It is common to read in international media that the electoral process in Rwanda is not free and fair. The argument is that ‘real’ political opponents are often disqualified, and that those allowed are not capable of pausing a real threat to incumbent President Paul Kagame.

This description implies that Rwanda’s electoral process is rigged from the beginning, as it denies potential serious contenders a chance to stand. Their argument is supported with a fact that Frank Habineza, the chairperson and presidential candidate of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda (DGPR), and Philippe Mpayimana, an independent candidate, are drawing less crowds compared to Kagame’s rallies that are attracting big crowds.

ALSO READ: Rwanda: A nation reborn

There are at least two good reasons to ignore most of the international commentaries on Rwanda. First, is their choice of sources, anecdote evidence and informants with a motive to lie. Second, is their normative and ideological references that are predetermined to reach certain conclusions without considering Rwanda’s socio-political and cultural contexts. However, since writing is a process similar to engaging in a conversation, it is sometimes important to respond to some of those claims to the benefit of advancing knowledge. This contribution is intended to achieve that objective. It is important to note that I will not engage in a superstitious thinking, of whether those who were disqualified would have paused a threat or not, because it is difficult to prove something that hasn’t happened.

ALSO READ: Rwanda’s uniqueness only grows more notable with time – Kagame

Human Rights Law is very clear on the right of citizens to participate in the electoral process of their countries. Article 2(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide for everyone’s right and opportunity to take part in the government of his or her country, directly or through a representation. This is consistent with Article 27(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. Additionally, Article 1(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that ‘National sovereignty belongs to the people of Rwanda who themselves exercise it through referendum, ordinary elections or their representatives.’ Normatively, there is no doubt that all citizens have a right to participate in elections, as voters, or candidates. However, specific countries have laws and regulations governing the process, determining conditions and modalities for conducting elections. It is that uniqueness, depending on their socio-political and cultural contexts, that make elections in US – for example the use of an electoral college – not similar to elections in many other countries.

ALSO READ: How a language can perpetuate genocide

Rwanda’s electoral process is also unique depending on its context. It is desirable for all societies to be free and open, but we cannot ignore the role of speech in the destruction of Rwanda. The challenge to post-genocide Rwanda has been of balancing promoting freedom of expression and repressing hate speech. There is no doubt that the responsibility to protect social cohesion is paramount to Rwanda. Taboos differ from one society to another, and information that is worthy putting out for public consumption will differ, and strategies to restrict such tendencies will also differ. It is very easy to argue that those who have been denied the chance to participate have been unfairly treated, or to claim that the arrest of a politician, journalist or human rights activist is politically motivated. Fair enough, but what if such an individual has indeed committed the alleged crime, because this control can never be surrendered to the whims of external actors. Rwanda’s justice mechanisms provide recourse to those who feel mistreated. There are political activists who have been acquitted while others have been convicted, and that is true to ordinary citizens. One may disagree with this system, but that cannot be enough reason to criticize it, since there is no other known form of governance that has been able to repair a destroyed nation comparable to Rwanda. The truth is that building a system of good governance is not a one-day event, and elections are one of those processes that are continuously improved.

There is no human system that is perfect, and I would be the last to claim that Rwanda’s electoral process is. Therefore, the appropriate question that needs to be answered is of how much of irregularities that make an election not free and fair. In answering this question, one needs to go back to the basics, to understand the purpose of an election. For most countries including Rwanda, an election is a process that helps them to get a leadership that is capable of delivering on their social, economic and political aspirations. Then, the concrete question is about whether Rwanda’s process is going to deliver a leadership that is capable of delivering on Rwanda’s expectations.

ALSO READ: The foundation of everything is unity – Kagame

I would like to argue that critics are ignorant of three related facts about the ongoing process in Rwanda, which present obvious advantages Kagame has over his competitors. First is his impeccable success after the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. It is undeniable that he has significantly contributed to the shaping of the current Rwanda, and whoever that believes that today’s Rwanda is better governed, more developed, and that Rwandans are increasingly becoming united, will certainly support him to continue on this trend. Second is the fact that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF-Inkotanyi) is a rich and strong political organization. This is a fact, and not a fault. Third is Kagame’s capacity and will to build coalitions with other individuals and political organisations. RPF-Inkotanyi is in a coalition with nine other political parties. Therefore, there is no surprise that Kagame has been repeatedly elected with over 90% of the total votes. This fact is also consistent with the constitution of the Republic of Rwanda that obliges political parties to collaborate in the governance of the country. Article 62 of the Constitution provides for power-sharing. The President and the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies – the lower house – cannot come from the same political organisation. It also stipulates that a political organisation holding the majority of seats in the Chamber of Deputies cannot have more than 50% of Cabinet members.

Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a contender who can outcompete Kagame in this context. I understand that cynics may argue that, if indeed this is true; why not allow whoever that expresses interest to run against him, or, why organise an election at all? These propositions are contemptuous because the former is prescribing an electoral process that has no rules and requirements for candidates. To put it differently, it is suggesting to a country to turn the most important job position into a joke, where even those that are unfit can compete. The latter is also lame, as it undermines the constitution that provides for an election every after a certain period of time.

Cynics will of course argue that those political parties in coalition with RPF-Inkotanyi are not independent. However, I would not be wrong to presume that those same critics would be supportive of an opposition coalition, if it was formed against the RPF-Inkotanyi. In fact, you will realise that the same critics have no problem with a common practice of political parties forming coalitions to govern after failing to obtain majority votes. I would like to argue that if a coalition to govern is desirable after a bitterly contested election, in a peacebuilding perspective and based on common sense, it should be more desirable to encourage dialogue and consensus before going into an election.

The author is a senior lecturer at University of Rwanda’s School of Law.