I have come to conclude that People fail to understand the true fibre of Rwanda’s political and cultural set up not because it’s in anyway complicated but because they fail to desist from looking at things simplistically and through a stereotypical lens. Laziness and arrogance could also be other reasons.

I have been following closely debates that preceded Rwanda’s admission to the Commonwealth of Nations and those that came after. But one commentator on news.scotsman.com was amusing in his simplistic round up of the entire process by calling it a ‘grand farce more entertaining than mere politics.’

It is indeed amusing for someone to refer to a grand milestone for 10 million people a grand entertaining farce.
Fred Bridgland thinks that the main driving force behind Rwanda’s admission to the Commonwealth of Nations is Rwanda’s ‘adaption of cricket as a national sport less than nine years ago!’ Now, if this isn’t simplistic and arrogant thinking, then these terms don’t exist. The gentleman even goes ahead to allege that the ‘cricket revolution’ in Rwanda was a ‘clear and deliberate kick in the teeth of France.’

How in the world can a nation introduce a sport to settle political scores? Anyone who knows Rwanda well should know that this country is a sporting nation and uses sport as a medium to bring cohesion among its people as part of its unity and reconciliation programs. And, as far as I know, there is nothing like the Government adapting a national sport in Rwanda.

What happens is that when people are interested in a sport they just register it and simply start playing. What the Government does is to offer support where necessary.

In any case Rwanda’s interest in joining the Commonwealth is purely to gain economic, social, political and cultural milestones, just like it has joined the East African Community, COMESA, CPEGL and others, not because of the urge to run away from France.

The new Rwanda loathes the old idea of being regarded as belonging to this or that country. What matters to Rwanda now is belonging to groupings that will boost her development aspirations.

As for the question of embracing English as the language of instruction in schools, this is part of Rwanda’s bid to open up to the wide world after decades in isolation. English is not only the business language the world over, but in order for Rwanda to efficiently integrate and trade with regional nations people have to learn English to facilitate their communication.

 This gentleman stops short of comparing Rwanda to Fiji and Zimbabwe saying "….The democratic credentials of Rwanda are questionable. It is virtually a one party state headed by the minority Tutsi community while exclusively Hutu parties are banned…” He quotes Amnesty International’s 2009 annual report, which alleged that freedom of expression (in Rwanda) remains extremely limited, that the Rwandan Government reacts with hostility to critics and that donor countries are locked in a close relationship with the Rwandan authorities and do not challenge or criticize them openly.

I suggest that as we discuss climate change and diminishing global natural resources, someone should think about starting the debate on restoring diminishing global intellect. 

 True, there could be some wannabe intellectuals who may be tarnishing the image of true intellectuals by putting forward mediocre theories about situations and the state of matters in the world but it is also true that of recent we have also increasingly seen some hitherto respected intellectuals degenerating and putting forward reports shrouded in doubt.

Mediocre intellectuals might have gotten away with it elsewhere on many occasions but Rwanda will prove uncompromising to them because their carelessness will be exposed at the slightest slip.

There is no other reason for this except the fact that Rwanda’s case is different in many ways and therefore provides no room for ‘copy and paste’ analyses.

In order to understand Rwanda well, one needs to thoroughly and painstakingly look at the country’s history and measure it against the country’s new vision.

Any other way will only yield misleading and doubtable state of matters on Rwanda. That is why you find that at the end this writer contradicts himself thus…”of course it is no great secret that Rwanda has won admission to the Commonwealth because it is perhaps the most efficiently run country in Africa..” this leads you to confusion and start wondering what the writer was blubbering about in the first place.

That is why I suggest that any intellectual who wants to make a report or an analysis on Rwanda should first and foremost be prepared to pack a big bag and come to Rwanda prepared for a long stay. What happened in Rwanda took place over a long period of time, therefore no one should expect to analyze it on ‘remote control’ or by merely talking to a couple of people in bars and streets of Kigali.

Unlike many African countries, Rwanda’s new leadership has managed to identify the country’s problems and has been able to design flexible solutions, policies, programs and strategies that will be able to address each problem in its own context.

It is also pertinent to understand that Rwanda’s leadership is not your typical political establishments where politicians are only interested in power and try to outdo each other to occupy the top seat of leadership where they will be guaranteed all the privileges that come with power.

Don’t be surprised to hear people referring to Rwanda as a firm where the President is the CEO. Rwandan people are serious about developing their country and they own every process of this.

Only when you are on the ground and able to objectively dissect the situation of Rwanda since the pre-colonial, through the colonial and post independence time will you be able to veritably talk about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘freedoms’ and all the other fancy one-sized necklaces that the West likes to force every African nation to put around its neck.

Those necklaces are indeed nice and sparkling but surely we cannot all wear the same size. Before giving out the good necklaces it would be practical to first take measurement of each recipient.

For instance, when we talk about freedom of speech and expression in Rwanda, you should first know that for many decades, Rwandans have known no real freedoms pertaining to these two. Multi-party democracy on the other hand, was only introduced in the 1990s due to pressure from the RPF onslaught.

These are not values that you can impose on people within a short time. I am sure that in Europe and America these values did not take root in 15 years.

The fact that the Rwandan Government has fast-tracked, and has been able to achieve so much in a short time should not be used as a yard-stick to measure the development of issues originating from mindsets.

Using his extraordinary leadership skills, Kagame, with the aid of a few cadres, can only be able to fix everything else in a short time but mindsets. It takes time to fix mindsets and therefore people should expect little progress in this area just the same way you cannot expect a child to start speaking within two years of its birth.

As for the fully ‘fledged multiparty’ democracy that the so called western activists like to drum up all the time, you cannot see any tangible milestones that it has brought to any African country.  In my opinion, in view of these factors, I think the best way to go is the Rwandan way; just do your thing.

Ends