Opinion
Criticism of Kagame’s record should be based on established facts and grounded in African realities
It
is a tiring but useful task to delve into the talking points of Africans who
seem unable to embrace excellence so long as western voices, through their
dominant and influential media, have not proclaimed who is worthy of adulation
on our continent.
Tafi
Mhaka’s article "Kagame’s
achievements should not blind us to his tyranny” is a good example of
the subservience of African elites to the West’s pronouncements on Africa,
their uncritical acceptance of narratives that do not do justice to African
lived realities. The overall impression one gets after carefully reading
Mhaka’s article is that his criticism of President Kagame is not only poor in
substance, it is also besides the point.
For
one thing, Mhaka gets off on the wrong foot as he bemoans that Rwanda’s
president was included in the New
African’s list of the 100 most influential Africans. He claims that
"it is highly questionable whether he [Kagame] can or should be described
as "influential”.
His
claim, however, has no basis in reality. When one considers the overwhelmingly
positive views on Kagame in conversations of Africans on social media
platforms, the reforms the African Union has undergone since Kagame’s
leadership of that organization in 2018, the military interventions in
countries like the Central African Republic and Mozambique, or the invitations
at high level meetings around the world (such the G20 Summit) the influence of
Kagame – and by extension Rwanda – on the continent and in world’s politics
cannot be ignored, not by any serious analyst worth the ink on the paper.
Kagame’s
influence is a fact that should not be subject to debate so much so that even
his enemies – certainly above Mhaka’s pay grade – accept it but hate him for
it.
Indeed,
the fact that Mhaka does not like President Kagame’s style of governance is beside
the point. One can dislike the US’ or China’s foreign policy, for instance, but
it would be preposterous and lunatic to claim that these countries do not wield
much influence.
The
issue then becomes, is Kagame worth the praise he receives from his peers and
Africans alike? One would think that Mhaka would challenge Kagame’s
achievements to make his case, but he does no such thing. Instead, he
wastelessley invites us to assess Kagame’s record irrespective of achievements
that have changed the lives of ordinary Rwandans for the better.
"Kagame’s
achievements should not blind us to his tyranny,” Mhaka’s writes. In other
words, we shouldn’t bother with the opinions of Rwandans under his leadership
and the fact that the overwhelming majority of them appreciate his work. We
should instead rely on the pronouncements of organizations such as Human Rights
Watch, which on several occasions have proved to be unreliable,
even corrupt.
This
is the tragedy of Africa’s elite – their inability to ground their opinions and
reflections in the lived realities of their less fortunate compatriots and
their urge to pander to the western narratives of the continent in their
desperate attempts to be viewed as intellectuals at par with their western
colleagues, the self-styled "experts” of Africa.
Any
rigorous African intellectual would ask themselves how someone described as a
"tyrant” is so obsessed with improving the lives of his or her citizens.
Having
concluded that such healthy obsession disproves the term tyranny, an African
intellectual worth his salt would revisit the standards (on democracy and human
rights) set by the West’s colonial obsession to shape the world in its image
irrespective of the opinions, aspirations and sensibilities of the vast
majority of the peoples around the world.
Responding
to the repeated onslaught on Rwanda’s record coming from the usual
suspects, President
Kagame had this compelling point which the likes of Mhaka fail to
grasp, "I think it’s just ridiculous. There is nothing like human rights
minus these things we are talking about, in terms of development, education,
healthcare, food security, etc. These are human rights. Where we have taken our
country from and where it is now speaks for itself.”
Mhaka,
who is from Zimbabwe, should reflect on how he found himself in the absurd
situation of comparing Mugabe’s shortcomings to Kagame’s achievements. Kagame’s
legitimacy is not solely built on his revolutionary credentials as someone who
defeated a genocidal government, but also on the tremendous progress the
country has made since 1994, in all spheres of the lives of its citizens.
Mhaka
should also ask himself why, besides the wild allegations of HRW, his view of
Rwanda as a country impervious to dissenting views is not based on any
substantive argument. How is such a country also the one that undergoes so many
reforms (social
benefits, school
feeding program, moto
taxi operations, land and corporate
taxes, etc.) after listening to the complaints of its citizens.
Something does not add up.
Two
more important points are worth reflecting upon 1) how on earth have people who
blame Rwanda for the West’s refusal to host migrants not come up with a better
alternative? 2) why does Mhaka who, refers to the Gukurahundi massacres under
Mugabe’s rule, refuse to hold the government of the Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC) accountable for the continuous killings of Congolese Tutsi in areas
under its jurisdiction?
Any
person genuinely horrified by the Gukurahundi massacres would not choose to
selectively use the UN group of experts’ reports to blame Kagame for the
situation in DRC; he or she would acknowledge that Rwanda is, this time again,
on the right side of history in denouncing the killings of the Congolese Tutsi
– on the people’ side.
To
be sure, Rwanda is not a liberal democracy by western standards. Neither does
it aspire to become one. It is a democracy by its own standards. No African
intellectual should wish Rwanda to become one of those places so obsessed with
optics, a cosmetic view of governance and politics, promoted by the west and
its African sycophants, the Mhaka types, to the point that the welfare and
safety of our people become secondary issues.