Rwanda and the dangers of democracy: How Stephen Kinzer got it wrong

In a recent article in the Boston Globe, Rwanda and the dangers of democracy, Stephen Kinzer perfectly illustrated how even knowledgeable Western commentators consistently get it wrong on Rwanda. His line of argumentation follows a well-established path regarding Africa:

 

Muting African citizens as constituency:

The success achieved by Rwanda is depicted not as a result of the daily choices of Rwandans but an oppressive State. Yet it should be obvious for every man to realize that for health, agriculture, cleanliness, security to improve, every Rwandan must make the right choices every day. The idea of a passive citizenry oppressed into peace, that otherwise would fall against each other into an endless cycle of genocide, is an old avatar of a fundamental tenant of Western views on Africa: the African people are not citizens, they don’t have political interests, and they are absent minded like an animal in the zoo. As the famous poem by Rilke goes: As he paces in cramped circles, over and over, the movement of his powerful soft strides is like a ritual dance around a center in which a mighty will stands paralyzed.

 

Genocide as natural disaster:

Closely linked to the mindless state of Africans is to associate political events in Africa to the realm of nature. In all seriousness, Stephen Kinzer claims: “Kagame’s restrictions on free speech mean that the country’s two traditional ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi, cannot preach hatred of each other. If democracy means an end to these restrictions, the result could be another explosion of murderous violence”. First, hate speech is not an opinion but a crime in every society. Second, genocide is not ‘an explosion of murderous violence’ but, as my Professor in Constitutional Law used to say, the most rational crime. It is a State crime, a political project using State resources to plan and execute murder. Since it is a State crime, the State also uses the international order to its favor as we have seen in Rwanda, including geopolitical allies. The irony here is that even when Africans commit horrendous things such as genocide, their assumed mindlessness is used as absolution.

Sustainability and transfer of power:

Now commentators of Rwanda have found a new passion: political sustainability. Unfortunately, they don’t follow the intense debates about this topic that happened within the Rwanda Patriotic Front and the Rwandan society in general. The question on “how there can be change while ensuring continuity and stability” was intensely debated. At the end, Rwandans made a simple analysis: the real reason of our vulnerability is that we are in dependence. We therefore ought to achieve economic liberation for our democracy to be fully backed by our productivity. The real question therefore was not how fast we can change a leader but which leader can deliver economic liberation the fastest. The answer was clear; it is actually President Kagame who raised our horizon to that objective.

Stephen Kinzer ends his article by saying “If he can find a formula for political transition that is as successful as his anti-poverty formula has been, Rwanda will be a permanent model for the world”. But he misses again the point, the graduation from poverty is the political formula. Isn’t it obvious that there is no sustainable democracy, when a population cannot foot the bill of its political objectives? Again, the reason it is not obvious for a Western commentator is that for him, we may stay in dependency while there are other more urgent things to discuss.  Incidentally, those more urgent things to discuss, are part of a script written for us by people who derive their sense of entitlement from our economic weakness.

The transition of power is not an event that will be successful by a change of guard. The transition of power we want is power back to ourselves. It is a process whose success depends on the choices we make every day to end the intergenerational transfer of poverty. Whoever will prove him or herself on that front will gain the confidence of Rwandans. This is the political equation Africa needs.

Paul Kagame and the legitimacy question

Ever since Rwanda was discovered, western explorers raised the legitimacy question. Already then, the cohesion of Rwandans was labeled as anomaly.  Rwanda was discovered rather late when other African countries had been subjected to centuries of oppression. The reason why Rwanda raises such passionate debate is that in some sense it is the last bastion of African nation States.

Rwanda continues to defy the lenses through which Africans are categorized in Western inventories. The cohesion of one language, one culture renders ethnical division problematic. The enthusiasm and success towards nation building based on cultural norms brings to the fore African agency, while any positive development in Africa has necessarily to have an external source. President Kagame’s unmatched ability in nation building speaks of an ideological figure, yet western media would like us to believe that he is an ephemeral natural phenomenon. Ironically, they speak of limited democratic credentials, while at the same time casting into doubt the ability of Rwandans to be driven by ideas. Whenever they speak of President Kagame as oppressor, it means that his achievements were not driven by Rwandans who desire a better future instead the sacrifice, the forgiveness, the discipline and hard work are the result of oppression, read people without agency.

