Rwanda’s democracy veers from the norm
THE UPPER house of Rwanda’s parliament recently passed a constitutional amendment allowing President Paul Kagame to run for a third consecutive term and thereby to potentially remain in power for the next two decades.
This creates uncertainty over Rwanda’s commitment to conventional democratic principles, such as executive power vesting in an office, rather than a person. But more directly, what does it mean for Rwanda’s economic and social development?
Conventional political theory holds that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With his move to absolute power, the key question is: is Kagame corrupt?
Two weeks ago on a flight back to South Africa via Libreville and Kigali, speaking with a group of Rwandan nationals, they proffered a thought-provoking insight on the situation which was a request to “look at Rwanda with African lenses before giving an opinion”.
Kagame has been in power since 1994 when his rebels ousted the Hutu extremists. He subsequently won the 2003 and 2010 national elections with more than 90 percent of the vote. He is now serving the last two years of his second seven-year term. A few months ago a petition was drafted requesting that Kagame present himself for the third time. Over 60 percent of voters positively responded to the petition.
Will of the people
The only remaining barrier to his eligibility for a third term is a national referendum on the constitutional amendment, but as we know Kagame is an emblematic figure for most in his country and has never lost the popular vote.
Outside commentators may view the situation as yet another African president in the process of changing the constitution to remain in power.
However, the overwhelming majority of voters in Rwanda are requesting that Kagame stay in power. This is vastly different from the typical authoritarian African leader who would stay in power through the sheer use of force or military might.
In fact, some would argue that Kagame’s extension of term is democracy in action; the will of the people upheld. What is clear is that Kagame has proven, at least to the people of Rwanda, that he is more than a freedom fighter, he is a developmental leader who delivers progress.
Under Kagame’s leadership, Rwanda has had a sustained economic growth of between 7 percent and 8 percent, one of the highest growth rates in Africa.
The UN named Rwanda as one of the best countries to do business in. The country is indeed an investor friendly environment, not only was the official language changed from French to English to attract more business, in 2013 the World Bank also put Rwanda as the second-best global reformer.
Rwanda is the most competitive place to do business in east Africa and the third in sub-Saharan Africa. These advances have made Rwanda an increasingly attractive destination for foreign investment.
Also, Rwanda has the fasted broadband internet in Africa according to Ookla (an internet service provider). Rwanda has also been successful in implementing special economic zones.
It is well known that Kagame rules Rwanda with an Iron fist. There is not much freedom of speech and press in Rwanda and the long arm of his influence stretches far; for example, the Green Party that tried to stop the parliament from voting on the term extension could not find a lawyer to present their case. All the lawyers they approached were too scared to take on Kagame’s supporters and Kagame has even gone so far as to admit that his leadership style is authoritarian.
The world is looking at Kagame and his legacy. There is a big question as to who will be able to fill his shoes should he step down. At the moment, the Rwandan president does not have to worry much about what the world thinks or whether he is bringing happiness to his people, especially if they are pushing for him to stay.
The broader issue is about setting a precedent. If it becomes the norm for Rwanda’s president to sit for three terms, what happens if the next leader does not have Kagame’s economic prowess, but rather self-aggrandisement built on despotism and sowing fear?
There is a reason a limitation of the political term is a good democratic counter- balance; while it may restrict the visionaries, it also limits the damage done by poor leaders. Similarly, there is no guarantee that the economic growth of the past term will be continued, especially as lower commodity prices are impacting investment and develop across the African continent as a whole.
Precedent
However this matter ends, Africa is in the front seat of a never-before seen show. Should Kagame voluntarily step away from power? Or, should we hold him up for comparison against someone like Nelson Mandela who stepped away after his first term precisely because he wanted to break the precedent of life-long African leaders?
Perhaps that opportunity has passed to change Rwanda’s political landscape – especially as Kagame did nothing to hinder the constitutional amendment, and it is hard to believe he could not stop the process.
Conversely, the kicker is that this may not be a bad thing; if he stays, perhaps he can still do much more for his nation. As he recently said: “If I ran again, I would do more of what I am doing to improve the well-being of the citizens of Rwanda.” So we say: hold on to your front-row tickets, this show should be one worth watching!