What Kagame has cost us
Now Paul Kagame has acquired power legitimately, it's vital that ordinary people are included in his vision for Rwanda's future.
By Yoletta Nyange
No one thought that Paul Kagame was going to lose the elections in Rwanda last week; indeed, no one expected there to be fully democratic elections in Rwanda. So why all the hype surrounding the event? If there were no expectations when he first came into power, there is no standard for judging him. If there are still none for his third term, it means he can exercise free rein over Rwanda.
The real question is this: what has Kagame done that was not expected of him as a president of a poor landlocked African country, with no resources? This man did not take power under a democracy, he took power at gunpoint. He's been a leading figure during the past two decades, having led the 1990 invasion, taken power in 1994 and now received carte blanche to rule until at least 2017.
By any account, Kagame has done a very good job in Rwanda, considering what he inherited. He turned Rwanda into a powerful brand: the tiny African nation with voracious ambitions. More than ever, capital is pouring into the country and financial reports are tailored to reassure the international community of donors and investors that their money is being well used.
But what does the economy stand for when 50% of the children are malnourished? Who does the annual economic growth of 8.3% and $500m of foreign investment benefit when 60% of the country lives below the poverty level on just $0.43 daily? There has been a lot of press about Kigali's remarkably clean streets, the ban on plastic bags and that walking barefoot in the capital had become illegal, all to the government's account. But this is a whitewash. Who said we needed a president to clean the streets under which 800,000 people are buried?
Certainly there have been benefits to Kagame's rule in Rwanda, but what has it cost us? Is the price equal to the good that he has done in Rwanda? Humanitarian disasters of biblical magnitude have hit the Great Lakes region: it is estimated that nearly 6 million people died as a consequence of the genocide. One million Rwandans are still living in refugee camps just outside Rwandan borders, while another million are spread around the world.
The reality is that there is enormous resentment brewing in the country. Only 12% of the population has access to electricity. While the country is blessed with fertile soil, food insecurity remains a significant threat in Rwanda. Some 90% of Rwandans subsist on agriculture, and feel bitter about the government's plans to push horticulture, call centres, and mining services forward on their empty stomachs.
In a country where land is the most important form of private property, farmers are forced to grow crops imposed by the government and sell them to get money to buy the food they need. They can no longer reap a harvest for their own family. Their plots are looted and they end up resettled in so-called "communal villages" (imidugudu), which is hard to cope with when Kigali is full of luxurious housing projects.
The justice system suffers from a deficiency of credibility, a poison that gradually but dreadfully threatens the country. Gacaca community courts and the ICTR have failed the expectations of Rwandans and the increasingly reluctant funder, the international community. Rwanda has the third highest incarceration rate in the world, behind the United States and Russia. Intellectuals are dead, jailed or in exile. The education system is ruined. A disruptive switch to English as the language of instruction, low morale and lousy salaries have teachers at the end of their tethers. Inevitably, Rwanda's professional community has become terrifyingly incompetent.
There is no such thing as a future for Rwandans under these conditions. Kagame's former allies talk openly about bringing him down. Terror attacks haven't come to an end with his reappointment. Westerners seem to have suddenly exposed the evil in their protege. And recent developments indicate that some governments are starting to disassociate themselves from Rwanda's president. None of these scenarios herald better times for the people of Rwanda.
But now he has acquired power, legitimately, can we expect there to be a balance between the costs and the benefits, in his third term of office? We can hope for peace in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the entire Great Lakes region. We can hope that refugees will stop being forcefully deported to Rwanda and exiles will be free to return to their beloved country.
It will mean that people will feel comfortable to live and prosper under the regime. We hope that he will open up and allow people to speak freely, heal together and walk towards a common future. And we hope that by 2017, then veteran president Paul Kagame will graciously leave the stage with all honours due to his rank, enjoy his retirement, set up a few charities and write his memoirs, while offering his 23 years of governing experience as guidance to his successor.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
