Gatete views is one of the most popular blog sites on Rwanda’s politics. Thierry Gatete, its blogger, recently published a fascinating review of the constitution amending process in a piece he tilted "No ‘Goodluck Jonathan for Rwanda?” In it, he tears apart some of the arguments that were used to undermine or to dismiss altogether the process as inauthentic "manoeuvring,” an exercise that "isn’t real – or democratic, because it did not emanate spontaneously from the people.”

Gatete dismantles this critique and dismisses others woven in the same fabric as intellectually dishonest, grounded in prejudice about Africans, how the management of their affairs and societies is constructed as pathological through a debate whose alternatives are false choices.

"It would be more worrying,” Gatete observes, "if the petitions were spontaneous.” Such outcome can only be possible under a social and political context that lacks agency, however.

"Isn’t that how black people are described?” Gatete rhetorically. "A species that acts out of emotions and faith; a primitive people – with animal institutes…” Or, if it is organised – not spontaneous – it must be un-African.

Underlain here are ideas of social organisation. The preceding paragraph on the logic that human groups are organised along hierarchies, and that this is the ‘natural order of things,’ which must not be interfered with because it threatens to turn reality the way we know it upside down and makes people uncomfortable.

Consequently, suggesting that Africans are capable of organising themselves and their affairs interferes with the natural order of things and could lead to a dangerous, subversive conclusion about how people perceive themselves and the world around them.

To maintain any status quo, a conclusion must be protected from its premise. Which is why by interrogating the premise, as he does on the subject of ‘spontaneity’ of the constitution amending process, Gatete is involving himself in subversive activity.

He flat-out rejects the premise upon which the ‘debate’ is built. That is because he is able to notice that the objective of the discussion is not to advance wisdom and knowledge, but that it seeks to sustain an ideational status quo, which could potentially expose him to a pawn in in the affirmation of the preconceived notions about the behaviour of so-called subordinate groups.

"They are putting you in a box; then watch you struggle to come out of it” Gatete underscores the kind of intellectual dishonesty involved, and then cautions: "Don’t accept to be bullied”

By rejecting the premise of the debate, Gatete would perform psychological judo on his interlocutors. Political processes, he reasoned, aren’t spontaneous. "No, the petitions are reasoned, deliberate and coordinated,” he pushed back, "That is how democracy plays out anywhere,” in the world.

Crucially, Gatete could see that he was booby-trapped. Moreover, he could sense that the intention of his interlocutors was so that the conversation could lead to a conclusion that confirmed the pathology of the society he belongs to.

Unable to distance himself from that society, he would have been complicit in perpetuating the myth that the ‘natural order’ prevails, a subtle reminder to himself, and those of his ilk present, of the need to behave accordingly.

Gatete is also troubled by the questions about why Presidnt Kagame didn’t groom a successor, a question that is also part and parcel of the strand of thought discussed above.

And so, Gatete finds himself in a box, once again. At this point, his mind must travel around Europe and America wondering whether Obama, for instance, had made a mistake by not grooming Hillary Clinton, John Kerry – his former and present Secretaries of State – or Joe Biden, his current Vice President, as his successors.

Gatete, still, refused to speak from the comfort of the box. He, speaking of Kagame, is "Rwanda’s president,” the position he holds "is up for grabs” and in any case, "there are many grown-ups in our country.”

Gatete understood – through his mastery of the power of the premise – that the link being established for him, this time around on the subject of ‘grooming,’ would lead him to the inescapable conclusion about the ‘infantile’ nature of his people – and thereby the caricaturing of himself.