The above debate seems to draw confusion not critique per se from characters who have excluded themselves from anything Rwanda. These are characters linked heinous crimes committed against Rwandans, or those who associate with these characters not to discern why Rwandans have chosen to stay course by requesting President Paul Kagame to sustain our social economic transformation.  These characters chose to ignore the critical gist of our debate which is, either sustenance of what we have achieved to date, or existential threats in absence of sustenance .

Existential Threat.

In my previous article I  exposed existential threats posed by not sustaining our stability and exemplary leadership- which could turn our country into another Somalia, Liberia, Iraq, Libya, or South Sudan.

What is unique with Rwanda, unlike the aforementioned countries is that; we are both post conflict and a post genocide country (an extreme terrible state a country can be in) whereas the former happen to be post conflict countries only.  We are a country in transition and at a takeoff stage of our development. In transition stage you don’t gamble, if you are lucky to have an exemplary leader in place.  Countries which have tried such a gamble have regressed

Existential threats like a possibility of recurrence of genocide given that, it is official FDLR are protected by strong interest groups. The risk of reversal of our reconciliation model is real, and so is that of our social economic transformation that are both work in progress. The risks of reversal of our unprecedented peace and security model that addresses both internal and external threats is equally real. The risk that huge regional as well as local projects will stall such as northern corridor rail to Kigali and pipeline, as well as Bugesera airport projects among others is high. There is also a huge risk that, our untold story will certainly be told differently with the consequence that, genocide and its impact to our social fabric will be diluted or even reversed by the aforementioned powerful interest groups.  Characters making noise in western capitals are not party to or exposed to these threats as ‘they have sanctuaries’ in these capitals with no threats whatsoever. 

Today’s Rwanda has been shaped by President Paul Kagame, so much that any change in his leadership will certainly pose existential threat to Rwanda.  His moral authority, charismatic leadership, hard work and discipline has ensured high standard of performance that is trusted both at home and abroad. It has earned Rwanda a unique place/status that never was.  As Mr Tee Ngugi put it in his article in East African July 4, "to build a nationhood… President Kagame had to inculcate a sense of shared values, and to inspire all to work towards a clear vision, to practice inclusive as opposed to exclusive politics, to give all citizens access to resources and opportunities …Rwanda has taught us important lessons: it is possible to reinvent yourself, and a visionary leadership is the difference between life and death…we ignore these lessons at our peril.” These are observations of an informed commentator on regional politics. We cannot discount such at the altar of convenience of the so called term limits.

Economic Vs Political Systems in place .

Africa has had many lessons/lectures on development both political and economic, from all sorts of know it all westerners. Lectures given to Africa, have not been in the interest of Africa. These lectures are coated with western self interest. It is not in their interest to develop Africa.  Although this may sound radical, I personally have no apologies. Reality on the ground vindicates this thesis.  A lot of research has been done on the failure of Africa to develop as fast as Asian Tigers did despite having similar backgrounds. Most research has zeroed on leadership deficit in Africa, as the main variable that explains the difference in development episodes of the two regions.

However, nearly all Asian tigers had consistency in one variable; good leaders void of term limits. This was true in Singapore as it was in Malaysia etc. And where term limits were in place, they were simply hypothetical. Good leaders delivered until these economies grew to sustainable levels. Which is why term limits were not an end to these countries? And they should not be to any other country lucky to have an exemplary leader.

The history of development of Western Europe bore similarities to those of Asian Tigers. European countries were ruled by Kings/Queens who ruled for life. A good King/Queen left a developmental mark on his or her own country. And because of proximity of these countries, growth, and development were literally contagious. Up to the post industrial revolution and later years of development of Europe this governance paradigm remained constant. It was not until these countries developed a middle class that there was a need for paradigm shift in the governance model which had to answer their circumstances.

 And so the powers of Kings/queens were to be transferred to Prime Ministers and Presidents as the case dictated. The theory here is that, economic development and political development are highly correlated that, it is literally impossible to skip any of the stages. It hasn’t worked anywhere; it will never work in Africa, much less in Rwanda. So those agitating for fast-tracking one, must also fast tract the other. The structure of our economies will not allow this, as it could not allow it for Europe anyway. And so as research has concluded, it is not possible to talk of democratic development until a country has attained middle income and with a per capita income of about $2500.

The democratic narrative espoused by the West will have to be revised by us Africans to address the realities of our developmental phase. And as such, if we Rwandans fit into the historical development paradigm, a path that has been taken by all developed countries, we are justified. We don’t owe it to anybody. For us Rwandans, it is our destiny, fate, and future, amidst existential threats we stare in face.