Editor,

RE: "Rwanda’s uncivil society” (The New Times, June 20).

I think the author is missing a point somewhere. When international media and dissidents argue that there is no political space in Rwanda, what exactly do they mean or want?

Do they think that opposition parties and civil society organizations are weak because Government is curtailing freedom of speech, or doesn’t guarantee any possibility of freedom after speech?

Is it that there is limited space for people to gather and engage in debate freely without state intervention, or that people in Rwanda, both in opposition and civil society, have no rights to information as the bills of rights put?

This is one scenario.

The other one is that opposition leaders and civil society are merely opportunists, in a sense that what they see as political space is actually a point of weakness where they would want to penetrate to serve their personal interests and not in the interest of Rwandans.

For example, I don’t see any possibility of Rwanda preventing opposition or civil society from criticizing Government on public fund expenditure or on priorities, say, by coming up with alternative policies to push the nation forward.

There is political space in Rwanda, if you’re criticizing on merit and not for selfish reasons as is the case with Victoire Ingabire.

This is where I think the author should have focused his argument.

Yulian