Rwanda and Burundi: Democracy at its best

A few of us ‘pundits’ were invited on the now popular TV show “Debate 411” that is hosted by the gregarious Eugene Anangwe to discuss democracy in Africa and, in particular, the communiqué by the United States in which it stated that it was “deeply disappointed” by the decision by President Paul Kagame to seek a third term. An active member of Rwandans on Twitter tweeted asking whether I would elaborate in this space a point that I had raised in which I pointed out that it was important for us to distinguish between democracy of form and democracy of substance. At the very basic level, democracy can be defined as the rule by consent from the ruled. It is also about values. We give consent to our leaders to express – put in practice, promote – certain values on our behalf. If democracy was not about the expression of values, there would not be so much effort to impose it on others. In other words, what is being imposed, beyond the dogmatic rhetoric, are one’s values. And this is where the plot thickens. Because societies by nature jealously guard against distorting their value systems, they tend to resist any form of transposition that is placed upon them. The question, thus, becomes this: whose values shall prevail? Democracy finds expression – positive or negative – in that question. Which is how in Africa, or in any other neo-colonial setting for that matter, the comprador class (domestic purveyors of foreign interests) finds itself at odds with the rural masses. The former, by virtue of its education, exposure, and networks, favours a form of democracy that is distinct to the kind preferred by the latter. This is due to perceptions, real or imagined, of competing interests and mutual alienation whose cause is rather complex to go into at this point. However, it is important to point out that the debate on democracy almost always favours the interests of the comprador class at the expense of those of the peasants. This is a bias that is almost inherent in the discourse on democracy simply because the latter are not partaking in it. Which is simply unfair, something that should concern anyone with an iota of a conscience. Moreover, it is a reality that distorts the discourse on democracy. Simply because they are the loudest and have powerful patrons in different Western metropolis shouldn’t be enough basis for the triumph of their preference: freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and etcetera. In Rwanda, for instance, when they talk political space they want the RPF to assist to develop its opponents. As if the Democratic Party would cede California (which they’ve held for as long as the RPF has been in power) to the Republicans in order to help them stay competitive! Don’t get me wrong. Freedom of conscience is a wonderful thing. What I am against is the loudness with which these demands are made that distorts the true nature of the democratic aspirations of society. The noise overshadows the aspirations of the silent majority: when a feeder road will be built to take produce to market, when the ministry of agriculture will provide fertilizers, when mosquito nets will be provided, when shall electricity reach our area so that our children stop relying on a lantern to do their homework, when shall we get a health centre close enough so that the number of mothers who die on their way to give life is reduced, etcetera. If you think I’m making this stuff up, just look up the annual reports of Imihigo to see what the aspirations of the ordinary people are. You will realise that when these people go to vote they know exactly what they are doing. Despite that, however, the discourse on Rwanda’s democracy often focuses on whether the Light Green Party, for instance, has been able to get a lawyer in the latest case it has lodged against the government. Such discourse may gain the sympathy of the gallery – the Western gallery – for whom it targets as its purveyors continue to caricature themselves in front of people who despise them behind their backs. However, if their objective was ever to wrestle political power from the incumbent – which I doubt it is – then their target ought to zero-in on the aspirations of the people who will get them the votes they need to get that power. Similarly, if the Western gallery is serious about “democracy promotion” in Africa in general, or in Rwanda for that matter, then it ought to help such political parties to align their values with those of the largest segment of the electorate instead of encouraging them to make a fool of themselves as they bojangle (silly-dance) to a non-voting Western constituency. It is due to this silly dancing that a year ago Burundi was considered a model for democracy – praised by ‘experts’ – due to its promotion of civil liberties that came at the total disregard for socioeconomic progress. In fact, depending on which type of democracy one has preference for – form or substance – Rwanda was either the most democratic or the most despotic among the five countries of the East African Community. Burundi was its diametric opposite. However, Burundi did not go to the dogs in spite of democracy; it went to the dogs because of it. Which is the difference between form and substance.

Opinions

Rwanda and Burundi: Democracy at its best