What’s it with The Economist’s obsession with Rwanda and President Kagame? They cannot keep their pen off him and the country, and always have something about both. It is usually unflattering, actually very bad, always trying to pour cold water on anything positive, such as the country’s achievements

You would think its writers on Rwanda and the editorial team have a grudge against both. They probably do. He is doing right for his country. They can’t find real mud on him and so have to knead some to throw at him in the vain hope that it will stick. So far none has and that causes more frustration among the mud throwers.

And so The Economist (or some of its writers) have consistently sought to downplay or deny outright Rwanda’s achievements. It seems they would be happy to see a country, broken and on its knees, begging for alms, not one making determined strides forward, laying the ground for a good future for its citizens and playing an important role on the continent.

I must confess my partiality for the Economist. I have been reading the paper since I was in high school nearly fifty years ago. Our school library always had its current issue on the shelves. You cannot be a dedicated reader for that long unless you find the publication valuable. I did and still do.

I enjoyed reading the well-written, informative articles. Even when they expressed a personal opinion, they were still persuasive and gave an impression of balance and objectivity.  Perhaps they were not and I was only naïve or had been seduced by the excellent writing.

The paper’s ideology could have dissuaded me from it, but did not. It leaned to the right while I was fascinated by ideas on the left. The Economist however says its neither right nor left but stands for liberalism. It didn’t appear like that to me then.

I was happy to balance that position by reading another paper that my school library also stocked, the left-leaning Encounter. It was equally well-written and expounded lucidly views of the left. I have since learnt that Encounter was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). These games are not new.

It is many years since those heady days of ideological commitment. I have moved closer to the centre where the Economist claims to stand as a champion of liberalism. The Economist is still a must read publication for me. Sadly, Encounter folded many years ago. Perhaps the CIA cut its funding. More likely they thought they had achieved their objective and had nothing more to do with it.

But perhaps I trouble you with my reminiscing? Sorry about that. It is only because The Economist has been at it again. This time with the story: How does Kagame get away with it?

The story offers nothing new. Even the sensational headline is not new. It is simply a rehash of past allegations that have been found to be utterly baseless and wrong. For authentication and validation, it relies on the same discredited "authorities” and "experts” on Rwanda. The only new element is the addition to the list of authorities Michela Wrong’s troubled tribute to her late friend.

This story has an uncanny similarity to another one written at about the same time by Frank Vogl, a professor at Georgetown University. The title is similar: How Kagame gets away with crime. But that is not all. The allegations are the same. Sources and experts, including Michela Wrong, the same. Even the style is the same. Both articles could very well have been written by the same person.

I started by confessing my partiality for The Economist. But I must also confess my frustration with it.  It has betrayed its high standards and avowed liberal position when reporting on Rwanda. The reporting does not reflect the reputation and brand of excellence or its defence of liberal values that it has built over the last 175 years.

In this particular story, something we usually associate with the paper is missing from it. The usual editorial standards appear to have been waived. The writing is not of the usual quality, which could suggest that it is probably the work of habitual detractors of Rwanda, not that of the paper’s staff writers. Normal editorial rigour does not apply in this case. Incorrect or fabricated information is allowed to pass as fact. Yet the correct facts and information are readily available.

For some reason, The Economist continues to take an illiberal line on Rwanda and to give detractors of President Kagame and his government a platform to spread falsehoods. One would like to think that is not the paper’s policy, but the work of some rogue staff writers. Or simply an obsession by some with a country that does things differently and achieves good results, and quite can’t understand that. And that in time they will stop denouncing everything Rwanda does and instead come to appreciate it. 

The views expressed in this article are of the writer.