Is Kagame afraid of criticism or are his critics unimaginative?

As Rwanda heads into elections season in 2024, the government and President Kagame in particular are going once again to face the usual accusations that they stifle opposition and are therefore responsible for the poor performance of opposition groups because they have created an environment in which dissent is not tolerated. Indeed, this argument has been fronted as the explanation for why the RPF has won all the elections since 2003. This claim serves western audiences well. They love simplified story lines. It is convenient for opposition groupings because it shields them from explaining their inadequacies and failures. 

As I have observed elsewhere, the West has promoted a destructive brand of politics in Africa for the past 30 years. It is a brand that pronounces differences in society while undermining citizenship, the very basis for claiming the right to participate in politics in a democracy.

Many of the educated elite in Africa uncritically buy into the destructive politics. They undermine citizenship and behave as though there are multiple citizenships (around ethnicity) within the single state. Naturally, when these citizenships within the state contend for the right to leadership and access political power, they govern in a manner that strips "non-citizens" of the right to access state resources and opportunities. In other words, ethnic citizenship exists where national citizenship ought to and the resultant violence, itself an expression of this contradiction, isn't surprising. Only the degree of the violence varies and leads either to a passive and depressed society unable to marshal any energy to advance on the path of development or to one where genocidal violence appears as the only “solution” to the internal contradiction.

Only Tanzania appears to be at peace with itself. This has been possible because society is conditioned to disqualify from consideration for leadership anyone promoting ethnic, region, or linguistic domination away from the shared identity around Swahili. A near consensus amongst Tanzanians of what constitutes settled questions has meant that western democracy promoters have stayed at bay. As a result, unlike much of Africa, dissent in Tanzania tends to be along policy differences – although few exist since these are not steeped in ideological differences. 

In the western world common citizenship is taken for granted and is not contended over. As a result, economic and social policies are the terrain for contestation during election campaigns.

This is the terrain that the African political elite have shunned, and their western cheerleaders have encouraged this attitude. The degree of harm resulting from this brand of politics has varied from country to country.

Is Kagame intolerant?

For Tanzania, the Swahili identity has resolved potential areas of conflagration that we see elsewhere in Africa. Rwanda has attempted to do the same with the Rwandan identity as a result of its own trials and tribulations. Specifically, Rwanda’s experience with genocide in general and with media inciting hatred and violence in particular has made that brand of politics a no-go area, and rightly so. Once bitten, twice shy. Countries which have never faced a tragedy like Rwanda has faced can afford to experiment with that brand and some might even get away with doing so. In Rwanda, however, anyone who aspires for that kind of politics will find that it is curtailed and dissent along those same lines is not tolerated.

But the most fascinating aspect of individual speech and media freedom in Rwanda is that it is at once curtailed and free. For instance, anyone who listens to radio in the morning, especially kinyarwanda talk shows on private stations, will notice the extent of free expression that induces sweat among government officials. The exchanges are a sort of “free for all” and “anything goes”: from criticism of policies on land terracing, poor-quality fertilizers, water and electricity shortages, and even the quality of education provided by government schools. Elsewhere, ordinary citizens put officials to task over delayed implementation or unfulfilled promises of road, market, hospital and school projects. Ironically, while ordinary citizens insist on topics that affect their daily lives, Rwanda’s opposition is obsessed with capturing power to the extent that it is ready to comprise hard-earned national cohesion. 

Indeed, individual speech and media freedom in Rwanda is curtailed for those who are unable to agitate around policy differences and, as a result, go for the destructive but familiar settled questions of identity that magnify differences (ethnicity) and downplay commonalities (citizenship). The speech that Rwanda’s opposition desires cannot be practiced for as long as the memory of genocide remains alive amongst Rwandans. In other words, it’s not about Kagame’s intolerance for dissent. It is about responsible leadership that guards against destructive politics and distinguishes between settled questions and what is acceptable civic agitation.

Rwanda’s opposition insists otherwise because it is incited to do so by the very same actors who adhere to these basic requirements in the “mature democracies” where they live and operate from.

A serious opposition in Rwanda would garner ample votes if they listened to politics-focused programmes on radio and left the city from time to time to engage those who call in to air their grievances. This is how incumbents lose power in the democracies that westerners wish others to emulate even as they incite them to take the opposite direction by undermining the sense of common citizenship.

Kagame doesn’t remain in power due to absence of dissent or because he is a dictator. He does so because of the incompetence of and lack of focus by those who seek to replace him, especially in terms of their inability to marshal responsible leadership that guards against destructive politics and distinguishes between settled questions and what is acceptable civic agitation.

Source: www.newtimes.co.rw