Since the 1990s, with the emergence of a new era of democratisation, Africa has often been accused of being a democratic pariah. Even before then, Western countries have often-times imposed governance models on African regimes ever since their independence and has fallen victim to their influence and pressure. This is despite the fact that these Western countries themselves have no uniform model of democratic governance they try to impose on others. Institutions and government modes differ from one country to another. Some of these countries, especially those commonly referred to as “Western”, claim to have a monopoly for democracy, while others are simply cheap imitations. One may therefore wonder whether there are objective benchmarks that measure the level of democracy in one given political system Beginning with the values and democratic principles to their application in various countries and different contexts, several questions are worth asking: is the word ‘democracy’ a concrete or abstract definition? Is it a philosophical and theoretical concept or a scientific and empirical concept that can be demonstrated through a mathematical or scientific formula? Is there “a democracy” or “democracies”? Is there one and unique form of democracy at all times and in all areas? How could “ a democracy” be imposed on all countries? The response to these questions would give grounds to demonstrate whether there is “democracy” or there can be one version or several democracies. Without pretending to give lessons on democracy, I am only driven by the desire to bring my contribution to a debate widely discussed in political and intellectual circles. Etymology The word “democracy” comes from two Greek words: “demos” meaning people, and “kratos” meaning power or authority. For the Greeks who invented the word in the fifth century BC, it meant ‘power of the people’. The Athenian political regime was, at a certain time, a direct democracy, which meant that the citizen could participate directly in decision making. Citizens could thus be heard and, above all, vote by show of hands or sometimes by secret ballot. This direct involvement in the management of public affairs was mainly about life in the city related decisions; whether for the construction of a temple, raising taxes or declaration of war. The foundation of any democracy is thus the people’s participation in public life, either directly or indirectly. What is imperative to understand is the importance given to the people in decision-making in matters of public nature. From the 18th century, democracy has continued to gain ground, to the point of now becoming the dominant form of government. This is true in most countries in the world. But basically, how are the people involved in the exercise of that power entrusted to them? My view is that the exercise of power by the people has to be understood as how, by way of majority, they define how they want to be managed, their deepest aspirations, their choices and priorities. In a nutshell; how they intend to organize themselves. The intervention of the people can be shown through various forms, among the following: A referendum or an election in which the people, out of free will choose their institutions and their leaders: the very nature of institutions, the fundamental principles of the constitution such as the mode of elections, separation of powers, the form of governance, etc. This is generally done through a referendum or elections. Popular consultations whereby the people choose values and core principles that guide society; determine their priorities in the political, economic and social fields; define a consensus on policy issues such as ways of getting out of poverty, sustainable development and the sharing of national wealth, the fight against corruption, governance, etc. Participation in a pluralistic, inclusive and consensual debate. Understood in this way, all the democracies cannot be similar, and there can’t be any choices more democratic than others, since they are made by the people in their full sovereignty. Democracy in Rwanda A brief overview of the recent history shows how democracy has evolved in Rwanda since independence. The First Republic was characterized by a constitution tailored on ethnicity, with a de facto one-party, MDR Parmehutu, whose mere mention evokes a nightmare in the minds of many. Exclusion, division, ethnic killings, endemic poverty; was the result of this reign that lasted a decade. Everyone will agree that such a regime couldn’t be anything other than tyrannical. The Second Republic created a constitutional and institutionalised single party, with a mono-partisan assembly (equivalent of parliament), institutionalised discrimination, single candidate elections, lack of freedom of expression and pluralistic debate, a society without right to freedom of movement and association, the abuse of justice institutions, blood crimes, Genocide against the Tutsi, etc. In both republics, there was nothing like any citizen participation; neither in the choice of priorities nor in the governance of the country. There was no established system allowing the population to be consulted in seeking solutions to solve economic or socio-political problems facing the country. Furthermore, the people were never consulted in the designing of programmes meant for them. After the Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in 1994, the new leadership quickly understood that every policy had to be people-centred and should come from them. That is why there are many democratic mechanisms that enable all the sections of the population to participate in all programs, in the choice of the main orientations, either politically, economically and socially. A giant step has been made in that direction as shown by the following examples: Governance: During the transition period (1994-2003) a broad national debate was organised (between May 1998 and March 1999) which brought together representatives of all the socio-professional sections and categories of Rwandans. During these sessions held in Urugwiro Village, each participant was given an opportunity to express him or herself on ways of getting out of the complex situation the country found itself in during the aftermath of the Genocide against the Tutsi. The debates gave way to solutions to the problem of judicial paralysis by reinventing Gacaca courts, establishing development roadmaps like the EDPRS to address problems of poverty and other social problems, decentralisation and transparent mechanisms to resolve