Whenever the possibility of President Paul Kagame acceding to Rwandans’ wishes to continue leading them comes up, the reaction is the same and has now become predictable. It goes something like this: President Kagame risks jeopardising his legacy and the image of Rwanda if he submits to the people’s will and serves another term. And if he is reckless enough to do so, he will undo all the good work he has done; Rwanda’s economy will unravel because aid will be cut. 

This none too gentle warning does not come from Rwandans, of course. It is a threat that comes from outsiders that would actually jeopardise Rwanda’s progress.

So, what is it about legacy and image that gets foreigners all concerned and jittery, and Rwandans rather puzzled by it all? Whose legacy is it and who determines it? And taking it a bit further, on whose behalf are African leaders supposed to govern? That’s what Rwandans would like to know.

It is obvious that leaders have a direct impact on the people they lead, and it is these who should know whether that leadership is effective and worth keeping or whether it should be thrown out. It is they who can best judge what the legacy of their leader is. Legacy is about achievements. It is earned, not bestowed by a panel, certainly not of outsiders. Similarly, it cannot be withdrawn by a similar panel.

In the context of Rwanda, the measurement of the legacy of their leaders is simple. Rwandans want progress and prosperity. They want to be able to make choices about how to conduct their own affairs. They want dignity and respect. To achieve all this, they need a peaceful and secure environment.

The real legacy of anyone is measured by their ability to bring these about.  As far as Rwandans are concerned, President Kagame’s legacy is assured because he has put them on the road to attain their goals as a nation. By asking him to stay on, they are actually expressing the desire to consolidate the gains they have made so that whoever comes after has a solid base on which to build. They want to ensure that the legacy lasts.

In this sense legacy is not simply about the past, but more importantly about the future. For any reasonable people the security of the future is more valuable than the glamour of the past.

Then there is the threat to cut aid should the people prevail on President Kagame and he seeks re-election. This has nothing to do with legacy. It is plain blackmail and bullying.

The threat goes against the assumptions on which aid is based. It is supposed to be a generous contribution to help some people get out of their miserable existence. This is obviously an idealistic view, but it is probably the view of ordinary taxpayers in donor countries. They think their taxes are going towards a good cause. They do not know that their governments, sections of the media and activists of every stripe have a different view; that aid is a stick in their hands to keep recipients in check and forever feeling indebted.

In any case, the history of aid in Rwanda has produced mixed results. For over thirty years, the country was almost totally reliant on aid, but there was little visible progress to show for it. On the contrary, dependency increased. The word abagiraneza (do-gooders) gained currency. This strange breed of people was the answer for everything, including fashioning a village path.

By contrast, the last twenty years have seen more progress and greater self-reliance even as the aid stick is wielded from time to time. Only two years ago, aid was suspended over happenings in DR Congo.

Some will remember that in the years following the end of the Genocide of the Tutsi in 1994, aid was withheld at a time when the country needed it most. Rwanda did not only survive but made some progress as well.

If there is any risk to President Kagame’s legacy and the image of Rwanda, it will not come from heeding the people’s pleas, but from attempts, from whatever quarter, to undermine the collective achievements of Rwandans. All sorts of threats work against the dignity of Rwandans and the drive for self-reliance, which are at the centre of Kagame’s legacy. They go against the freedom of people to make independent choices based on their specific needs, unique realities and historical context.

So we return to the question: what is this thing about legacy? Is it about a person securing his place in somebody else’s definition of history? Or is it about a record of achievements of a people and the security of their future? Rwandans think it is the latter.

jorwagatare@yahoo.co.uk