Rwandans can be stubborn, obstinate even, where the interest of their country is concerned. They will chart their own path, or refuse to conform to convention or expectations of others when they determine that is the best choice for them.

This independent streak and the choices that come from it can be confounding to outsiders, sometimes even to Rwandans of a certain age or ideological conditioning.

The other day, for instance, the National Consultative Forum of Political Organisations (NCFPO) in Rwanda organised a national conference on the political education relevant for the nation’s youth to prepare them for their role in preserving gains made over the last thirty years and to carry on the legacy of the current leadership. The Political Parties Forum as it is commonly known is made up of eleven political parties.

Where else have you heard that? In other places the very thought, let alone putting it into practice, would be dismissed as insane and extremely dangerous, and never to be imagined, encompassed, entertained or otherwise. Or it would be thought of as foolish, preposterous or simply inconceivable by right-thinking politicians.

They cannot even understand it. How can political parties, each supposed to be vying for power to the exclusion of the others, all trying to unseat the one currently leading government, and presenting themselves as the most suitable alternative choice, plan the future of the nation together, design the education of the next generation of leaders together? It simply does not happen.

Well, it does in Rwanda. Political parties are, of course, supposed to have different vision and plans for the country and want to gain power to implement them. The assumption is that they want to do it for the country and its inhabitants, to give them a better future. We all know that.

But what would go wrong if all these visions and plans for the same country and people were brought together and from them the best for the nation agreed and adopted? Each, in their separateness, would have made their contribution to the whole. The nation they purport to want to lead would be much the better for it.

That is the essence of Rwanda’s governance system and brand of democracy. It is built on agreement on best choices for the country, on consensus about the life and future of the nation, and decisions and choices that will ensure that.

That is precisely what the conference on Friday, February 3 was about: thinking about the future of the nation, ensuring continuity, and creating a consensus on the political education of Rwanda’s young leaders that will be its creators and custodians.

For all these political parties to arrive at the conclusion that there is need to train and prepare young leaders that will preserve and continue the legacy of governance, there must be conditions and reasons that all recognise.

First, there is the nation of Rwanda to which we all belong and whose continued existence and prosperity is the responsibility of us all.

Second, there must be something valuable in the present management of the country to keep. There is certainly a future to secure. You might see this as a vote of confidence in Rwanda’s governance choices and a commitment to maintaining them, of course, making adjustments and improvements with the passage of time.

Third, they must be dissatisfied with the way Rwandan youth are currently prepared to take up this mission.

And so the necessity for their appropriate formation to take up their responsibility in the governance of the country and its continued prosperity is all too real.

The discussion at the conference was, naturally, about education in its broad and holistic sense and leadership. And so they talked about the kind of youth, citizens, and leaders Rwanda needs, how and what to teach in order to create them, and the suitable institutions to be entrusted with this task.

They took a historical perspective. They examined Rwanda’s education and preparation for leadership in the past and found it had served the purpose well. Then they looked at when, how and why it went wrong. Finally, they offered corrective solutions, which was essentially the restoration of an education system that prepares one for good citizenship, social and productive responsibilities and leadership.

I listened to contributions of representatives of political organisations but never heard any of them flaunt their separateness from the rest. Apart from identifying their party affiliations, you could not tell the difference. It was all about Rwanda and its future.

This sense of common nationhood around which all differing views and even ideologies converge is refreshing in a world where lately it has been in retreat or abeyance and separateness in ascendancy. Political organisations are built on a philosophy of rivalry and antagonism, with emphasis on what keeps people apart rather than what draws them together.

Rwanda has chosen a different way as the Political Parties’ Forum showed. It has chosen consensus politics over the adversarial type. Not many, especially scholars of political systems, even here in Rwanda, talk about it much. It is about time they did. It merits serious scholarly attention and would make a useful addition to the study of the forms of democracy and governance.

In the meantime, Rwandans go on with their choices. The latest, if the Political Parties Forum and, indeed many Rwandans, have their way proposal is to set up a fully-fledged leadership academy to prepare Rwanda’s youth for leadership that will continue the transformation of this country.