problems of bad governance, etc It can be recalled that it was through wide public consultations that the current constitution was born. It is the people who, concerned with the risk of monopolisation of power that had characterized the two previous republics, called for power sharing. This measure requires any political organization that gets the majority votes to share power with others. The constitution also provides for the creation of a consultative forum of political organizations, operating at the national level, going beyond conventional policies of deadly confrontations in favour a consensual democracy. What is more democratic than choosing – in the aftermath of a chronic conflicts and genocide committed against a section of the population – than installing people-centred and oriented policies? Economy and social sectors It should be noted that Vision 2020 was the result of an extensive consultations between the political authorities and the population. This programme aims at transforming the country economically and socially. The pillars of that programme were adopted between 1997 and 2000. The discussions and the debates brought on board all categories of the population; leaders at all levels, members of the private sector, civil society representatives and from the academia, etc. It is through this ambitious socio-economic programme that poverty was reduced to 39.1% in 2014 (falling by 5.8 % compared to 2011), extreme poverty was reduced from 24.1% in 2011 to16.3% in 2014, and the fact that 87.9% of children of school age are in school and that primary education is free in public schools. The program paved way for 84.8% of the population to access clean drinking water and introduced universal health insurance and many more.( sources EICV?) Political pluralism This concept simply denotes the diversity of ideas and the inclusion of all social and political categories. Whatever some may claim, the existence of pluralism is a demonstration for the respect of one of the principles of democracy, but does not in itself mean democracy. Mostly important, in my opinion, is the free expression of those ideas in a constructive manner. Indeed, democracy is, once again, the expression of the majority, but also keeps in mind that of the minority who often speak silently but also deserve to be heard. What would be the aim of the expression of ideas that would advocate the exclusion and rejection of others as some nationalist and right-wing parties in Europe do? That said, democracy is learned, the same as its exercise. Fortunately, African people have understood for some time that democracy has nothing to do with disorder. What is essential is primarily his survival and the pursuit of well-being. No offense to some in the West who, in bad faith, say that such an attitude is a democratic self-censorship. In Rwanda, therefore, there should be no doubt about the full exercise of democracy. It is not because there is a dominant political party that there is lack of political pluralism. Nor is it because there is a national consultation framework for political parties therefore there is no pluralism. Besides, this kind of consultation exists even in the same countries who give lessons to the others. Coalitions are formed during elections when no single party has the required majority to form a government. Freedoms deficit? People talk about lack of freedom of the press, expression and association in Rwanda. One has to be really naive to believe that. In the last ten years, Rwanda has seen rapid development of media houses and professionalization of the media with the development of new communication technologies (TV-digital, radio, print and online newspapers). Therefore, how can one ‘’control’’ a press with so many radio stations broadcasting all day long, with programs that go live and give voice to the people speaking through their mobile phones in the middle of their fields? How is censorship possible when most of the media organs, including online publications, provide the information live? Others amusingly say that political parties are muzzled! Muzzled when they sit in government, in parliament and in all other national institutions? Muzzled when they even have a privileged framework for dialogue (National Consultative Forum of Political organizations)? No, these people should stop insulting Rwandan politicians. Oh, and you say that there is no opposition in Rwanda? Opposition to who or what? Is there any measure of opposition? Is it on strikes demonstrations chaos? Is it based on sensational statements of this or that party? As for me I think that, whether we like it or not, there can’t be several parties without open contradictory debate. So contradictory debate means there is opposition. But in Rwanda, (we) oppose but finally (we) reach a consensus. This is the choice of the Rwandans. Some in this world, including among some democratic apprentices, make us believe that freedom of expression is synonymous with the abuse of this freedom. As with any rights and freedoms, the abuse is always the limit of its performance, and this applies to any country in the world. This is what makes the difference between the kingdom/family of humans with that of animals (although some animals are able to organize themselves perfectly). I believe democracy goes beyond these meaningless clichés that do not take into account the context of each country. It is true that there are universal principles, there are even fundamental rights, but it is also true that it is impossible to translate them into the reality of life if one departs from the context in which they apply. It is due to the consideration of the context that in Rwanda, it became perfectly possible to reconcile democratic principles and economic and social development, a context that takes into account all citizens, especially the poorest. It is this context that has allowed reconciling democracy with building unity and national harmony, national security and social peace which is our first priority. Yes, security did not come on a silver plate, but on the contrary, stability, development and prosperity of Rwanda are the results of diligent resilience and extraordinary courage of leadership in power since the ruins of the 1994 Genocide. Nothing can tear all these achievements from Rwandans because they know the price. Democracy is an ideal, every modern State, including Rwanda, does its best to reach it; moreover it cannot be a ready-to-wear fashion that can be imported and worn on the same day. The writer is a legal expert based in Kigali
