Last Thursday on July 17, upon Nelson Mandela’ Centenary, the Mail and Guardian (M&G), a South African newspaper, published an Op-Ed titled: ‘Kagame could be the next Mandela if he stepped down’. The author, Nigerian Chude Jedeonwo, indulged in the usual binary narrative: For Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberians suffered Ebola, corruption and poverty, but she is democratic; while President Kagame did well in this and that but he is oppressive and undemocratic. Conclusion: Kagame is like Mugabe, yet he could be Mandela – if he steps down like Madam Sirleaf and win the Mo-Ibrahim prize. Rwandans are generally irritated by anyone asking them or their president to be somebody else, but in this case I felt the conversation was just too narrowed, so I got in touch with the Editors of M&G for a ‘Droit de Reponse’. The African Editor of M&G is called Simon Allison. He is an expert on Rwanda. He frequently publishes advice on what to think about the country. For instance when Rwanda Development Board launched the Visit Rwanda campaign with Arsenal, Simon Allison cautioned tourists not to visit Rwanda - or to do so while keeping their mouth shut because Rwandans do not have freedom of expression; their president Mr. Paul Kagame doesn’t tolerate dissent. I notice that in his articles on Rwanda, he relies on Human Rights Watch reports and other controversial authors, all of whom haven’t been in Rwanda for more than a decade. So writing to him I assume that he would welcome a fresh perspective, be sympathetic to my urge to express myself, and tolerant to my dissention with the Op-Ed in his paper. To avoid any misunderstanding I copy a South African, a Kenyan and a Malawian journalist in all our exchanges. At first the editors of M&G agreed to publish my response, which I promptly sent on Friday. In the response: published on my blog here, I argue that it is not useful to pit one African leader against the other; that the binary and simplistic assessment of Rwanda is biased. As a vote of confidence in President Kagame I note to M&G that African leaders unanimously appointed him to reform the AU, which he currently chairs and that the Mozambican, Chinese and Indian Heads of States are visiting Rwanda in the same week. I end with some figures on Rwanda’s achievements and argue that that’s the leadership that the people want, not Ibrahim or Nobel laureates, or poetry on an empty stomach. On Sunday I follow-up on the publication of my response. Mr. Simon Allison avoids our ‘mailing list’ and sends me direct messages on WhatsApp, where he advises that to meet M&G’s editorial, I must say what’s special about Kagame and Rwanda in comparison with South Africa’s Nelson Mandela and Liberia’s Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’. I say to him, that unlike Mr. Chude Jideonwo, I have no intention of using one African leader to afflict another. He then announces to all on e-mail that we have agreed that M&G won’t be publishing my response. ---------- Here is my last e-mail to M&G: Simon, Not that I want to belabor this matter further, and I hope the friends, copied here bear with me. ‘In your article about Rwanda and the Arsenal deal, you criticize Kagame as ‘notoriously intolerant when it comes to people who disagree with him’. I just thought you would practice what you preach. You offered me to write a response explaining why Kagame is different from Mandela. I responded that that’s precisely the problem; I do not want to pit one African leader against another, or do like Chude Jideonwo, use Kagame to afflict Mandela. I also indicated that so long as I do not use lies, abusive language, or wanton provocation, your editorial line should not dictate which arguments I use or which position I take; or should it? But that piece isn’t really why I am responding to you and copying friends, and Chude is the least of my problems at this point. You are the Editor-in-Chief of M&G and I noticed that you like to explain Rwanda to people and to quote Human Rights Watch and Anjan Sundaram, both of whom haven’t been in Rwanda for quiet sometime and tend to write fiction. So I thought you’d perhaps care for a fresh perspective. Things in Rwanda aren’t as simplistic and binary as you paint them. In fact it is impossible to be oppressive and efficient at the same time. I hoped you would be receptive to engagement - and to dissent. Or that if you want to continue publishing on Rwanda, us who live and work in here deserve a little of the freedom of expression, which you claim we have been so denied by Kagame. I take the journalists - copied in here - as witnesses. Regards ---------- Which brings me to the following questions: When it comes to Rwanda, why is foreign media allergic to good news? How come those who lecture us on tolerance and honesty are intolerant and dishonest themselves? Why do they avoid latest data from legitimate, global institutions such as the UN, the World Economic Forum and the World Bank and prefer controversial people and NGOs who haven’t been in Rwanda in over a decade? Finally, why has Nelson Mandela’s legacy been usurped by opportunists of all kinds and anyone who wants to criticize African leaders? This experience confirmed what I already suspected; that those advising President Kagame to be Nelson Mandela do not in reality wish the Rwandan or African people well. If they do not take in account the choices of Rwandan people or African leaders who put their trust in him, how can they respect Nelson Mandela? Wasn’t he an African? @gateteviews The views expressed in this article are of the author.
