Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both and be one traveller, long I stood and looked down one as far as I could to where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair, and having perhaps the better claim, because it was grassy and wanted wear; though as for that the passing there had worn them really about the same, and both that morning equally lay in leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh somewhere ages and ages hence: two roads diverged in a wood, and I – I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. 

The Road Not Taken – is a poem published in 1915 by Robert Frost.

***************** Robert Frost’s celebrated poem, ‘The Road Not Taken’, is about making decisions when confronted with two or more possible choices.

And while most of us frequently end up taking a path that those close to us or with influence want or expect us to take, Mr Frost, governed by his instincts and independent thought-process, decides to take the road less travelled in hope that it makes all the difference.

The story of today’s Rwanda has similarities with Frost’s poem. Every day, we make decisions based on our own history. When we seek to grow as Rwandans, we seek to understand ourselves by thinking carefully about our past.

And it is no different when it comes to the future of our country. Whenever our leaders are confronted with making tough decisions, they make them based on three fundamental choices of a nation; Unity, Accountability, and Thinking Big.

Today, although the choices we have made have reinvigorated our lives on many accounts, there are some who continue to struggle to understand why Rwanda makes the decisions it makes.

One explanation for this failure to comprehend is that some of these scholars, activists, or opportunists are so embedded in the general African narrative of conflicts, poverty, and chaos that they react with confusion, dismay, or utter condemnation every time Rwanda makes a decision that does not necessarily result into conflict, poverty or chaos.

To put it simply, some of these folks expect Rwanda to toe the line to a T, with any slight adjustment perceived as a threat.

There are many examples to this end, but I will pick out one. We all recall a barrage of condemnation that was directed towards Rwanda when, at our own accord, we decided to debate the merits of amending the 2003 Rwandan Constitution, and in particular article 101, which prohibited the incumbent president, Paul Kagame, from running for another term in office.

And although the arguments by the pro-camp were later justified by the overwhelming 98.3 per cent of voters in favour of the amendment, a lot was said before and in the aftermath.

Warning statements were issued, chaos was prophesied, and partnerships were threatened. It looked like we had done the unthinkable; we had acted independently by freeing ourselves from conformity.

Indeed, what these folks failed to comprehend in the first place was the ability of Rwandans to consider an alternative path, one that friends and allies may offer an opinion on, but may not necessarily affect.

You see, I thought that since we let these folks get on with their business in their respective countries, they would reciprocate by giving us space to decide our future.

Granted, I expected some would oppose our choice, but since they use arguments of economic stability, security and opportunities for all as a baseline for deciding their leaders, I was hopeful that they would come to their senses and acknowledge that we also care more about continuity of economic growth, a safe and secure environment, access to healthcare and education, and opportunities for all, and less about change for the sake of it.

But, no, to them that didn’t cut it; we were becoming unpredictable and dangerous. But allow me to ask; do you ever wonder why we say nothing when Germany’s Angela Merkel leads for three consecutive terms and even shows ambitions to run for a fourth term?

Or, do you think we are blind to the fact that the UK Premiership exchanges hands according to the will of political parties as opposed to the British public? Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and served as Prime Minister for a little less than three years even though no single vote was cast for him. You call that democracy we should follow to a T?  

And when an alternative approach is considered anywhere else but in the West, all hell breaks loose. Elsewhere we are not permitted to think alternatively, when we do, we are overloaded with human-rights reports littered with accounts of injustice, and our leaders are branded autocrats.

With this, Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine comes to mind.

In any case, the new Rwanda has embarked on many choices, many of which weren’t expected of us: we were expected to continue living in poverty, but we refused and lifted one million Rwandans out of poverty in just five years; we were expected to continue relying on foreign aid at full throttle, but we chose to consider alternative sources of funding such as Agaciro Development Fund that ensure our financial autonomy; similarly, we were expected to be submerged with hundreds of thousands of cases from the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, but we initiated one of our traditional judicial methods, Gacaca.

Likewise, we were expected to overlook women in our society, but we introduced quotas to ensure they are represented at every decision-making level.

And finally, as per our history, we were expected to participate in confrontational political debates, but we chose consensual politics, because we know where confrontational politics got us.

All in all, we have made unprecedented decisions, and I am glad we have. From banning paper bags and introducing community-oriented clean-ups, to deciding the future direction of our country. There is no need to be just followers when we can leave a trail.

Email: junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk