In the previous article in the series, we saw how Rwanda’s first republican regime banked on fallacies to entrench itself. It contended that Article 25 of the Constitution stipulated that all forms of slavery were abolished. Ubuhake referred to had been abolished by King Rudahigwa in 1954 according to critics. The manipulations continue as the present piece will show. During President Gregoire Kayibanda’s rule, he solely wielded the judicial powers. The constitution stipulated the president and cabinet ministers would exercise the executive powers. It meant powers were concentrated at the top in the hands of the president. The president enjoyed power from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy with the help of civil servants he appointed. It was not different from the former system of chieftaincy under the monarchy. Kayibanda’s regime was regarded as a monarchical presidency (a kind of king-president). Under the First Republic, eight governments succeeded one another. The first one consisted of a coalition government composed of the PARMEHUTU and APROSOMA and UNAR party (2 ministers), following the New York accord. On February 6, 1963, a ministerial reshuffle saw the two UNAR ministers dismissed. Budgetary constraints were cited. The reality was that Kayibanda wanted to oust opposition political parties which later ceased to be part of government from 1963. The National Assembly and the Supreme Court The National Assembly was meant to check the powers of the President and his government. Under the First Republic, there were three legislative terms in 1961, 1965, and 1969 until the dissolution of Parliament following the coup d’état of July 5, 1973. At a time MDR-PAPMEHUTU was the dominant party with 35 seats, but there were also UNAR, which had seven seats as well as APROSOMA, two seats. In the Assembly that was constituted after the elections of October 3, 1965, all opposition parties were no longer represented. All MPs originated from MDR-PAPMEHUTU. The Supreme Court was supported by the text within the Constitution. Some analysts regarded the regime as “a government of judges” or “a dictatorship of the Supreme Court” capable of paralyzing state action and powers. In reality, the Supreme Court did not exist since it could not refuse a law the President wished to pass. In 1973, when President Kayibanda wanted to stand for another term, he modified some articles of the constitution. Since the judges were not independent, they were fearful of being dismissed. It led to the paralysis of the judicial system through intrigue and arbitrary decisions by the judges. Eliminating the opposition MDR-PARMEHUTU became a de-facto single party from 1963 after eliminating opposition political parties (of both Hutu and Tutsi). In presidential elections, Kayibanda was elected with 98% of the votes. In 1969, he was re-elected by the same overwhelming majority. At the first independence anniversary, Kayibanda said “A proliferation of political parties distracted the population, rending the progress of the country incoherent and caused a detrimental retardation to the Nation”. In an erroneous version of facts, he stated triumphantly: “The local council elections of 1963 had never convinced the Tutsi that they were no longer supposed to nurture the hope of governing. It was on this day that the MDR-PARMMEHUTU removed all other parties which, hitherto did not want to understand the democratic dispensation. It was the only solution for Rwanda and its inhabitants.” Internal factors within the opposition parties facilitated MDR-PARMMEHUTU to suppress the opposition. APROSOMA became a victim of its founder, Joseph Habyarimana Gitera. He was said to be unpredictable and versatile; mediocre in terms of organizational skills and lacked a stable political direction. Several times, he changed the name and manifesto of his party. At the time of the 1960 elections, his party was called the ‘Union des Hutus du Rwanda’ or Union of the Rwandan Hutus (UHURU). APROSOMA faced internal divisions which weakened it. On the other hand, APROSOMA’s popularity in some regions worried PARMEHUTU. For example, during the grass-roots elections of 1963, PARMEHUTU obtained 237 seats compared to 223 by APROSOMA in Butare Province. This made PARMEHUTU exert a lot of pressure and made several threats to APROSOMA leadership. In the following pieces in the series, PARMEHUTU will show its true colours and opposition in one form or another to it will manifest itself.
