Keep to the rules

JUST less than 15 years ago, Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front faced a momentous decision.

As the country drafted a new constitution, it became increasingly clear that a majority of Rwandans, informed by an inglorious past, did not want a return to a multi-party political system.

The popular view back then was that the parties had been responsible for the division that culminated in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi and should, therefore, be discarded.

In a bold and foresighted departure from popular sentiment, however, Kagame and his cabinet persuaded the public to accept multi-party democracy – and so it came to pass.

Kagame faces a similar call of duty today.

Even though it is two years to the end of his two-term tenure as president in mid-2017, calls to amend the constitution to remove term limits are gaining momentum daily.

Left to the masses, a constitutional amendment to that effect would receive a resounding endorsement. The major factor driving the call for scrapping term limits is Kagame’s record. The RPF and Kagame have already entered the annals of history for their feat of healing, rebuilding and giving a sense of hope and faith in the future to a previously fractured and hopeless country.

Today Rwanda is not only a nation with a sense of purpose, but key social indicators shame its bigger siblings who have not suffered its misfortunes.

Just as with its East African Community partners, the history of term limits in the region’s constitutions is rooted in its experience with bad leadership

Leaders like Kagame come once in several generations and the seeming lack of an alternative to him should be the reason for maintaining the current constitutional order – because removing term limits could play into the hands of a future bad leader.

Constitutions are like lampposts. They are there to light our way in the event of a blizzard and they are not removed or shifted just because the weather happens to be fair.