It is a tiring but useful task to delve into the talking points of Africans who seem unable to embrace excellence so long as western voices, through their dominant and influential media, have not proclaimed who is worthy of adulation on our continent. Tafi Mhaka’s article "Kagame’s achievements should not blind us to his tyranny” is a good example of the subservience of African elites to the West’s pronouncements on Africa, their uncritical acceptance of narratives that do not do justice to African lived realities. The overall impression one gets after carefully reading Mhaka’s article is that his criticism of President Kagame is not only poor in substance, it is also besides the point.

For one thing, Mhaka gets off on the wrong foot as he bemoans that Rwanda’s president was included in the New African’s list of the 100 most influential Africans. He claims that "it is highly questionable whether he [Kagame] can or should be described as "influential”. His claim, however, has no basis in reality. When one considers the overwhelmingly positive views on Kagame in conversations of Africans on social media platforms, the reforms the African Union has undergone since Kagame’s leadership of that organization in 2018, the military interventions in countries like the Central African Republic and Mozambique, or the invitations at high level meetings around the world (such the G20 Summit) the influence of Kagame – and by extension Rwanda – on the continent and in world’s politics cannot be ignored, not by any serious analyst worth the ink on the paper. Kagame’s influence is a fact that should not be subject to debate so much so that even his enemies – certainly above Mhaka’s pay grade – accept it but hate him for it.

Indeed, the fact that Mhaka does not like President Kagame’s style of governance is beside the point. One can dislike the US’ or China’s foreign policy, for instance, but it would be preposterous and lunatic to claim that these countries do not wield much influence.

The issue then becomes, is Kagame worth the praise he receives from his peers and Africans alike? One would think that Mhaka would challenge Kagame’s achievements to make his case, but he does no such thing. Instead, he wastelessley invites us to assess Kagame’s record irrespective of achievements that have changed the lives of ordinary Rwandans for the better. "Kagame’s achievements should not blind us to his tyranny,” Mhaka’s writes. In other words, we shouldn’t bother with the opinions of Rwandans under his leadership and the fact that the overwhelming majority of them appreciate his work. We should instead rely on the pronouncements of organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which on several occasions have proved to be unreliable, even corrupt. This is the tragedy of Africa’s elite – their inability to ground their opinions and reflections in the lived realities of their less fortunate compatriots and their urge to pander to the western narratives of the continent in their desperate attempts to be viewed as intellectuals at par with their western colleagues, the self-styled "experts” of Africa.

Any rigorous African intellectual would ask themselves how someone described as a "tyrant” is so obsessed with improving the lives of his or her citizens. Having concluded that such healthy obsession disproves the term tyranny, an African intellectual worth his salt would revisit the standards (on democracy and human rights) set by the West’s colonial obsession to shape the world in its image irrespective of the opinions, aspirations and sensibilities of the vast majority of the peoples around the world.

Responding to the repeated onslaught on Rwanda’s record coming from the usual suspects, President Kagame had this compelling point which the likes of Mhaka fail to grasp, "I think it’s just ridiculous. There is nothing like human rights minus these things we are talking about, in terms of development, education, healthcare, food security, etc. These are human rights. Where we have taken our country from and where it is now speaks for itself.”

Mhaka, who is from Zimbabwe, should reflect on how he found himself in the absurd situation of comparing Mugabe’s shortcomings to Kagame’s achievements. Kagame’s legitimacy is not solely built on his revolutionary credentials as someone who defeated a genocidal government, but also on the tremendous progress the country has made since 1994, in all spheres of the lives of its citizens.

Mhaka should also ask himself why, besides the wild allegations of HRW, his view of Rwanda as a country impervious to dissenting views is not based on any substantive argument. How is such a country also the one that undergoes so many reforms (social benefits, school feeding program, moto taxi operations, land and corporate taxes, etc.) after listening to the complaints of its citizens. Something does not add up.

Two more important points are worth reflecting upon 1) how on earth have people who blame Rwanda for the West’s refusal to host migrants not come up with a better alternative? 2) why does Mhaka who, refers to the Gukurahundi massacres under Mugabe’s rule, refuse to hold the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) accountable for the continuous killings of Congolese Tutsi in areas under its jurisdiction? Any person genuinely horrified by the Gukurahundi massacres would not choose to selectively use the UN group of experts’ reports to blame Kagame for the situation in DRC; he or she would acknowledge that Rwanda is, this time again, on the right side of history in denouncing the killings of the Congolese Tutsi – on the people’ side.

To be sure, Rwanda is not a liberal democracy by western standards. Neither does it aspire to become one. It is a democracy by its own standards. No African intellectual should wish Rwanda to become one of those places so obsessed with optics, a cosmetic view of governance and politics, promoted by the west and its African sycophants, the Mhaka types, to the point that the welfare and safety of our people become secondary issues.