Against this background, however, facts are stubborn. President Paul Kagame has been chosen to champion reforms of the African Union by his peers, his speeches are intensely commented upon on his facebook and twitter pages, his popularity in Africa and beyond is without measure to the geographical size of Rwanda. According to the UN, no other country has improved human development in the last 25 years like Rwanda. Can the attempt to resist Paul Kagame as historical figure and Statesman hold?

To be fair, such attempts are championed by a minority group. The ideological onslaught against Rwanda has also evolved, albeit its basic denial of African agency remains constant. The lack of legitimacy has now evolved to an issue of lack of sustainability. It goes like: “Rwanda’s story is one man show, the population helplessly awaits for the system to collapse when Paul Kagame will no longer be President”. The lack of another alternative in 2017, they say, is proof that no alternative can emerge. Here, Rwandans are immature political agents who don’t think about the future of leadership in their country or suppress any attempt to do so. But where on earth did a population put so much thought into nation building that people forgave the killers of their families, distanced themselves from relatives with racial ideology, hold grassroots panels of restorative justice and commonly achieved behavioral development outcomes like in Rwanda? Compared with problems such a bankrupt country full of land mines, mass graves and millions of internally and externally displaced people, an insurgency by genocidal forces, the question of succession in leadership does not appear to be a Damocles sword hanging over Rwanda.

The real Damocles sword hanging over Rwanda is our status of development that gives mischievous or ignorant western actors a front seat to discuss how we are organized.  The terms of reference of our leader are to put an end to this situation that affects our dignity. Now every empirical study suggests that such transformation takes a generation of constant delivery in leadership.

In this context, is it that complicated to understand that Rwandans wished the transition of power to be generational in nature and not just electoral? Our political priority is actually to get rid of dependence and thereby putting the legitimacy debate where it belongs: in the historical dustbin.

Come August 4^th our choice is clear, the Statesman we have is not like Superman who leaves after heroic acts, the one we have actually stayed so that we can defend ourselves. His name is Paul Kagame.

The fallacy of political conditionality

Development aid is a form of public investment that people sought to optimize in view of its limited usefulness. Policy makers and experts agreed on a set of principles to maximize return on investment, the so-called aid effectiveness principles. The overarching rationale was a trend back to managerial principles and shift away from a practice purely justified by good intentions: national performance targets were aligned with a global developmental agenda. This paradigm shift has produced an MDG-decade of poverty decline and economic growth. Nearly all African countries have made dramatic socio-economic improvements and the perception of the continent changed from a desperate to a continent of growth  composed of lions on the move.

The economic approach to the use of aid was a triumph of a people’s centered approach, according to which success was measured with improved socio-economic living conditions of the people rather than the state centered application of norms to satisfy political goals, the so-called political conditionality.

The agency focused economic approach to the use of aid might sound to some as cold utilitarianism. It is indeed good business since it allows for the best return on investment: aid effectiveness leads to improved living conditions, which in turn create market opportunities for the donor countries. However, the economic approach is in actual fact humanism par excellence: It puts the socioeconomic interests of the people above the interest of any structural consideration (political interests).

Someone might ask about the political interests of the people. Well, promoting political interests of others, such as human rights, can make you feel good but it is an aberration. Empirically, there are two considerations to retain. First, the promotion of human rights suffers from double-standards. The one giving lessons are immune of criticism against their own violations of human rights. Second, political conditionality has not proven to be efficient to advance the cause of human rights. It is not possible for a country to satisfy political conditionality on human rights without using the aid effectiveness principles to achieve socioeconomic transformation. Political conditionality focused on human rights has rather created a perverse effect of rent seeking behavior by human rights activists: a) they compete for the same resources as the beneficent countries b) on the basis that they can prove human rights violations. What is more, human rights activists escape by virtue of their image the realm of mutual accountability, enshrined in the aid effectiveness principles.

Dogmatically, one may even question how issues of human rights can be subject to a partnership contract. Unlike economic interests, human rights are inalienable and not fungible. Only the beneficiary of such rights is entitled to exercise them, however even such beneficiary is not allowed to bargain them. Stipulating human rights for the benefit of third parties is a fallacy.

Does it mean that powerful and resourceful nation should just neglect human rights violations perpetrated in partner countries? No, the best way to promote human rights is to promote the people, to empower them socioeconomically so that they can make their own choices. Imposing ones choices on other societies doesn’t function empirically. This is what the last decade of MDGs was about. It is now being questioned by donors looking for transcendence in the wake of the economic crisis that has shaken their beliefs.