As the strand of current debate on the change with stability and continuity heats up, what is clear is that, there seems to be confusion as to the message delivered by the RPF Party Chairman and The President of the Republic, Paul Kagame.

Confusion arises mainly because, it was an item least expected in such high level meeting attended by over 2000 delegates drawn from across the entire country, and coming from diversified sectors of our economy.

And although the Party Chairman kept on reminding them that, they should think seriously about the issue of change in context, it was inevitable that many submissions given in the meeting, gave their own answers to the assignment.

These ranged from: Mr Putin-like come back style, late Meles Zenawi’s of Ethiopia who was tasked by his party to search for a suitable replacement and mentor him/her, to propagation (get a person close to The President in this case The first lady) who can then fit in the stability and continuity equation, and then to no change, which seemed to have been a dominant opinion among top RPF carders.

Nonetheless, RPF top cadres, who attended 8th February meeting, did give the above answers to the political home work, and these opinions were as varied as their background.

But this was expected given that, no one was prepared for this debate, and as such submissions given in the meeting were either their immediate reactions to a rather a very difficult assignment or better still, gave their hearts of an existing state of an opinion over this serious national assignment.

No Change

This submission by a number of top RPF carders and one which emerged dominant was put in context.

Context of the past we are yet to overcome as a people (if ever), and others events that have shaped today’s Rwanda that we simply have to live with as a country, for, as pointed out earlier, some of these same events are indelible scars on our conscious as a people and country.

These more than anything else, and indeed our current progress are going to shape and inform which formula, we Rwandese will settle for irrespective of the simplistic advice, suggestions, insinuations, and sometimes out of context and spurious grounds given by people who least understand our context, and pretend to design their own context for us.

Remove our context past and present, and Rwandans can settle for any status quo change, or change of guards, the type of business as usual change we witness across our continent, and one which has given rise disasters for the poor of this continent as the elite flee to western capital. God forbid.

The school of thought that argued for no change were of the view that, our article 101 of our constitution will have to be amended, as the law is made for people and not the people for the law.

They did point out that, a constitution is a living document which is amended as the circumstances merits it, and that those who voted it, and can amend it anyway provided majority Rwandans agree to the ideals behind the change.

This opinion (which was dominant) was also of the view that, unlike in other African states where the sitting President initiates the change of the constitution to cling on power, ours may be amended by the will of the people, a people that wish to give the incumbent more time to set and consolidate state structures and institutions, that any other upcoming leader can fit in and ones that can absorb any serious political or economic shocks as and when these arise.

Their views were also that, limits are set to minimizes excesses of the incumbent, whereas in our case these limits will only serve to disrupt the outstanding performance of President Kagame.

Performance that as is the cases now, is unparalleled in our history as a country or in our continent for that mater, and a case study for other developing countries.

This group has a very strong case, and one that has been aired by many Rwandans in the rural countryside where the President toured of late.

This view has it that, if we need change with stability and continuity (certainty) then the best formula is: no change.

They argued that you cannot change a winning team or coach.

This school of thought among many RPF top cadres also drew from such examples as UK, German, Netherlands and many other countries where leaders have no term limits, and their elected leaders are only limited by their own performance rather than the number of years they have been in office.

They did point out that, the aforementioned countries have had similar political environments which allowed them to evolve mature democratic environment, and that we can take a gamble with ours if it is on right track, which indeed it is.

Again the view here is that: first, the change is not end in itself, but rather a change for better, and this simply means better results from the incumbent.

And so if we are getting more than expected results why the change, Secondly, this section of leaders argue that, the incumbent was the one who reversed all historical sectarian leadership practices and abuse of office characteristic of African polity, and that we need to sustain these values for some time to come until they become virtues of our leadership.

Thirdly that, our institutions are too fragile to gamble with, and that, the incumbent should be given more time to strengthen these so as to enable sustainability of his incredible record.

These are opinions of a few carders, and at the end of the day, the opinion of 12 million Rwandan compatriots will have to be heard, to arrive at the best formula we have to have as a people.

As pointed out in earlier series, it has to be a Rwandans formula delivered from Rwandans, and owned by them.

Time is gone when the international institutions bilateral or multilateral, and others development partners can dictate to Africans, least Rwandans what is good for them.

These prescriptive theories from these parties are responsible for a big share of our woes as a continent, and indeed as a country.

They have nothing to show (success) for what they prescribed for our continent, except a trend of failures, and failures that we and we alone own when these parties change office and return to their comfort environment in the west.

Prescriptive Destiny?

In 1998, at a conference with the then President of World Bank (Mr James Wolfensohn) at Oxford University, that brought together African academics in UK, central bank governors and other renowned African economists, he did admit that, the World Bank’s structure adjustment programs (SAPs) which were a set of economic prescriptions aimed at ensuring development of African countries, total failed to deliver results leading to a lost decade for our continent.

They failed because they were not owned by African, least not designed to fit country specificity, but rather, a one- size- fits all approach to our problems.

They also failed because African was treated as one country and more insulting “Africans did not know what is good for them” an implied inference from all this.

Time is gone when Africa was ruled by a bunch of illiterates; who succumbed to these schemes with consequences that, our next generation will have to contend with.

This was true in economic matters as in politics, and the two are bed fellows anyway. You cannot disentangle one from the other.

We have come from far, and the journey is still long, but at least we know where we are, and certainly know where we need to go. They are no more lectures.

The reverse could be true, if only humility prevailed. It is not expected, but so be it. For even China, which was banished by the know it all, is today a case study of a new development paradigm, that have been called all sorts of terms ranging from modified socialism, controlled capitalism name it.

At the end of the day, what is important is that, the model has yielded results. Results that have vindicated even its ardent critics.

Our development (economic or political) be it Rwandans, or African for that matter, has to be owned. And as long it gives results to our people, this is the ideal model we need and indeed deserve.

What it all means is that, we should not allow anybody to lecture us on our political destiny, as it has been for our economic. We have learnt enough bad lessons.

{To be continued}…