As pointed out in the previous article, change-stability-continuity equation has aroused lots of anxiety and emotions among Rwandans because of the consequences that a change in any of the variables above is bound to yield.

The gravity of the consequences is amplified by the fact that, the Chairman of RPF party, President Paul Kagame, decided to give not only members of RPF party this home work, but all Rwandan compatriots, and give it to them four years a head of 2017, a year that he has been very clear he will step down.

Four years may sound ample time, but considering the enormity of the assignment; it is not. The President is pretty aware that, this is a very difficult home work, rest he should have waited till last years of his term to do so.

He is also aware that, his achievements (which as I pointed out in earlier series are a miracle) if not properly sustained can be reversed fundamentally negating the priceless price paid to attain these.

Above all, he and he alone has taken this country out of the extreme abyss unimaginable but is aware that, the country is not over it. It would in fact vindicate him as having failed to ensure meaningful change amidst a transitive transformation of our country.

As the adage goes “you know a good leader in his/her absence”, and President Kagame is right to request RPF cadres and by the same token Rwandans to ensure that, change we deserve ensures stability and continuity.

Apparently, the current debate of change was in fact not initiated by President Kagame as some sections of the media insinuate. On the contrary, it is the same media houses/journalists that have at every occasion and monthly press conferences in which these parties brought up the issue of change and stepping down of The President come 2017.

In essence originated began the debate even before he finished his first term.

There should be no confusion over this. The President at each of these occasion has made it clear that, he will respect the constitutional term limits.

The only substance he introduced to the debate is that, the change we should aim at should ensure stability and continuity which as a responsible leader and an exemplary for that matter, had to request Rwandans to soul search to avoid a situation where change becomes an end in itself.

Avery dangerous scenario indeed if one considers that, we are just out of emergency, but not yet over it. This is the substance of the debate.
Ideal Change?

The change we need and indeed deserve has to be contextual. It has to take into account our past, and preserve our present and ensure a better future for all Rwandans.

More importantly it should be a change Rwandans want and agreed upon and thus deserve and not the stereotype advanced by simplistic advocates of change as and end in self who apparently have join this debate ferociously, and one wonders on whose behalf they articulate their naked views.

Naked in the sense that, one has to understand Rwanda to prescribe the change ideal for our environment. Rwanda is not another African country (our past and indeed present has define us) where you can afford the luxury for stereotype change as we know/see in other countries.

Ours if not properly debated, agreed and owned by Rwandans, will have repercussions we cannot afford if we can avoid it, and we should, which justifies the timing of this very debate.

This debate therefore should be by Rwandans and for Rwandans, for they will be beneficiaries of the same and the reverse is equally true.

More importantly much as this debate was an issue in the RPF top cadre meeting, it concerns every Rwandan at the end of the day, and it is incumbent upon every Rwandan to be seen to have say in this debate, and to forge a common position as to the best change/ formula that serves our purpose.

Misguided?

However, Some section of media, local and regional seem to hold view that, if President Kagame respects the constitution and steps down in 2017, that is democracy. How about the reverse? What if Rwandans still want him as their leader isn’t that democracy?.

Thus for instance, a piece in The Eastern African February 16-22 (Editorials) is an insult to Rwandans. It argues “Quite worrying though is that these mob-like debates carry very dangerous insinuations that should be condemned in the strongest terms possible … careless talk by party hawks agitating for removal of the presidential term limits enshrined in the article 101 of the constitution … President Kagame ought to rise to the occasion and resist this dangerous scheme; he should not succumb to any form of pressure to seek third term”.

First, there is no mob like debates here. It is rather Rwandans expressing their legitimate views on this debate. That The East African calls such Rwandans contributing to this debate a mob is very demeaning, and below standard of a language expected from such paper, least its editorials.

If The East African believes in freedom of expression (which it has been preaching and rightly so) why should alternative view from their editorial be mob-like? And who appointed The East African a judge of others’ views to the extent it can insult such?

More so which section of Rwandans is The East African representing and who appointed The East African to speak for them? These are debates of our political future as Rwandans, and we expects Kenyan friends and others for that matter, to listen to Rwandans and not to speak for them, or even insult their opinion.

That is not democracy, or freedom of expression over which no body has monopoly, least The East African. Beside; there are no ‘careless’ RPF party ‘hawks” here agitating for change of article 101 of our constitution.

It is rather civilized Rwandans first and foremost and RPF party members for that matter expressing their legitimate views over our political destiny, for it is theirs and theirs only.

They are primary stake holders in this debate. Kenyan brothers/sisters have lots political home work right now, and we wish them all the very best, but we don’t expect them to interfere in our domestic political affairs which they least understand.

A Consistent Position:

This same East African argues President Paul Kagame “ … to rise to the occasion and resist this dangerous scheme; he should not succumb to any form of pressure to seek third term”. What is dangerous here, Term limits or rather imprudent change?

The President has made his position clear, and has told The East African journalist attending his monthly press conference his position of not standing again come 2017. The East African missed the point here.

It is not the President agitating for change of the constitution (like others in Africa)! He gave a political home work to Rwandans, and the answer to the home work is not yet clear, but if changing article 101 is one of the options among others and is the will of Rwandans isn’t this democracy?

And if Rwandans ask the President to run for another term isn’t this democracy? It is two way traffic. The President is under no pressure from Rwandans at all, and will never be.

If in 2010 election he requested their votes, and voted for him overwhelming by 93%, would it be undemocratic for Rwandans this time around to request The President this time round for another term? Rwandans know better what is good for them, and friends should only hear them.

One would have expected The East African to understand Rwandan context better, and not settle for simplistic arguments in their editorial.

If you remove our context (not existent in Kenya and other neighbouring countries for that matter), and settle for another change (business as usual) that does not address the issues of stability and continuity in Rwanda, such a change will be disastrous by all measures and intent, and only Rwandans will own up to this, as they have already done before.

The East African should have done in-depth analysis of the political home work facing Rwandans before settling for a simplistic street analysis that is apparent. It is not help full and is below the standards expected of The East African.

The substance of political debate here; is not about the term limits or change of the constitution, it is about change with stability and continuity and this can take many forms depending upon the consensus of Rwandans.

Term limits or no term limits is not democracy in themselves, for they are many countries with constitutions and even without constitutions where term limits are irrelevant.

What is important for a people in these countries is the ratings of the incumbent. This rating is also a function of the performance of the incumbent.

And if in their view, citizens are satisfied with his/her performance, he/she will be given the mandate to lead them for as long as they deem it fit.

Each situation should thus be judged in context, and only citizens should be the judge and jury on matters over which leader they want, and deserve. At the end of the day, they are either the beneficiaries or losers from their own choice.

The most important thing here therefore, is to understand the substance of our political home work. Discussing its form is not only simplistic but also dangerous. Rwandans are not known to be simplistic.

To be continued …