If we could have it all at once we would: a safe and secure environment that puts our minds at ease, an economy that satisfies my needs the same way it does for the next man, a democratic environment where active participation of the people as citizens in politics and civic life is second nature, basically, every need and want you can think of.

However, reality dictates otherwise; reality states that all societies, no matter how developed or not, big or small, enlightened or otherwise, face the economic problem, which is the problem of how to make the best use of limited resources.

The economic problem as explained by Nobel Prize winner in the field of economic science, Paul Samuelson, exists because, although the needs and wants of people are endless, the resources available to satisfy needs and wants are limited.

Therefore, given that resources are limited, almost all decisions must involve making choices between competing alternatives, which essentially means that choosing one thing can only be achieved by giving up something else in exchange albeit temporarily.

Think of when you wanted to buy a book and a music CD but only had Rwf 5,000 enough for one item. If you chose to buy a book instead of a CD, in effect you gave up the benefit that could have derived from purchasing a CD.

Now, if we expand this school of thought to include the needs of a society recovering from devastating events, the list is endless; security, economic development, democracy, functioning institutions, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and a lot more, and yet, given limited resources at hand, not everything can be pursued at once.

To benefit from one goal, can only be achieved by giving up at least temporarily, the benefit that could have originated from another goal. So, how does such a society with limited resources (including time) decide what to pursue first, second, and so on?

The order, in which to deliver that society’s needs, I believe, is dependent on the unique circumstances of that society. It would be short-sighted, for instance, to assume that a society recently devastated by a large-scale epidemic such as the Ebola virus would prioritise military capability over the immediate need for doctors, medical supplies, and quarantine shelter to limit the outbreak.

Military capability as a priority, on the other hand, would make more sense for a society besieged by insurgency attacks. 

I am content with the idea that Rwanda’s order of choice since 1994 has been greatly influenced by her most recent and past history, particularly the events of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, where over a million people were killed, others displaced, institutions and infrastructure destroyed, and human capital dealt a heavy blow.

Deciding on how to move forward, therefore, required considering the country’s unique context. Security, in my opinion, overrode every other priority in the aftermath of the Genocide.

With limited resources at hand, the Rwandan leadership would have wanted to stabilise the nation first, and also halt any likely attacks from the defeated forces and the Interahamwe militia who were hell-bent on attacking Rwanda again from their camps across the border in DR Congo. Security, therefore, became a straightforward priority.

Once safety measures were in place, the same question surfaced: what else do we do with limited resources? The choice, I believe, was again influenced by the unique circumstances. You see, in 1994, Rwanda’s GDP was halved in a single year, and 80 per cent of the population was plunged into poverty.

Likewise, the factors of production were wrecked; the nation had been robbed of teachers, doctors, public servants and entrepreneurs. Properties and livestock had been destroyed, and even the poorly existing infrastructure hadn’t been spared.

Therefore, rebuilding the economy became the next priority largely because it was necessary, but also because moving forward, the success of every other priority depended on a properly functioning economy; whether it’s the delivery of healthcare and education, the provision of public infrastructure to facilitate the private sector, establishing the rule of law, providing safe roads, encouraging good governance, or supporting and encouraging civic life to encourage democracy and human rights to take hold – all of that depended on a functioning economy.

And so, against all odds, gradually the economy took hold: Rwanda registered impressive economic growth that averaged 8 per cent a year for a decade leading to 2012, continuously ranked among the best in the area of reforming the business environment, posted improvements in access to healthcare and education, and in particular, was recognised for rapid reductions in under-5 mortality and maternal mortality rates.

Rwandans are now among very few societies around the world with access to basic healthcare and basic education (Rwanda has the highest primary school enrolment rate in Africa).

And that isn’t all; as well as lifting over one million people out of extreme poverty in a short period of time, the Rwandan leadership has spearheaded laying down the foundations for various other priorities.

Today, there are more banking institutions, more telecommunication firms, more universities, more media outlets (radio and television stations), and more women in parliament, than at any time in the country’s history. Of course, this is not to say that more is efficient, but it is a clear sign of intent to continuously advance the needs of Rwandans. 

By and large, as pointed out earlier, there comes a time when every society, no matter how developed or not, big or small, enlightened or otherwise, has to decide how to make the best use of limited resources.

The question becomes even more pressing for a society emerging out of devastating events like genocide. It is true that every now and then you will come across commentators pointing fingers to what hasn’t been achieved yet, as if to assume that the people themselves are so blind to the benefits that can be derived from particular areas, but the fact of the matter is, people shaped by their unique circumstances are the ones best placed to decide what is a priority and what isn’t, as well as what should come first from the list of priorities.

For a society to fully engage in civic life, for instance, there is a need for intellectual curiosity, which inevitably makes education a prerequisite. Otherwise, if a society simply engages in civic life without the necessary knowledge just for the sake of it, it risks presiding over a situation where people engage in freely, yes, but mostly vocally with no real outcome of content to influence policy direction. What then would be the point of it if people are not intellectually equipped to examine what is on the table?

To conclude, it is especially important to always asses a society’s choices in light of their unique circumstances. Most people don’t need to be told that protection of human rights is important, or that a rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens is good for them.

They already know this. In fact, they know that the right to liberty and freedom is just as important as having access to healthcare and education. But, given the limited resources at hand, not all goals can be achieved at the same time.

In some case, some priorities are chosen over others at least temporarily in hope that the choices made can become a launch-pad to achieve the rest.