December has been a good month for many Rwandans.

In fact, aside from the landslide victory registered by the Yes voters during the recently concluded referendum, The Economist  news magazine also revealed last week that Rwandans can now expect to live almost 32 years longer than they did only a quarter of a century ago.

This is by no means a minor stride; it is in fact a giant step towards achieving better standards of living for all.But make no mistake to assume that improvements in life expectancy happen by luck. There are certain factors of influence that a government must get right for any improvements to come to fruition.

For example, making sure that people have access to healthcare is very critical in improving life expectancy because it allows for early detection, prevention, and cure of certain killer diseases that would have otherwise reduced life expectancy.

Likewise, efforts to reduce levels of extreme poverty contribute immensely to improved life expectancy simply because the more people have a better income, the more they are likely to provide their families with a balanced diet, safe drinking water, and sanitation to mention but a few.

Access to education also contributes greatly to a longer life expectancy.  Rwanda has registered several milestones in all these categories.

Additionally, and as if things could not get any better for Rwanda but worse for her bashers, The Economist also revealed in the same week that from the period 1990 - 2014, Rwanda made the most progress ever registered under the United Nations’ Human Development Index.

The index, which was created 25 years ago to emphasise that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone, gives a holistic sense of how Rwanda performed vis-à-vis traditional indicators such as income per capita, life expectancy, and education.

Furthermore, and I believe most pertinently of all, on December 21, the National Electoral Commission confirmed that 98.3 per cent of voters had voted in favour of the revised constitution which ultimately permits President Paul Kagame to run for office when his current term ends in 2017.

Following a petition by over 3.7 million people, and the overwhelming vote in favour of the changes to the constitution, Rwandans now expect to retain a leader who has been tried, tested, and in many ways triumphed, so long as he chooses to heed the official request to stand for office beyond 2017.

However, as we wait to hear from the man himself, several bystanders keen to remain relevant have taken it upon themselves to question and criticise the choice of direction Rwanda is taking.

Of course, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with voicing an opinion, we all have that right.

What is absurd, however, is that while some parties have respected our wishes, others have hastily issued statements to lecture us about how we ought to conduct our democratic process, and more importantly, what is expected of us.

For instance, Ned Price, the spokesperson of the White House’s National Security Council stated this week that the referendum was "called on short notice” and that "the arrangements for the referendum failed to provide sufficient time and opportunity for political debate on the merits of the proposed provisions.” Officials from elsewhere have echoed this statement.

Please allow me to be as blunt as possible; I mean, how on earth can an observer cry foul of insufficient time when in the actual fact Rwandans started this debate in 2013?

And to add to this, how did they miss the countrywide tours of consultation conducted by parliamentarians prior to the calling of the referendum? How did they miss debates in the media, even so in their own media outlets?

But, in any case, if there was indeed insufficient time to debate this issue, isn’t it logical to expect cries from voters rather than bystanders?  

To put it simply, I believe that those turning their noses up at the way Rwandans have decided to shape their affairs must be a tad naïve to even remotely think that a set of guiding national principles enacted in the first place by the people to govern their relationship with state organs must be left untouched, unrevised, and locked away forever, regardless of whether significant issues requiring debate and, if necessary, action may arise.

Free people reserve the right to debate and, if necessary, amend their guiding principles at a time that suits them. After all, records show that constitutions from around the world have been subject to change, some more than others.

To illustrate, Ginsburg et al. of the University of Chicago’s Law School estimate that, since 1789, national constitutions from around the world have lasted an average of only seventeen years before they are subject to replacement, amendment, or suspension.

Notably, the United States’ constitution has alone been amended 27 times, with over 11,000 amendment proposals, since 1787, adding to the argument that a constitution is a living document designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

America’s Founding Fathers too recognised this fact when they stated in Article 5 of the constitution that: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.”

Why then do the very same people who enjoy such rights feel the need to limit others from exercising a similar right? While your guess is as good as mine, one thing is for sure; you would be hard pressed not to think that this is sometimes done to continuously undermine our ability to decide our own future direction.

At any rate, I must note that unlike in the past when almost everything was driven by the actions and priorities of the superpowers, with colonialism representing the peak of that era, today many more nations are leaning towards a new era of self-determination. Rwanda is a prime example of this new era.

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk