Why Rwanda's democracy will unfold differently

It wasexpected that Western powers will react negatively to Rwanda’s democratically approved constitutional change that allowed the incumbent to run for a third term whilst reducing future terms from two seven-year terms to two five-year terms. However, what is surprising is the harsh tone used in the press statement issued by the spokesperson of the US Bureau of Public Affairs, saying “the United States is deeply disappointed”. I am not a denialist of Africa’s troubles and the distraction caused by power-hungry leaders. None of our longstanding leaders have a legacy they can boast about, but distraction, underdevelopment and poverty that has left our continent and race as the laughing-stock of other races. It is our leaders who have turned us into beggars, and with every pittance a beggar receives comes along scorn, disrespect, discrimination and control. We see all this in the Western world’s interactions with Africa. The US’s response to President Kagame heeding his people’s call reflects this scorn, disrespect and control. Events in neighbouring Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville and DR Congo reinforce their resolve. But they are wrong. Are we as Africans to accept that being beggars that our looting leaders have turned us into means we cede our rights to self-determination? With no questions asked? Are we to be dictated upon about how to govern ourselves when a look at different countries around the world shows you that there is no one-size-fits-all form of governance in the world? There is hardly correlation between success and specific form of governance. Yes the US has prospered immensely with their combination of capitalism and their own brand of democracy, but so has China, the number two economy in the world, with a completely opposite political governance system. So has tiny Singapore punched way above its weight but they can hardly be called a democracy, atleast in the eyes of the Western powers. So have the monarchs of the Middle East. The cure to Africa’s ills is economic prosperity. Educated, prosperous people cannot be controlled and manipulated by devious leaders. It is not a political governance system that brings prosperity, it is economic stewardship. And this is where the West needs to look at Rwanda differently. The progress made by Rwanda in the past 20 years can only be described as a miracle. The country is prospering economically and Rwandans are being taken out poverty at probably the quickest pace in the world. Civil liberties reign supreme as respected organisations like the Global Gender Gap ranks Rwanda number six in the whole world for gender equality. America’s Gallup ranks Rwanda as the happiest and the best place to live in Africa. The World Economic Forum ranks Rwanda the 7th most efficient government in the world. The list of accolades goes on. Why then would Rwandan people want to change a government that has brought them so much? Why change a winning formula and take unnecessary risk? Yes, presidents of countries who defy the will of their people must be dealt harshly. Identifying them is not hard, the citizenry is the first to show their dissatisfaction with protests and, ultimately, riots and god forbids the worst. The change in Rwanda was obtained peacefully and democratically, there is no reason to believe this wasn’t the will of the people. It would be a crime to sacrifice the economic prosperity of Rwanda at the altar of unfounded and prejudiced skepticism. Countries, the world over, are built on the foundation of strong leaders, whose leadership has created a culture that defines the country. America had Abraham Lincoln, Britain had Winston Churchill, Singapore had Lee Kuan Yew, who led Singapore from 1959 to 1990-31 years. Yet, on Lee’s death, President Obama eulogised him as “a true giant of history, a visionary who led his country from independence in 1965 to build one of the most prosperous countries in the world today, he was a devoted public servant and a remarkable leader”. Yet, just like Kagame, Lee was criticised that under him, Singapore became known for the government’s authoritarian rule, strict law enforcement and limits on public protests, to which Lee responded was a justified tactic necessary to maintain stability and independence. Just like Rwanda, the strict rule was reflected in the clean, modern and affluent city that Singapore became. With low taxes, good schools, low crime and investment-friendly laws, Singapore became a preferred destination for Western companies. It is ironic that all the talk about democracy and democratisation in Africa are usually presented in the West as if they were completely new concepts and practices to Africans. This mentality considers Africans as incapable of democratic thoughts and they should be imbued with the notion of “civilized” Western democracy. What has been consistently ignored is that the values and democratic processes were as indigenous to Africans as they were to the ancient Greeks. Western efforts in African democratisation seem to be all about hegemony and the spread of Western culture as part of globalisation. It is sustained by a brand of cultural arrogance that, in the nineteenth century, also supported scientific racism and European imperialism. Democracy should be conceived as a way of government firmly rooted in the belief that people in any society should be free to determine their political, economic, social, and cultural systems. But the form it takes can vary according to the particular circumstances of any society. The writer is the Founder and Group-CEO of MobiCash Group. He is a technology evangelist and an advocate for financial inclusion

Opinions

Why Rwanda's democracy will unfold differently