The Economist recently painted a ‘hilly dilemma’ of Rwanda to millions of its readers around the world in an article published on March 12, in which the author argued that ‘while President Paul Kagame has led Rwanda to prosperity he stifles democracy.’ I am here to strongly disagree.

First, I will acknowledge that in a digital-age that has inspired a proliferation of hollow online news-outlets that have almost rendered mainstream media irrelevant, the likes of The Economist have managed to sustain their international credibility with, often times, high quality content.

The magazine enjoys a large subscription base from some of the world’s respected elites who have read the publication for decades; its Twitter account is also one of the most followed, with close to 14 million fans.

Unfortunately, that The Economist has such a large following and reputation can also be dangerous; if the magazine did a misleading article on your person, there will be several million readers left with polluted minds to fumigate.

In this case we have Rwanda as the subject and readers who read the article but have never been here will have this ‘media-ted version’ of one prosperous country but where people are allegedly stifled from liberties such as depicting their leaders in sleazy cartoons, all in the name of democracy and freedom of speech.

The long article was simply a huge contradiction. The Economist’s writer, after spending a couple of days here, concluded in his article that post-Genocide Rwanda is enjoying prosperity. Correct.

But he also found the nerve to aver that, ours is no democracy, an opinion, just like noses, we can say, he’s naturally entitled to.

Prosperity is rather an interesting noun with equally fascinating synonyms of words like ‘wealth, affluence, opulence, riches, good-fortune, comfort, wellbeing, success, to mention but those.

On the other hand, unlike prosperity, democracy is not a noun; it is some abstract concept, a perception that has no direct synonyms; that is most likely the reason why the subject arouses so much debate; it has no uniform yardstick.

However, its generally accepted definition is that it is ‘a system of governance where the majority of the population chooses the leadership of their choice…”

A hundred and fifty years ago, President Abraham Lincoln, on November 19, 1863, at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery (reportedly) weak and lightheaded with an oncoming case of smallpox, made a speech that lasted for just over two minutes.

In his concluding remarks, he left a message of hope and prayed for a nation led by a government of the people (popular support), by the people (chosen by masses) and for the people (working for the interest of the people); in other words, a democracy.

Today in Rwanda, the people, in my opinion, have what Lincoln described in 1863; a popular government chosen by the people and that works for their wellbeing or prosperity, no?

Yet somehow, critics have always found the guts to dismiss Rwandan elections as undemocratic because, I suspect, they lack the chaotic drama and hostile contestations witnessed elsewhere.

Assuming that prosperity and democracy are terms that exist, independent of each other, what would you rather have for yourself between the two?

The things often associated with prosperity, such as wellbeing and success are also generally said to be fruits of ‘democratic governance.’ This simply means that, in a country where there’s no ‘democracy’ one can’t expect to see ‘prosperity.’

The Economist’s article, however, seems to suggest that Rwanda is a rare irony; a country whose democratic credentials are reportedly absent but prosperity is so prominent that even critics can see it.

But that is not how it is supposed to be. You can’t have prosperity where there is no democracy and Rwanda shouldn’t be an exception.

We can, therefore, safely conclude that Rwanda is not only democratic but also prosperous because, democracy without prosperity is dead, should be dead.

Let me also add that, some of the small liberties that critics accuse the Rwandan government of stifling, are in my view, not a priority to most Rwandans today. I am sure they will, in decades to come.

It will be 22 years this April, since the start of the Genocide against the Tutsi.

Political scientists argue that countries change at between 40 and 50 years after any revolution; Rwanda is just 22.

The first thing you suggest to a starving kid is not to go play a game of football; food and what to drink would be the priority. Later, after eating, one can think of playing.

At 22, Rwandans have their eyes on the things they need not those they want; prosperity for all, kids going to school, having enough food, a stable healthcare system, good roads, a secure environment, good jobs and living in dignity.

In modern societies, the absence of the above things could get a government voted out; in my view, prosperity is the best freedom a citizen could ever get from their government.

Successful leaders should be evaluated based on how much prosperity their policies delivered to the people... the rest are simply add-ons.