Does Rwanda need a moral icon or a transformative leader?

mchambawima1 · 2015-07-18T22:23:02+00:00

On Tuesday July 14, news broke that, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report (2014-2015) the government of Rwanda is the seventh most efficient government in the world and the only one in Africa to feature in the top 10 positions. That same day, the two chambers of Rwanda's parliament voted to acquiesce to a request by millions of Rwandans for a referendum to decide whether or not presidential term limits in the country's current Constitution should be preserved. The petitioners wanted them to be lifted to make way for President Paul Kagame to stand for election in the next presidential elections in 2017. Of the 24 senators, 23 approved. So did 79 out of 80 members of the lower chamber who belong to different political parties. Celebrating the outcome, a senior member of the second largest party, the Social Democratic Party and chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the lower chamber, Juvenal Nkusi, was quoted to have said: "This is a landmark in any democratic dispensation the world over… the people have spoken." Large numbers of colourfully attired, smiling Rwandans converged on Kigali, lined up in orderly queues and squeezed into the public galleries of both Houses to watch and listen to proceedings. Others followed via social media, radio, and television. The specific number of people who have written to parliament urging their legislators to approve the referendum tends to vary depending on whom one is talking to or which media one reads or listens to. It seems, however, that well over 3.5 million from all backgrounds have done so, representing a big chunk of the voting population. That includes non-resident Rwandans who could submit petitions online. Reports suggest large numbers did. This is important. There are claims that some petitioners were forced into signing. The question is how many of the ordinary citizens who signed physically would have not known what they were doing or would have been forced. Who by? What about those who signed online? What of the legislators? Obviously in a country of over 11 million people, there couldn't be unanimity over any issue. On this, opponents and critics include the newest of the country's 11 political parties, the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, whose leadership has petitioned the Supreme Court and individuals, journalists and others. They voice their opposition in social, print, and broadcast media. There are arguably others who have not come out to express their opinions. How many they are, it is difficult to know. Arguments for and against are equally passionate. Supporters contend that the gains Rwanda has made over the past 21 years would be at risk were President Kagame - the chief architect of the country's transformation and the driver behind its almost miraculous post-war and post-genocide recovery - to leave power before the country's still juvenile institutions mature. While they agree there are many good people within the Rwanda Patriotic Front who can take over, that, it seems, is not reassuring enough. Passionate arguments As one argued, "We have other good people. But a good person is not what we need. We need a good and strong person. Any good person could bring everything crashing down. We should not take such a risk." For him and others, the issue is not simply Kagame's performance, but also his reassuring presence, and the resulting fear of experimentation. Opponents and sceptics decry what they see as their compatriots' "irrational dependence on one man," as one put it. Others dread Rwanda's and Kagame's "loss of prestige" after all the progress that has propelled both to heights that were unimaginable 21 years ago. Exercising the minds of many is what they argue will be Rwanda's to transcend what some contend is the "African norm" whereby countries become hostage to individual leaders and leaders fail to resist the lure of power and overstay their welcome. These latter arguments strike a cord with many non-Rwandan Africans who, it seems, live in mortal fear of seeing yet another African president stay in power beyond two terms. As large numbers of Rwandans celebrated the decision by their Members of Parliament to pave the way for Kagame's continued stay in power, I was struck by the amount of lamentation and hostile commentary from other Africans on social media. A good number expressed their disappointment at the prospect of Africa not getting "another Mandela," obviously meaning a leader who fought hard to bring about change in his country and then stepped down at the height of his popularity, when he could have chosen to stay on due to popular demand. This "We want another Mandela" crowd is large, vocal, and uncompromising. No doubt, as moral icons go, few come bigger than the late Madiba. And yes, Africa needs as many as we can get. The question, though, is: Does a poor and weakly institutionalised country need a moral icon more than a transformative leader with the drive to pull it up from bottom of the pile? Is this a choice that should be available to citizens of any country, or not? Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: fgmutebi@yahoo.com

Thread starter mchambawima1
Start date Jul 19, 2015

mchambawima1

JamiiForums uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Accept Learn more…

Back

Top Bottom

Forums

New posts

Does Rwanda need a moral icon or a transformative leader?

mchambawima1

JF-Expert Member

Our Community

Regional Communities