At a press conference on March 1, a journalist from Zimbabwe asked President Paul Kagame why western media was not reporting on Umushyikirano and yet, in his opinion, it is a successful home-grown initiative that should command attention. He wondered why they kept silent like it was a non-event.

Unspoken, but implied in the question was another. Would the same media keep away and remain silent if Rwandans were quarrelling and tearing at one another and breaking the country apart?

Again, unsaid, but understood, the answer would be: they would most certainly be scrambling to be the first on the scene to break the story and broadcast the most horrific images of the violence.

The president did not answer in those terms, of course. He said he understood why they do it, but that really it did not matter. Rwandans do not do things to impress anyone, for validation or approval by outsiders. Rather, they do what suits them, works for them, and answers the challenges they face, and improves their lives.

As usual, he explained patiently that there is a context and history to the way western media reports on Africa. They have developed a narrative intended to depict situations in Africa as bad or getting worse. Anything outside that narrative does not get attention.

He answered the journalist’s question as a statesman would. It was not a vehement denunciation of the western media as perhaps you and I, not bothered with the cares of state, unencumbered by relations with other countries, and not used to have our every utterance examined, would.

We might have blurted out: what did you expect? They do not like, maybe not expect, good news from us, nor want to see or hear anything that works that they have not prescribed or sanctioned, that does not fit their template of governance.

The situation sounds like some wisecracks in my undergraduate days nearly half a century ago said whenever there were inter-hall sports competitions. We either win or they lose, they would say, with a lot of confidence and arrogance. That is how the narrative looks like.

The good things you do cannot be reported because that proves you are capable, not just to perform well, but to do so on your own terms. You cannot do that. You have no permission.

You can only do what you have been directed to do and show gratitude that you have been allowed to do it.

I suppose it is alright for the western media to do that. They are doing their job, following their agenda, and keeping to the narrative. But must Africans also agree with them, with the distortion and misinformation, and accept their supposed ineptness?

That, unfortunately, is what some Africans do, including journalists. They usually have an eye on the outside. See, I did what you ordered and exactly the way you said it should be done. And then expect a nod of appreciation or pat on the back. No applause, of course. That would be too much and would perhaps put ideas into your head that you are actually capable.

You can see this in the way French President Emmanuel Macron’s just concluded visit to Africa was framed and reported. The visit was about France trying to reset its relations with Africa and regain its influence. France is the story. Not the African countries he is visiting. And so, not a word about why this has become necessary in the first place, what the Africans have done to upset previous terms of relations.

Nothing about Africans trying to regain full sovereignty over their countries, asserting their rights to how they want to conduct their affairs, who to associate with, and how to go about it. That you will not hear about. It does not fit the narrative already scripted.

What you hear is that they are substituting French influence with that of the Russia or China.

It is the same with that irksome question about freedom and human rights that in some inexplicable way seems to pit them against development. Apparently in the unique universe occupied by Africans, if you are doing well on the development side, that can only be because you are trampling on the rights and freedoms of your citizens.

Some African journalists fall into the trap of that narrative and will ask this question, whether warranted by the conditions in the particular country or not. There is perhaps also a craving, maybe unconscious, to be seen to be tough and become accepted as serious reporters.

You see, asking tough questions that will make the subject squirm in discomfort is supposed to be the standard of good reporting. I suppose that is true in some places. It is different in Rwanda. Here, they will get a patient, full explanation of the relationship between freedoms, rights and well-being. Some end up squirming themselves and wishing for the end of the explanation.

The problem of self-doubt extends to other sections of society, notably politicians and scholars. Some want support because they are actually, or perceive themselves to be, unable to perform certain tasks. Or they want their opinions validated or given a stamp of approval by those who set the standards.

This is how, for instance, we must read DRC President Felix Tshisekedi’s appeal to whoever will listen for help to punish Rwanda for the absence of the Congolese state in the east of his country and the proliferation of armed groups there.

All this is part of a pattern of allowing to be defined by others, by their standards, which can be arbitrary. In the extreme, it is close to self-hate and feeds the desire to be validated by others.

The crime Rwandans have committed, in the eyes of those who have arrogated themselves the right to determine how we should behave, is to reject the definition of the self by others and instead insist on being who they are and their worth as a nation. They need no outside validation.