As pointed out previously, the decision by top RPF cadres to endorse the change in our constitution and request President Kagame to deliver post 2017, so as to sustain our stability of literally every sector of our economy, was telling. 

Telling a story of how we Rwandans understand who we are, where we have come from and where we are heading.

The fears outlined in my previous article and which, in most part informed RPF’s decision, were analyzed critically and found to pose existence threat to Rwanda, and to Rwandans.

Now, one would have expected a would-be heir apparent to emerge from one of the 600 top cadres. That all agreed on maintaining exemplary leadership of President Paul Kagame endorsed the judgment of close to 4 million Rwandans who had much earlier petitioned the Parliament to change our constitution as well.

The fact that everyone has a similar opinion is not accidental. It is a product of soul searching and contemplation of Rwanda.

Manipulation

Now, some parties either from either ignorance of what Rwanda is, or being out of touch with our realities have advanced a stupid theory that four million people were coerced to sign the petitions in the parliament. Such a theory is as dead as it can be, and takes us Rwandans for granted which is unfortunate.

How on earth can anyone manipulate four million people into signing such a petition? He/she would a genius manipulator.

Secondly, if this had happened, it would have stalled the entire project as a sham, which would have then put President Kagame’s stand on the constitution contradictory. No one could have dared that anyway.

Thirdly, were the top 600 cadres/leaders manipulated to think and act the same way by reading from the same script? If one can’t see that, there is a fundamental issue here, there can’t be one.

Fourthly, if one remembers that, the call for third term started way back mid 2013 where ordinary Rwandans attending public rallies in Rusizi, Nyamasheke, and Nyamagabe began the crusade of continuity, based on how good leadership changed their lives visibly.

Various opinion leaders, members of the private sector, and professionals joined the movement, so much so that the call become a national position by end 2014. The general public had formed their opinion and taken a stand on 2017, and how they wanted to be governed.

There was no coercion in these rallies and different forums that President Kagame addressed. It was spontaneous and from the hearts. Attention diversion, confusion political opportunism and wishful thinking of a few that don’t either understand Rwanda, or don’t want to, will not stop our wishes and aspiration of Rwandans.

No one can stop an idea whose time has come. No change is that idea. 

Fifth, the 4 million petitions is around 72% of our electoral roll, and given that President Kagame garnered 93% of all votes in 2010 general election, is this not a normal trend?

Moreover, this process will end up in a referendum that will give the precise figure of those in favour of the change and those against it. So speculative journalism, which pretends that this important national issue belongs to a one size fits all narrative about ‘all Africans being the same’, is false. We are NOT all the same.  No surprises

It is no surprise that some external parties are making noises. And with FDLR and their supporters on the bandwagon, we know what to expect of them where our homework is concerned. It certainly can’t be their homework. Theirs is unfinished business. The final solution, that will never be.

Also, no one is surprised that the issue of manipulation has been making rounds among subjective media outlets who ask the same renegades of our society to comment on issues either they have no expertise over, or extremely negative (as have been) or even out of touch with realities on ground or a combination of these.

More so, everything Rwandan has been questioned by the same characters from Gacaca, to Girainka, to Ndi Umunyarwanda programs etc, even when their benefits for our people and to which they acknowledge are ignored. In fact we have gotten used to such, for we are aware that, we owe it to ourselves, and for ourselves.

And so is the constitutional amendment in progress. 

The reverse debate?

This is a flat and empty debate one can advance on a fundamental issue as the life and future of a people and country after 2017. Opponents of term limits’ main argument is "obey the constitution…don’t change it”. Citing the ‘inviolability’ of article 101. Ironically, articles of a constitution or any law for that matter can’t be interpreted in isolation. Articles 101 and 193 are inseparable.  

That is why if you read article 101 alongside article 193 which stipulates how the term limits can be uplifted by those who set them in the first place, the cloud over the limits disappears.

And although most of these are external parties whose philosophy hinges on the wrong premise that equates term limits to democracy, a fallacy in the extreme, these parties ignore the fact that, first this is OUR constitution and not theirs, and that we love it more than they do.

Secondly they ignore the fact that, what we have been doing is strict adherence to our constitution from the debate we have had among ourselves, the petitions taken to parliament and the referendum we are going to have to vote for change or no change.

In essence we haven’t changed our constitution. We are excising our constitutional rights to do so. We may win or lose the referendum, although going by the numbers in petition, loss is not an option.

Their second argument is President Kagame is tired, and he should rest. Who told them he is tired? And at 57? He is not even fit for retirement.

This is the prime age for the best managers though he has been one for as long as he has been in public office. President Buhari of Nigeria, who is 73 years old, was elected recently.

These opponents posit the argument of legacy to the effect that if he were to leave he would leave a legacy of a statesman.

Question is, what if he leaves, and Rwanda leaves with him? What type of legacy would that be? His legacy of a stable, prosperous and sustainable Rwanda is yet to be.

They further argue that, if he stays he will be drunk with power and will not leave and if he leaves turmoil will ensure. They are not talking of President Kagame but rather old presidents whose absolute power has corrupted them absolutely.

He has used power to empower Rwandans and not himself. His humility has meant that, he has forgone the luxuries of power, so that Rwandans can enjoy luxuries of security, stability, unprecedented transformation socio-economic transformation we enjoy today.

Analyzing issues advanced by the reverse debate (to which they are entitled) one picks a strand of tired arguments, quite irrelevant for the objective of the debate for they don’t support ‘continuity and stability thesis’.

Most are out of touch with reality on the ground, and more importantly, lack national objectivity and realism for they don’t address the existential threats posed. They won’t learn but can’t refuse to see

Managing both a post-conflict and a post-genocide country calls for rare skills, tenacity, innovativeness imaginative ingenuity, charisma and prudence. Such has skills have been lacking in many leaders in post-conflict countries. Just look at Liberia, Somalia, Iraq and Libya.

These countries pose serious challenges to their current leaders who have found it very difficult, in fact impossible, to return these countries even to the levels the so called dictators had held them, and may never be going by what we read and see.

The consequence has been that terrorists such as ISIS and Al-Shaabab have found fertile grounds in the failure of the current leadership in a bid to ‘correct state failures’.

But these are a product of failed leadership/states, much as FDLR would have been in our country hadn’t been for our exemplary leadership.

Thus, western simplisists are fighting two fronts. The rise of terrorists ostensibly trying to fix the failed states, and second helping the leaders shape up. Both of which is proving to be elusive.

These western simplistic ideologists have now argued that, these countries leaders’ must own up and put their houses in order. That is easy to say than do.  It is easy to destroy a country in the name of removing one person dubbed a dictator, and another to pick up the pieces and fix the same country.

Truth is, these countries are unique, and so will be strategies to fix them. When you ignore the context in which a country is operating, they cannot ignore the consequences of mistakes they have made in the name of restoring normalcy to the same country.

And so if you got a leader to fix Libya, Iraq etc, would any rational being limit him to time constraints when the problems at hand are time variant?

Development history shows that, it takes a minimum of three centuries to restore a post-conflict country to its pre-crisis form, and at most five centuries to position such country to a self-sustaining mode on condition that, there is a capable and focused leader in place.

We are two centuries away from our crisis point and two years from the decision point. Our homework is in black and white.  The writer is an economist and financial expert.

Email: nshutim@gmail.com

To be continued…