Consensual Democracy as opposed to Confrontational Politics – Rwanda's Conscious Choice

With a good degree of reason, one would appreciate Rwanda’s shunning of “confrontational politics” for a conscious choice of consensual democracy. Worthy of mention is that confrontational politics has, in all its myriad guises, arguably courted more controversy and at times been cause for violence on the continent. But more emphatically with Rwanda’s past turbulent history that was – from 1959 to 1994 – characterised by the first mass production of refugees on the continent and cyclical violence fanned by ethnic-based politics, the east African country still lives with the legacy of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi and remnants of its perpetrators still network and plot across the globe. With the lingering legacy of genocide ideology and its architects littered across the globe, post Genocide Rwanda chose to guard against divisive politics and ensure inclusivity to warrant reconciliation, unity of purpose and sustainable peace. The turbulent past has motivated the “Land of a Thousand Hills” to initiate a rational alternative political approach - “Consensual Democracy”, which broadly is a consensus-based decision making political option that nourishes diversity and fosters unity. Conversely, the alternative approach of confrontational politics was considered as susceptible to fostering discord in political parties that could easily flourish and rejuvenate ethnic based politics whose infamous fruits are well known in Rwanda: Genocide. It is worth reminding that the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi was born out of the country’s former colonizers’ “divide and rule” policy that was later reinforced and entrenched into the Rwandan social fabric by pre-July 1994 regimes which were motivated by a desire to consolidate their ethnic oriented hegemony. The leaders of this turbulent past did not only practice ethnic-based politics, but escalated it to regionalism where the President’s home region was most favoured at the expense of the rest of the country – Winner-takes-it-all Syndrome. Indeed, following the successful stopping of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and its military victory in July 1994 over the ex-FAR and Interahamwe (army and genocide militia, respectively), a transitional Government of National Unity (GNU), was set up to a great extent mirroring the October 1993 Arusha Peace Agreement which involved all major political/military players that mattered in Rwanda then. While at that time Winner-takes-it-all and revenge could easily have been an instinctive reaction following RPF’s total military victory, that wasn’t to be, but rather RPF’s policy of eradicating politics of ethnicity and exclusion from public life. From its inception, the RPF professed a determination to establish “true democracy”, defined as political majority rule based on a genuine political programme of uniting all Rwandans. In so doing, combating ethnic divisions and reinforcement of reconciliation has characterised modern Rwanda and with very commendable results. This is indeed evidenced by its policies of Unity and National Reconciliation and the tireless efforts and resources invested in fighting sectarianism, divisionism and discrimination as well as sensitising Rwandan Diaspora and ex-refugees on their rights as Rwandans. The Government of National Unity’s programme endorsed this as the guiding principle of its versatile policies that aim at building unity, peace, tranquillity and uplifting Rwandans from the yoke of poverty. Broad national consultations were conducted in late 1990s between all stakeholders, including politicians from the pre-genocidal era, civil society members and members of the Government of National Unity. The overarching intention was to recreate a sense of community and belonging among all Rwandans to ensure they transcended regional, religious and ethnic divisions. In short, the birth of this policy direction was a quintessential form of “consensual democracy’’ and the consensus reached informed the trajectory of Rwandan politics that we see today. With the provisional government installed in 1994, creation of some key commissions warrants attention as they reflect the thought processes and political governance type of choice. A Consultative Forum for Political Organizations was established in 1994, and between 1999 and 2000, a National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC), a Legal and Constitutional Commission and a National Electoral Commission (NEC) were established. According to the GNU, the Consultative Forum for Political Organizations’ role was to contribute and give ideas on good governance, bring about consensus among the parties on issues of national importance and ensure good leadership for a New Rwanda. It was initially established to analyze and confirm the candidatures of members to join the National Transitional Assembly. Later, the forum was solidified in the Constitution of 2003 to maintain the principle of power-sharing and give room and opportunity for political organisations not represented in the government to give their contribution and play a role in the leadership of the country. The NURC was established to prepare debate on national unity and reconciliation, restorative justice initiatives, civic education, conflict mediation and community initiatives. The Legal and Constitutional Commission was established in 1999 to carry out nation-wide public consultations that would be considered in the drafting of the new Constitution, which was adopted in 2003. NEC was created in 2000 to monitor and guarantee the conduct of free and fair elections. Fast-forward to present Rwandan social sphere; the government has made noteworthy strides in service delivery, for example in providing both free primary and secondary education for all Rwandans. Commendable progress in the social sphere is seen in the promotion of gender equality with very supportive and relevant national laws, government and civil society organizations among them, women’s organizations that advocate gender equality and children’s rights. The country’s establishment of transitional and/or restorative justice initiatives to address the backlog of Genocide cases, notably the traditional community court system known as Gacaca courts and the subsequent abolishment of capital punishment in 2007, are evidence of the progress post-Genocide Rwanda has made in reconciliation and restorative justice efforts. Procedurally, the post-2003 leadership of Rwanda has had commendable formal democratic attributes, namely: the 2003 Constitution, democratic dispensation with first multiparty elections in 2003, very gender equity laws and Parliament, independent courts and a decentralized local government that has not only taken services closer to the people but earned them a much bigger voice in governance matters. The current Constitution was approved with slightly over ninety percent of the popular vote in a referendum held in May 2003, replacing the 1995 Fundamental Law that guided the transitional unified leadership. Additionally, the first multiparty presidential and legislative elections in 2003 heralded the end of the provisional transitional government which subsequently signaled commencement of a new multi-party democratic dispensation. Rwanda currently has eleven registered political parties and multi-party elections/campaigns have thus far been characterized by civil/peaceful competition. According to the Constitution, the President and the Speaker of Parliament cannot belong to the same political party – irrespective of the score of the winning party at the polls. Furthermore, irrespective of its electoral popularity, no political party can exceed fifty percent of the cabinet and parliamentary positions. Principally, a power-sharing arrangement among different political parties has been constitutionalised, thus nurturing an atmosphere of consensus-based decision-making in the whole government. In general, this political approach is inherently reminiscent of the prominent contemporary philosopher Jürgen Habermas’ theory of Communicative Action, in which “actors in society seek to reach common understanding and to coordinate actions by reasoned argument, consensus, and cooperation”. For productive political discourse, Habermas offers this critical theory as an alternative to the customary option, particularly in political discourse, of Strategic Action which denotes “how individuals calculate other people into their plans to reach subjective goals or self-interests.” However, it’s not only his general theoretical prominence that makes him relevant to making sense of the Rwandan political set-up. Communicative Action also offers a theoretical basis or a lens to make sense of post Genocide Rwanda’s political make-up. Just like Communicative Action, Consensual democracy underscores widespread public participation, sharing of information with the public, reaching consensus through public dialogue and/ or debate rather than exercise of power, avoiding the privileging of experts and bureaucrats, and replacing the model of the technical expert with one of the reflective. In this view, the legitimacy of democracy depends not only on constitutional processes of enacting laws, but also on the discursive quality of the full processes of deliberation leading up to desired harmony and ownership of the thought processes, decision and outcomes. In conclusion, post-Genocide Rwanda’s political evolution is informed by its past history and a conscious decision by its leadership to steer the country away from confrontational and/or divisive politics that would only divert valuable resources and efforts that are now commendably prioritised for providing goods and services to the populace. The author is Charge d’Affaires a.i, Rwanda High Commission, Lusaka This article was first published in the Daily Nation of Zambia

Opinions

Consensual Democracy as opposed to Confrontational Politics – Rwanda's Conscious Choice