Ms Ingabire Victoire is at it again, lying through her teeth. In an Aljazeera article that was published on September 15, 2022 with the title "Rwanda’s consensual democracy needs a reset,” Ms Ingabire misrepresents Rwanda, something she seems to have made a habit of, to suit a narrative meant to further her unattainable political ambitions. Like her previous articles in Aljazeera and elsewhere, this one too it is riddled with unfounded claims, half-truths and omissions, all meant to dim the incredible achievements of her country in the last 28 years in the eyes of a gullible audience. Then, as now, Ms Ingabire’s narrative cannot stand up to closer scrutiny.
Ms Ingabire sets the ground for her deceitful advocacy with an unfounded allegation in the hope that AlJazeera’s readers will take at face value. While she is right to point out that "Consensual democracy was chosen as the best option for Rwanda to accelerate development and prevent further ethnic violence” and that "the constitution was amended to oblige all political parties to be part of and follow the guidelines of an established political party forum”, she proceeds with a groundless statement that, "[Rwanda’s consensual democracy] gradually transformed into a system where the ruling RPF dictates terms to other political parties.”
One, Ms Ingabire accuses the RPF of taking over the agency of the political parties in the consensus model. Yet, here is Ingabire herself usurping the agency of these political parties by making herself their spokesperson and projecting her own grievances upon them when there is no record that they have expressed similar complaints about the political arrangement.
Two, Ms Ingabire’s unregistered political party is not - and will hopefully never be - a member of this forum for reasons to do with her own criminal record, which to date she refuses to own despite the fact that she sought, and was granted, clemency for those crimes. This isn’t the same thing as being found innocent, as Ms Ingabire tries to (mis)represent herself at every turn.
Moreover, Ms Ingabire talks about the forum as if it were banned by the RPF. On the contrary, it continues to fulfill its mandate and some of its members even use the influence it confers to air their grievances. Those familiar with Rwanda’s politics know that government critic and leader of the Democratic Green Party, Dr Frank Habineza, has used his position as the spokesperson of the forum to advance his own political agenda. Indeed, Dr Habineza, whose party has two seats in Rwanda’s parliament, has repeatedly sought to secure positions in the government.
Although Dr Habineza’s expectations are based on a dubious interpretation of the country’s constitution, the motives behind his criticism are clearly not those advanced by Ms Ingabire. Dr Habineza wants government positions when Ms Ingabire advocates for more political space to mainstream and normalize the very thing that led her to prison and remains Rwanda’s political problem: genocide ideology. Most importantly, even if motivated by the narrow interests of his Green Party, Dr Habineza’s conception of dialogue excludes genocide perpetrators as well as those harbouring genocide ideology or those leading terror armed groups. In other words, it de facto excludes Ms Ingabire whose membership to two of these categories prompted criminal prosecution and condemnation. This begs the question: if members of other political parties exclude her from the political scene, who exactly is Ms Ingabire speaking for?
Another aspect of Ms Ingabire’s misleading narrative of Rwanda’s journey since the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi deserves attention. "Can [Rwanda’s] model respond to the current concerns of the people when it allows for their civil liberties to be curbed? And has Rwanda’s much-touted economic progress satisfied its needs?” Ms Ingabire asks as if she had not been able to witness first-hand the happenings in her society and the progress made so far.
Surely, Ms Ingabire knows that Rwandans are able to air their grievances with matters concerning their lives - particularly regarding government’s performance in service delivery - in different forums, including radio talk shows and social media. A good example of this is how drastic changes in Taxi- moto operations were made in response to grievances expressed by the moto drivers. These changes would not be possible if civil liberties were curbed (as Ms Ingabire claims) and drivers were not able to voice their discontent. But Ms Ingabire fails to distinguish her criminal discourse from the legitimate dissent of law-abiding citizens. As a result, those on whose behalf she claims to speak end up contradicting her through their actions or speeches.
Moreover, the way Ms Ingabire dismisses the obvious benefits of Rwanda’s economic progress in the lives of ordinary citizens is astonishing. Any fair minded observer would agree that the things that Rwanda does for its people have no equivalent in nations with comparable income. In fact, things like universal medical insurance, which is a reality for Rwandans, do not even exist in the richest and, presumably, most democratic country in the world. Also, and unlike in the old Rwanda that Ms Ingabire longs for, education is accessible to all and government scholarships are not attributed on the basis of ethnic identity or social status.
Ms Ingabire argues that "the country still has among the lowest per capita incomes in the world. Its human development index is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa,” but fails to mention that none of the countries she compares Rwanda to witnessed the same level of destruction 28 years ago, with over a million of their citizens disappearing in only three months.
Of course, a context-free analysis wouldn’t favor Rwanda, but since Ms Ingabire is so fond of reports, here are some she doesn’t wish to see mentioned at all. In 2019, Rwanda was, according to the World Bank, the best country in improving quality of life, rule of law, accountability and transparency at the continent level. This is not surprising considering that, in 2015, Rwanda ranked 7th as most efficient government globally, according to the World Economic Forum.
Further, Rwanda ranked first out of 33 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the 2021 Rule of Law Index. This is one report that Ms Ingabire would not like mentioned as it greatly undermines her baseless claims of wrongful conviction. Rwandan courts are independent and their determination of Ms Ingabire’s guilt was based on credible evidence obtained with the collaboration of Dutch authorities who clearly were not under any obligation to conduct a search in her home in the Netherlands and provide the evidence uncovered there to Rwandan authorities.
But who cares about facts? Surely not Ms Ingabire who will keep publishing her fiction through AlJazeera - the news outlet that obviously promotes "liberal” democracy around the world, except on the territory where it operates.