As I have pointed out previously, Kayumba’s articles and radio interviews only served to expose a personality he had hidden for far too long, and which has confused a few that had hitherto, benefited from patronage and divisive, yet cheap popularity scheme of things.
Many articles have attributed his fate to ‘falling out’ with The President. But the fundamental question that this argument raises is: fall out from who?, with who?... Kayumba is just one Rwandan, whose blunders, as I appointed out earlier are treasonable.
To put it plain: Kayumba despite his denial to the contrary, was creating a power base, which he would then use to take power. He made this clear in his letter to Daily Monitor of 30th May, 2010, despite the fact that, he made people to believe that, he was anti-thesis.
What has baffled many after reading his article, is that, as ‘a general’ his scheme was unworkable and a very naïve route to take to say the least. Thus, to assume that, he fell out with The President is over statement of the person of renegade general, which is a serious contradiction.
A general cannot fall out with the Commander-in-Chief. He can be sacked, removed, demoted, (or do it his way-run away), but to equate this to a fall out with The President is a serious distortion of a hierarchical relationship between the boss and his subordinate, a relationship that is highly parallel.
With regard to the issue of power, our constitution is very clear with regard to both elective and appointment positions. Kayumba knew this very well, except that, his scheme and modes operandi would not fit within our constitutional setting, and chose the most unviable route any sensible person of the calibre he claims to be, could ever think of. But that is Kayumba.
But again Kayumba’s judgment failed a serious test, which even a lay person in the street is aware of. The Military is subordinated to the civil authority, and takes orders from the Command-in-Chief, who is then answerable to the electorate.
This is order. Anything to the contrary (which is treason) breads chaos and anarchy, that our country cannot afford, especially that our historical leadership blunders have left a debt un-repayable, even by generations to come.
A struggle that never was.
His anti-establishment and highly manipulative methods of work has thus lead Rwandans to one conclusion. Kayumba was neither committed to our struggle, nor understood spirit and sacrifice that this struggle entailed.
That is why he had to desert the army in the middle of a war in 2002. That is why he had to use patronage and divisive mechanics in the middle of a struggle, and that is even why he had the guts to ‘disagree’ with his Command-in Chief during a struggle, vices that carry a life price tag.
Nevertheless, our system chose counseling for Kayumba, which was a more civilized approach for such a person, regardless of the much he came to demean the same.
His motivation for, and the objectives of our struggle were not consistent to his, and this explains his indifference to every thing, and every one he happens to interact with, save for his cronies. That he deserted the army in 2002, and wanted to leave the same in 2003 as plainly stated it in his interview, puts his struggle in context.
A struggle is not an event, but a process which is multi-faced. From armed, to socio-economic transformation. He wanted to leave at the point of cross-roads in the history of our country, when every Rwandan was expected to contribute his/her part to the challenges of the time, and there were milliards.
That he wanted to disengage explains the person of Kayumba, even at the moment of utmost need for our country. This is what made him exemplary, ‘a patriot’ and ‘a revolutionary’, virtues that were not consistent with his actions, and by extension his person. He does not owe Rwandans any more explanation.
Kayumba earned himself the wrath of Rwandans of all walks of life by his bizarre comparison of our country today, and the same during the period of late Habyarimana, and Kayibanda with regard to leadership.
There is no single words that can explain such extreme intentional misrepresentation by a person who has been party to the nation building (or did he?) to regimes that were outlawed by even their own.
It is incomprehensible that he could make such comparison with regimes incomparable by any parameter, even interahemwe returnees see stunning differences of regimes, that Kayumba’s memory and judgment had the ‘courage’ to compare.
Regimes, that most of us knew by missing them, and regimes which were characterized by all forms of extreme misrule of our country whose end product was a genocide that cost our country enormously for generations to come.
I don’t know if this was being demagogic and playing to the galley of ghosts (to use his language), but certainly he played to himself, for there is no sane Rwandan that even dreams of such comparison.
Arguing empirical facts here, as to the differences Kayumba alluded to, would be a seriously insult to the leadership of Rwanda (to which Kayumba was part) and more so, to the people of Rwanda who have made such a fundamental difference in our socio-economic and political dispensation, that has been dubbed a miracle by Rwandans, friends of Rwanda, and even diabolic critics.
This is a comparison, just in Kayumba’s mind, and one can only respect it.
To be continued…