In the period leading to elections, I made two contributions (here and here) that I felt would bring a different perspective to understanding Rwanda’s choices. Now that the election process is almost over, I want to address one more thing that kept on being raised.

ALSO READ: Double legitimacy: A danger to African governance

We have all heard or read about the argument that Rwanda needs strong institutions not a strong leader/man. Ordinarily, my short response to the proponents of this argument would be a rhetorical question: is it wrong having both? However, I wish to provide a more elaborate response.

ALSO READ: Democracy beyond elections: The ignorance of international media on Rwanda

Understanding post-genocide Rwanda requires us to situate our analysis into nation building and state building perspectives. The purpose of this contribution is to argue that nation state building needs a strong and charismatic leadership in its lifetime to achieve a significant turnaround in its making. By nation building, I refer to a process of building a sense of a common national identity to overcome ethnic, sectarian or communal differences, while state building is about strengthening the capacity of institutions, infrastructures and systems of governance to deliver services and hold actors (in state, civil society and private sector) accountable.

ALSO READ: Study shows strong post-genocide resilience among Rwandans

Taking nation building together with state building suggests that in addition to protection of national institutions, state sovereignty and territorial integrity in order to provide services and maintain law and order, stable nation-states are built around a single most important narrative of shared identity, core values, culture and symbols that are important to their existence, whether real or mythical. Of course, certain minor internal contradictions may exist.

My central argument is that Rwanda is still a nation under remaking, where most of all elements of a nation state are still under reconstruction. Therefore, the argument that having strong institutions is better than having a strong leader is true to an extent where institutions do exist. The aftermath of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, left Rwanda with no resources and functioning institutions. Even the weak institutions that existed before the genocide had been completely destroyed. In the absence of institutions, the survival of any nation-state depends on the charisma of its leadership. It is fair to submit that Rwanda’s narrow escape from being a failed state to what it is today can be attributed to its charismatic leadership than institutions. However, charisma alone is not enough for changes to happen, sometimes strength is also needed, as not every extraordinary solution will be supported through charm.

ALSO READ: Rwanda: A nation reborn

Perpetrators of the 1994 genocide believed that the Tutsi were less Rwandans who did not deserve to remain in the country leave alone taking part in its governance. Cognizant of that ideology, the post-genocide politics has been organized in a manner that is intended to undo that ideology of hate and discrimination. Article 56(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that: ‘Political organisations must abide by the Constitution and other laws. They must conform to democratic principles and not compromise national unity, territorial integrity and national security.’ Thus, making national unity as one of the guiding principles of politics.

Unfortunately, there are those who still believe that Hutu "power” majority should be part of politics. People may disagree with this choice but as long as it is still one of the constitutional guiding principles of politics in Rwanda, it makes the use of divisive politics illegal whether it is expressly manifested or implied.

The genocide against the Tutsi is well known for the use of derogatory terms and coded euphemisms to direct killers to their victims. Therefore, those who think that their political projects cannot succeed in a united Rwanda will have to wait until unity is strong enough to co-exist with their fringe ideas, when the nation’s systems and state institutions of governance are stable and strong enough to protect innocent citizens against threats to their national cohesion and peaceful co-existence. Otherwise, not until the fear of this divisive ideology is completely removed, the envisioned Rwanda will remain fragile.

It is arguable whether 30 years should be enough for Rwanda to be healed. The truth is that there is no specified period for when nation building can be achieved. I believe that it depends on when the causes of destruction are completely uprooted. There is no doubt that 30 years ago, Rwanda was completely destroyed. It is also true that today a lot has been achieved in all sectors.

VIDEO: "Our people will never be left for dead again" - President Kagame

These achievements have not been accidental. The country needed and still needs strong and charismatic leadership to undertake unconventional decisions including restrictions that are capable of bringing sanity into politics. Those restrictions should be seen as part of building a rules-based society, and not be likened to stifling dissent. The idea that lack of dissenting opinion in Rwanda is pure repression ignores a lot of effort that is put in consensus building.

Decision making in Rwanda is a process that constantly seek to accommodate concerns of different actors including those that are not in formal public decision-making structures. It is this consultative approach that reduces space for dissenting views. My elaborate response is that: yes, Rwanda needs a strong and charismatic leadership to not only establish institutions but also to grow them into mature independent actors capable of protecting the wellbeing of the nation, even in the absence of good leadership.

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