Why Rwanda's governance model is best for us

One of the reasons corruption is allowed to thrive in Africa is because many governments are scared of holding those that they perceive as strong men to account. So leaders choose to corrupt their opponents, rather than alienating them. This has led to the culture of impunity, cronyism and rent seeking. No government enjoys such negative exposure before the US Congress. Many governments would rather ‘keep their friends close and their enemies even closer’ We, in Rwanda, have chosen a different path, that of zero tolerance to complacency and corruption, even when it means falling out with those we fear may turn against us, should they be called to order. This is the price that we pay for pursuing an ideal; that of accountability, transparency and efficiency. Following the Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in 1994, Rwandans made a choice: we chose a system that seeks to maintain peace, unity and reconciliation. These are values that we dramatically needed then, and that we need now. In order to achieve political stability we chose a model based on consensus and dialogue. And it was entrenched in the Rwandan Constitution, voted by the Rwandan people. It is true that at some point that model will be outdated, based on the evolution of the society and the readiness for open and contradictory politics. You should trust Rwandans to find the right time and the right approach to make that decision; it shouldn’t be made for us. I know the system isn’t perfect. My job as a Rwandan human rights activist is to point that out. I do that, from a vintage point of being here on the ground. Because in order to work towards improving a system you have to believe in it; and I do. But you see, you have stolen my right to be an active citizen; you have disempowered me. You have usurped my right to conduct a conversation with my own people, on how best we can define our destiny. You criticise us for dictatorship, yet you do not hesitate to dismiss our agency as wholly rotten and attempt to impose a new order. What would you call such an attitude? Recent experience in Libya and elsewhere though, has shown that it is not order, and it is not new. We are the first to regret the closure of the BBC; we recognise that freedom of media is a value. But in the face of the broadcasting of the so-called “Untold Story” we were left with no choice, but to protect the stability of our country by closing the waves to ‘media of hate’, of which we know, oh too well the consequences. The Voice of America will not be closed. Nor will the Deutsche Welle; we value their contribution and, in fact, have irreproachable relationships with them. To imply that they are at risk of closure is disingenuous. ‘Many Rwandans live in fear’. That is a mantra repeated frequently by international experts. The danger is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, regardless of whom the prophet is. As Foucault argues, what starts as state surveillance becomes self-surveillance – the state doesn’t need to watch people if they believe they are being watched. This perception might, I am afraid, lead to genuine fear. Rural people, who are not exposed to international reporting though, do not fear to castigate poor service delivery by their local leaders during the annual national dialogue. They are not aware of the so-called control asserted on them, so they are free. My job as a social activist has been to fight that perception, which I know to be damaging to a gradually opening society. Rwanda is a young democracy, in a particularly difficult region. We have the dream of a democracy as entrenched as any in the world, but there are no short cuts towards that. No American or any other citizen can deliver openness, freedom and democracy to Rwandans. We appreciate your aid, but we are no beggars; we appreciate your expertise but we seek knowledge too. We aspire to continue asking you less of each of them, and ultimately none. I thought you would be pleased with that. Accordingly, we are open to advice and support and we have implemented all recommendations from the UN’s Human Rights Committee; the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Africa Peer Review Mechanism. We are probably the only country in the world to have extended an open invitation to every UN and AU mechanism of human rights; not least, the sixth and latest country out of fifty-four, to have made a declaration empowering its citizens to take cases against it to the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. But we are being held at the same standard as 200-year-old democracies, which make it impossible for us to succeed. But we are a people with dreams and determination. There is no need for the US Congress to press an investigation on the killings of political opponents. All you need to do is ask; there has been a consistent open door policy in Rwanda for many years; in fact we have just invited Mr Maina Kiai, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Assembly, after criticising our record, to come back, investigate further and advise on how best we may enhance our respect of freedom of assembly and the situation of political opponents in jail. Now to the allegations that were made during the Congressional hearing: 1. To my knowledge, there was no South African judge who found Rwanda to be behind the killing of late Karegeya. These allegations were made by prosecutors who were party to the case; 2. The dismissal of Rwandan diplomats from South Africa came in the aftermath of the killing of the former chief spy: before the investigation. Whatever reasons they had have never been substantiated in a definitive independent investigation; the Jury, as they say, is still out in South African legal system; 3. Equally, the dead bodies in Lake Rweru were found on the Burundian side. Now, based on the laws of physics, it is impossible for a body to float from Rwanda to Burundi; This is true today as it was during the Genocide when Tutsis were being thrown into rivers and floated towards Uganda instead – on their way, as was wanted by the killers, to reach Abyssinia… Our commitment for peace, not only in Rwanda, but also on the continent, is demonstrated by our contribution to peacekeeping missions in Africa and in Haiti. We are the sixth biggest contributor to peacekeeping missions worldwide, despite our small size. Now, figures aside, we are coming from far and what we have achieved gives room for hope. Things like LGBTI rights, women rights, corruption, universal healthcare and poverty alleviation have scientifically verifiable benchmarks and we score impressively on each one of them. Freedom, however, is not verifiable objectively. My perception – or allegation – is as valid as the next person’s. I know Rwandans are capable of great things. I also know that they are capable of lying. I have no means of gathering intelligence, but at least I know my experience, my everyday life and my condition. So you should give credit to my story because, as far as Rwanda is concerned, my story matters too. Rwandan dissidents were killed in exile. As a human rights lawyer I am well aware of that, and I am more concerned than anyone. But until a definitive decision is reached, I may not put the blame on the government, even though it is the easiest choice. I understand the world superpowers’ position to hold small countries accountable for human rights violations. But if you want to hold us accountable, have the fairness of using tangible data. There was an important question asked: What does the president gain from killing people abroad? Two reasons were given by the panelists: - One: President Kagame wants to assassinate everyone who knows anything about the business of the RPF which he holds secret: Booth and Golooba’s report (2014) shows where the money of the party is managed, how it is used for development; this report is in the public domain; - Two: Kagame has no support in Rwanda or anywhere else, that he flies people to Rwanda Days all over Europe and America? I can’t dignify that with an answer… Do not get me wrong, I seek as much as you to know the truth, but I am aware of the manipulation out there, and the stories of those Rwandans who testified on the Senate committee; including, one that they did not deny, that they work with the FDLR; a terror group responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. In conclusion, I think it is worth acknowledging the novelty of the Rwandan model and, accordingly, treat it with new and open mind. Give us time, patience and support. We are onto something new here; and if it works, the whole world will be proud of us. Never mind if we found it first, well share the credit if you want… The writer is a human-rights lawyer and blogger based in Kigali. This is an abridged article of the one first published on the writer’s blog; www.gateteviews.blogspot.com

Opinions

Why Rwanda's governance model is best for us