When President Paul Kagame was recently asked whether there is an imminent war with Uganda he responded, “I don’t see it coming.” This reassurance is based on the fact that for more than 20 years an uneasy peace has characterised the relations of the two countries, albeit with episodes of crises. If the current crisis – like others before – also comes to pass without war, it is only because of a reality each must get accustomed to: “Rwanda is a different country with a separate government, even if [Uganda] would wish Rwanda to pay allegiance to them.” Uganda thinks it can solve this problem (from its perspective) by telling Rwanda what to do. On June 8, 2019, a top journalist in Uganda opined in the Daily Monitor that the problem between the two countries was because President Kagame had stubbornly refused President Musevenis “vision and “model” for Rwanda. Subsequently, the media in Uganda was pushing the narrative that Rwanda should hold a dialogue with its “opposition in exile,” meaning the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) – and Kayumba Nyamwasa’s picture was on front page. Uganda seems to believe it knows best what Rwanda needs. Even if the matter of Rwanda being a sovereign country were set aside for the moment, and we considered that Uganda’s intentions towards Rwanda are benevolent, that it only wishes Rwanda well and this is the only reason it is pushing its unsolicited advice, are things to do with vision, governance, and dialogue the areas that Uganda should be advising Rwanda – or any other country, for that matter, about? In football, perhaps. But on governance and dialogue Rwanda needs no lessons from Uganda! Rwanda’s constitution is steeped in dialogue – not just for politicians but for every Rwandan. Two of the six Fundamental Principles of the State of Rwanda, Article 10, are on “equitable power sharing” and “the constant quest for solutions through dialogue and consensus.” The Constitution guarantees a permanent National Consultative Forum of Political Organisations (article 59) “for purposes of political dialogue and building consensus and national cohesion.” All political parties are free to join the consultative forum that deliberates on policies before they are taken to parliament for vetting and legislation. Article 62 on Power Sharing forbids the President of the Republic and the Speaker of Parliament to belong to the same political party and forbids the dominant political party from having more than 50% of cabinet members. Indeed, any political party that gets at least 5% of the votes nationally is guaranteed a position in government. These are not mere paper declarations. Rwandans live out their constitution every single day, taking part in “the constant quest for solutions through dialogue and consensus.” This is true whether at the grassroots level every last Saturday of the month during Umuganda (community work), where they deliberate on matters of concern to the community or when they sit down as Abunzi (community mediators) to resolve conflicts within the community. It is also true at the national level when they get to raise the most pressing matters at Umishyikirano wIgihugu (National Dialogue Forum). Significantly, these are not cosmetic platforms at which the President may decide at his whim not to show up to or to do so with sacks of bribe money to dole out to his “opponents.” The President is bound by the Constitution to share power, not to buy it; it is also the right of the opposition to contribute to nation-building. It is not a favour that is given by anyone. The Rwandan President doesn’t need to carry brown envelopes. No terrorists allowed The only categories excluded to the dialogue are terrorists and genocide ideologues. This exclusion did not start with the RNC on whose behalf Uganda is pushing for the dialogue. The principle has been there since 1994 when it was agreed that the political parties that had organised and implemented the genocide be excluded from Rwandas political life. President Habyarimana’s MRND and its closest ally, CDR, were permanently banned from Rwandan politics. Perhaps not surprisingly, a large number of their members have since relocated to Uganda: A dossier of over 250 genocide suspects has been handed to the Ugandan authorities to facilitate their extradition, but todate that country remains silent, demonstrating that it condones impunity of genocide perpetrators. In other words, the clamouring on behalf of the RNC for political dialogue is in line with its legal forbearance for genocidaires to whom it has given sanctuary. If Uganda has an interest in protecting genocide perpetrators and terrorists, that is the kind of “vision” Rwanda has no interest in importing. Indeed, if Uganda is so eager to hold dialogue with terrorists, then one wonders why it isnt seeking out Joseph Kony and even release Jamil Mukulu of the ADF from prison to undertake such a process it would wish to hoist on Rwanda, if it could. As for political dialogue with genuine political actors, Uganda has nothing to lecture Rwanda about. Whether they like it or not, ultimately the authorities in Uganda will have to take in the fact: Rwanda is a sovereign country and a separate government that is not prepared to become anybody’s ward. Something as obvious should not require a war for people in Kampala to understand.
