This wonderful small country has a way with outsiders who come into contact with it. They are all charmed by it. There must be something about this land we, the natives, do not recognise. Or perhaps we know it but take it for granted. Either way, we must start paying attention. However, it is a paradoxical charm as response to the contact can be wildly different. One thing is common, though – the passion with which they relate to the country. Some (a small minority) hate Rwanda, particularly its leadership, with an unusual and unnatural intensity. Not because the country or its people are particularly loathsome. Not because it is flawed or for any abhorrent features. It is none of these negative things. The hate comes from Rwanda’s positives. They are awed by the country – because it works efficiently. Because it refuses to be squashed into a convenient, pre-determined definition of it, or to be stampeded into a herd of supposedly similar types. Instead it demands to be seen in its uniqueness and as it really is. These hating and hateful people are either too lazy to deal with a reality that goes against their assumptions or simply cannot accept a reality not of their making. Or they cannot live with the thought of a challenge to their assumed monopoly to doing good things. Others, the majority, fall in love with the people and country. Not blindly. Not infatuated. Or momentarily dazzled by the beauty or taken in by the publicity. Nor do they ignore any weaknesses or blemishes of any sort. They are charmed by what they see. They see a people with common purpose, a leadership with a clear vision for the country and that cares for the collective wellbeing and advancement of its people. They find a well-organised society and efficient governance. They come across people with grit and resilience. It’s all very attractive and inspiring, and they admire it. Much of this divided reaction can be traced back to the earliest contact outsiders had with Rwanda. The first of these were Arab slave traders. They had little luck here and could not loot and plunder and take away Rwandans to go and sell as they had done elsewhere. The most famous of them, Tippu Tip kept well clear of the country while he wreaked devastation in most of East and Central Africa. Rwanda’s kings refused to trade in their own people. And even for other items of legitimate trade, they demanded a fair price and insisted on the payment of appropriate taxes. Because they could not penetrate the country they invented narrative to malign Rwanda and its rulers and fed it to European travellers. They were terrible people, hated foreigners and would do them harm. The rulers were autocrats and were closed to outside influence In this way, Arab traders were able to influence the way other foreigners viewed and related to Rwanda and how they approached it. The second were European explorers. John Hanning Speke heard about Rwanda while on his search for the source of the Nile. He reported about its efficient organisation and government, but concluded that it could not be the work of natives of the land but of some outsiders from north east Africa. And so started the Hamitic myth that has had a devastating impact on Rwanda’s history. That was more than a century and a half ago. But today’s haters, would-be slavers and colonisers behave in much the same way. Like the traders who failed to gain admittance into Rwanda and the European adventurers who kept well clear of the country, their latter-day incarnations also invent and spread false tales to malign the country and its leaders. They do so for a variety of reasons – pique, spite, gripe or the realisation that there is no room for their type any more. The likes of Filip Reyntjens, for instance, react to their self-inflicted exclusion from Rwanda by harping on a past of division they helped sow. They tell lies and hide their hatred behind respectable scholarship. Others, such as Judi Rever, harbour an all-consuming hatred that would reverse, redefine and rewrite Rwanda’s recent history. If she could, she would erase or rename such horrible acts as the genocide against the Tutsi. Another one, Anjan Sundaram, had a short stay in Rwanda. He seems to have come out a bitter man. Perhaps he thought he was an important person and failing to get the recognition he craved, turned his frustration into hatred for the country. Now he invents and trades in lies about it. The views expressed in this article are of the writer.
