Editor,

RE: "Referendum: A democratic choice for Rwandans indeed” (The New Times, December 21).

The more I try to think about it, the more I tend to think that both the West and Rwanda’s versions of interpretation and application of the concept of democracy seem valid in some ways.

The difference may be in perspectives and backgrounds.

The West tends to look at it from a theoretical and idealistic perspective while Rwanda applies it from a realistic perspective. The West seems to consider democracy ignoring historical factors, assuming that all nations are supposed to be at the same level of stability and social cohesion.

For instance, a nation like Rwanda which is just emerging from a genocide that left the fabric of its society seriously fractured, busy undergoing a healing and reconstruction process, over just a period of 20 years, cannot be compared to a country like USA that went through some civil strife several centuries back.

To the West, democracy is a rigid concept, while the new sovereign countries (the recent colonies) feel that democracy should be flexible, to allow evolution through a phased approach to address the historic imbalances and distortions in their societies.

Most of the colonising entities had a style of divide and rule to the colonised entities and to implement democracy you can’t ignore these historic facts. For the former, the situation is mature while for the latter, the situation may still be fluid and needing a wise and pragmatic democratic approach.

I feel that democracy evolves and takes time to mature.

To the colonised, the democratic process needs to address the factor of mending the fabric that was inherited shattered.

For example, the way democracy is dispensed in the UK, France, Italy, Germany and many other countries that are very long cohesive societies, is more in addressing economic disparities.

But for the young democracies, still trying to break free from neocolonialism, democracy is more in addressing social disparities which has more serious complications.

In my view, it’s a matter of time and both worlds will be at the same level.

In general terms, democracy should focus more on building strong institutions than on grooming individuals.

However, the strong institutions can be susceptible to unscrupulous leaders in the early stages of democracy.

So even the institutions need to be protected from the individuals, which is the point the West tends to miss.

Mere change of guards may not necessarily achieve strong and sustainable democracies.

Democracy should be holistic and not just be concerned about the leadership term aspect.

Actually, the world should hail Rwanda that in their efforts to heal its society, Rwandans are doing so through democratic procedures and the judgment of their situation should be respected.

Donart