President Paul Kagame’s critics, who have been anticipating that he would declare his intention to seek re-election when his current term ends in 2017 and then come at him with their daggers, must wait a little longer.

They would be better advised to put them back in their sheaths because he has not yet made that announcement.

They are not even genuine critics but arrogant dictators who claim the right to instruct others on what to do. Take the recent statement by the United States Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, that her government expects President Kagame to set an example to the region and step down at the end of his term.

There is so much wrong with this statement.

First, it reeks of arrogance and paternalism.

Second, the US seeks to usurp the right of Rwandans or at any rate to disregard their views as of no consequence, and get them to behave according to the dictates of the US.

Third, it is not President Kagame’s business to set an example to non-Rwandans. He is not that presumptuous.

His contract is only with Rwandans. In any case, there is hypocrisy here. Whenever African leaders have sought to rally other Africans towards a common goal or approach to an issue, they have been denounced as dangerous, not lauded as exemplary. Their efforts are checked, not encouraged.

We have heard the same arguments before. On several occasions, the last time being on his visit to Kenya in July, President Barack Obama has lectured Africans that what they need are not strong men but strong institutions. Yet when an institution, like the Parliament of Rwanda, functions as it should, its actions are called "manoeuvres”.

Parliament received requests of the people, acted on them and will report back to them to make their decision in a referendum. In my simple understanding, that is an institution doing its work. There is no picture of a strong man anywhere.

Speaking of manoeuvres, there is probably no other parliament in the world that resorts to them as the US Congress. Where else do you get a political stunt act of a man taking to the floor and speaking for hours on end to prevent a vote on a motion he or his sponsors do not like? Ambassador Power and her boss obviously get frustrated by these acts, but have never questioned their validity or denounced them as mere antics or manoeuvres.

Good manners stop us from calling their legislative assembly a circus when they resort to such acts.

Can we ever do anything right in the eyes of the earthly almighty? It seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

The usual pretext for the arrogance is democracy; that we do a bad job of it when we try but that very often we don’t even try at all. And even then democracy is restricted to a narrow notion -the peaceful transfer of power.

There are some issues with this limited view of such a complex subject as democracy.

First of all, being in power is not merely about taking turns, which is what seems to be in the minds of those insisting that leaders must leave at the end of their term. It is more about transforming societies, putting in place building blocks for a sustainable system, including the transfer of power.

Secondly, the transfer of power is not an end in itself, or an isolated event. It is the culmination of a process, not the beginning of one. It is not the foundation but is built on one. We should not confuse processes with specific acts as our instructors will want us to do, and some of our intellectuals believe.

Thirdly, for peaceful transfer of power to take place, other conditions must be in place. The society needs to be sufficiently cohesive, be inclusive and have a solid identity. These are after all what good politics are supposed to foster and protect.

Fourth, a leader’s departure from office seems to be the measure of his success, not his achievements while in office. By this standard, leaders who have left their countries in a mess are praised as democrats when they should be roundly condemned as dismal failures.

In building democratic governance, Rwandans have rejected this skewed and limited view of democracy. They have chosen to consolidate their gains by putting a premium on their identity and stability of the nation.

My understanding of democracy is that it is the right of a people to make choices that foster their progress. The choices must be theirs, must suit them and be designed to advance the national interest. In other words, the choices must be sovereign.

Nowhere does the definition of democracy or its practice include the word "impose”. Imposition of one’s will on others or discounting their choices is by definition anti-democratic and dictatorial.

But even assuming that anyone has the right to impose ‘democracy’ on others, the record by some of these is not flattering. For instance, successive US administrations have sought to export democracy to other regions.

They have only succeeded in destroying states and breaking up nations, and spawning lawlessness.

The lesson is clear. Support those countries building systems and institutions; do not undermine them. If that is asking too much, let them be.

jorwagatare@yahoo.co.uk