Public servants are not working up to expectations. President Paul Kagame estimates that the efforts they are currently putting forth amounts to a meagre 40 percent of their abilities. This lacklustre effort, he observed, has a debilitating effect on the country’s ability to achieve its national development goals and undermines the potential to lift the standards of living of Rwandans. It’s troubling. Even to get that 40 percent out of them there has to be some threat of sanctions – it has to be squeezed out of them. Consequently, public servants have taken to mastering the art of the apology when they should rather place similar efforts in doing what it is that they are appointed to do. “Why do we get to the point of punishment where there is a much easier way: fulfilling your duty to the best of your ability,” the president is quoted admonishing the leaders gathered for the 13th National Leadership Retreat. And so, the president is dissatisfied, to say the least. But how do we understand the reasons for, and extent of, his anger? Herein lies a paradox. On the one hand we have a country that has exceeded global expectations: a country that is among the best in utilising development aid for its intended use, where donors get a bang for their buck; where millions have been lifted out of poverty in record time so much so that the UN now says that Rwanda is the fastest developing country in the world; one of the most conducive places for doing business in Africa; the safest and cleanest place on the African continent. The list is long. But I think these examples suffice in as far as they emphasise the point that the country has made a name for itself around the globe for exceptional performance despite what is well-known that it has meagre resources at its disposal. Moreover, when one considers the situation across our dear continent it is difficult to conclude that what is observed there amounts to an effort that is anything near 40 percent. So, President Kagame should be ecstatic, right? Wrong. From observing many of these countries that seem to operate on auto-pilot, he knows that a country is functional with only a 40 percent effort from its leaders; and is aware – we all are – that those countries are doing just fine with that much effort, scanty as it may be. Here lies the difference, however. It’s in the conception of doing “fine.” It is but a word, capable of denoting a situation that can either be positive or negative depending on one’s values or overall predisposition towards life and its meaning. For instance, the mind-set of our students conditions them to simply “pass.” Don’t ask them about excelling. This is “fine.” But we all know that fine is at best average; it is the best of the worst, a synonym for mediocre. For, I’m reminded of a conversation I once had with a friend about a capital city in one of Africa’s sleeping giants. “Around here,” he began, with palpable anguish in his voice, “when a building is painted, they invite a cabinet minister to preside over its launch.” Nothing else ails Africa other than the embrace of mediocrity as a predisposition for life. We fail due to an attitude that says it’s fine to shoot for the average; we normalise the abnormal as a standard against which we accept to be measured. It is the illness that afflicts us; we lack nothing else; it is why our continent is trapped in the Bermuda Triangle of eternal “potential.” This is why the accolades that we continue to receive are only as useful as the assumptions they are based upon. What is the standard, anyway? And why would a father be praised for feeding his child? Isn’t the assumption that he is expected to neglect it? Good luck with that ‘father of the year’ award. A standard for public service Kagame’s anger stems from the low standards that the leaders seem to have set for themselves. It is about the comfort they have found in the false satisfaction that everyone else is saying that they are doing a marvellous job; it is an anger whose underlying intention is to propel them out of this hollow comfort zone. The President’s only choice is a false choice. He either has to drill excellence into his cadre of leaders or accept them to drag him into the absurdity of mediocrity. By relaxing the standards he requires of them he falls into the trap of low expectations – oh yes, it is a booby trap. This is why the president is angry.
