Last week, the government of Rwanda announced major tax reforms aimed at easing the financial burden on taxpayers and, at the same time, increase tax revenue. The move comes as a response to Rwandans’ pleas for tax relief.

President Kagame heard the requests and instructed the government to explore ways of making taxation less painful but without affecting collection targets. The announcement last Thursday was the result of that.

All over the world and throughout history, taxation has always been a problematic issue.

First, most people do not like paying taxes, although they also understand that they have to do so in order for the government to be able to give them certain services. Even with this understanding, however, there is a lingering suspicion that the taxman does not play fair with them. Indeed, taxation has been the cause of revolutions or fall of governments.

Second, it is complex, which is perhaps the source of this mixed attitude. Most people do not understand how the taxman arrives at a particular figure that they must pay. Because of this, they tend to question its fairness and think it is arbitrary or the result of the caprices or even malice and greed of public officials.

To compound matters, the tax collector has never been a loved figure. In biblical times, they were the most hated and reviled, often the standard of sinfulness.

To dispel suspicion and misunderstanding, it is often necessary to explain these issues. Which is what the government did on Friday.

The tax reforms announced last week follow a tax waiver on some food items only a few days earlier. The government waived value added tax (VAT) on rice, maize flour and potatoes, again in response to an outcry about rising food prices.

Both measures, initiated by the government in response to citizens’ concerns, are a measure of how seriously it takes their welfare. It does not wait for matters to get out of hand, or become too painful, or for street protests and demonstrations before it acts.

The tax reforms was big news. But it hardly got a mention in outside media that is always snooping around for any bit of news. Not surprising, of course. One can see them shake their head at the suggestion with a dismissive retort. Report a president who listens to the cries of citizens and acts to alleviate their burden?

No sir, thank you. Write about a government that does these two things: reduce tax pain while also filling up the tax purse? That is not our business. It does not make news. You see, from you, we love failure, not success.

Incompetent, avaricious and corrupt leaders and governments - that is our staple. Add some violence and the menu is full. Our readers will gobble it up everyday.

They have no shortage of such stories. Which should, in fact make the news from Rwanda refreshingly exceptional and therefore worth reporting. But no, that will not happen. Better to stick to the script.

You will hear the country and its leaders described differently, using words whose meaning you think you know, but which do not apply, even remotely, to the individuals and situations that you know. They leave you confused.

Take for instance, their favourite words: autocrat, dictator, authoritarian, strong man so frequently used to describe certain leaders, including our own. Add a few other unsavoury epithets.

Do they really tell us what those leaders are really like? Even those who promptly respond to their citizens’ needs?

They do not even call them leaders; they are rulers. They do not lead or govern; they rule. They do not preside over governments or administrations, but over regimes.

Equally confusing is the word liberal in such utterances as liberal democracy, liberal media, liberal what not. It is often the so-called liberal media and their allies in politics and human rights groups that are fond of using those words, especially on the developing countries.

They use them to describe anyone they do not like, who does not behave according to their definition of acceptable behaviour or actually goes against it. It matters not whether they are star performers. It is a convenient and standard way of putting down anyone, or anything that goes contrary to their dictates.

Sometimes our own elites and media throw these words around carelessly to describe their own leaders. The outsiders have a reason, what do our own have? Or maybe they do.

Perhaps if they appear to be tough on their own, copy and imitate those who set such standards they will be accepted in their class.

Maybe they are simply lazy and so pick up and use what is readily available regardless of whether it is correct or not.

Would any sane person find those favourite words fitting to describe anybody who responds quickly and appropriately to the needs of citizens?

Only if they suffer from all manner of impairment, especially visual, moral and cognitive. Or they have such loathing or low regard for others as to impair their ability to recognise reality.