last week I pointed the practice of politics that is reckless, distracting, and selfish. These, as I noted then, were the manifestations of structural defects that needed urgent reorganisation in such a way as to give way to a brand of politics in which the interests of the politicians are aligned with those of the multitudes of their citizens. Else, and sadly, the ordinary person will continue to be collateral damage.

There is this oft-repeated claim that we learn from our history. But, do we? Some reflection might force us reconsider, retreat to a wholly different direction. In fact, at times it seems like we learn nothing at all.

For one thing, the recurrence of crises in our region out to have taught us some fundamental things about who we are, how we relate to others with whom we share membership in the social setting, and the kind of politics around which to organise our societies. If we did this we would add a few incontrovertible facts to our political toolkit and avoid much of the self-inflicted damage we often cause ourselves.

Here are the truths:

1. Security is the bedrock for progress. We ought to have learned by now from experiences elsewhere on the continent over the past couple of decades that nothing sustainable can be built that is not erected upon a strong and professional security sector. We have seen societies that many had lauded as success stories disintegrate to a shell of their former self. It is this understanding that informs the sustained project of building a professional security service -- the military and the police -- that has roots in the citizens, one whose primary commitment is the protection of citizens.

2. Our socioeconomic context is not conducive for the winner-take-all brand of politics. The primary reason is that our economic base is not broad enough to provide a soft-landing spot for political losers. Our politicians often have only one career: politics. This means that were one to lose elections, there is nowhere else to turn.

Elsewhere, a political pugilist might be an academic, a lawyer, or business person in their ‘civilian roles.’ Thus, if such a person were to lose at the ballot, life is not finished. They are likely to return to their profession, to strategise in order to reflect and likely mount a political counteroffensive in the next electoral cycle. Thus, the ‘civilian profession’ is their tactical base.

3. As a result of the second point above, there is a tendency towards unprincipled politics, practiced by politicians without personal or political principles. Elsewhere, this is called "the politics of the belly.”

4. We (in the sense of the collective-other) lack a policy-driven politics. The reason for this is the third point above. Under normal circumstances, politicians would create a series of policies and provide reasons why these are superior to those of the government in power, or why a new policy needs to be created altogether. They can either convince the government in power to take up this policy initiative or hold on to it as part of their manifesto, the basis of which they convince the citizens to vote for them.

5. However, to be able to do point #4 above one needs to have research capacity. Otherwise, what evidence would one use to convince the citizens that this or that policy is bad for them and offer them a better one without some systematic study that goes in detail of the policy and its consequences?

6. The reason why politicians are able to masquerade without clear policy positions is because there is no competition in the opposition. At best, they survive on populist shenanigans that are of very little value in the lives of their electorate. If there was competition, those parties grounded in point #5 would survive and the rest would be forced to wither away, with voters shunning them as incompetent, not being up to the task.

7. The reason why mediocre politicians survive (point #6) is because our citizens are largely uninformed. For this reason, it can be argued that citizens are yet to fully grasp the value of their vote and to make a direct link between the vote and the quality of public services they receive or the socioeconomic circumstances in which they find themselves.

8. For these reasons, and more, our politics remains largely attractive for those unable to inspire the rest of us toward the collective good. As result, those who perceive themselves to be persons of integrity often shun politics altogether, which is a paradox in terms of the efforts required to reorient politics; how it is organised, practiced.

9. Therefore, the tragedy in places like Burundi is largely explained by these structural defects that need urgent reshaping if our people are to have a chance -- just to stay alive.

10. Rwanda’s experience is tragedy and antidote wrapped up together. Is anyone learning anything?