“A big part of the global “Brand Kagame” could well be lost if he continues in office; and his enemies just can't wait for the moment”. Onyango Obbo.

The debate on our change and continuity continues to draw in many commentators, a number which distort facts intentionally or through ignorance of our country’s heinous history, and context and as such end placing Rwanda in the context of one size fits all democratic narrative with regard to term limits.

The recent piece by Mr Charles Onyango Obbo, got many facts and analysis wrong (in his article in Mail and Guardian), and through this makes the debate flat without regard of unique environment which Mr Obbo from a neighbouring country, Uganda, should know better than most.

He argues that our institutional depth is untested, and may not last beyond President Kagame which is true. Most of our institutions are young. They have been tested and passed the tests of efficiency contrary to what Mr Obbo alleges. Auditor General’s office, Ombudsman’s office, the parliament, the senate, judiciary and many other have done a terrific job, and are respected internationally for what they have done for our country in a short-time (20 years).

Nevertheless, the same institutions are too young to imagine that their efficiency is a culture. Far from that. They need more time to evolve and develop into strong, stable and sustainable institutions. In a developing country like ours, you either have a strong leadership or strong institutions. It is certainly far better to have both strong leadership and strong institutions. Strong institutions are built by strong leaders and not the other way round.

Investment in Successors

Mr Onyango also alleges that, the President failed to ‘grade at succession planning’ insinuating that, if he had mentored a successor, our debate would be irrelevant. Far from it. It is the exemplarity of leadership, amidst an extremely heinous environment, past, present, and blurred future, that makes his succession quite scary to most Rwandese, save for foreigners. Moreover the issue of mentoring a successor is a flawed argument for many reasons.
First, as The President mentioned in his interview recently with Jeune Afrique, doing so would mean that he is dictating to Rwandese who should be their next leader. Which would be questioned as undemocratic as Rwandese are the ones to choose a successor, not to be chosen for. Secondly Rwanda is not a monarchy where a king/queen is replaced by his/her anointed heir apparent. Besides, such a successor has to emerge naturally and be seen to be one by Rwandese. That none has emerged so far cannot be faulted to The President. It happens. This does not imply that potential candidates are not there. They certainly are, only that they need more time to evolve from potential to actual leaders. They will need time to take over a very difficult environment as one we have in Rwanda. Besides, if we have strong leadership, and strong institutions, successors would emerge naturally.

Moreover, Rwanda has had three Prime Ministers under President Kagame’s leadership (including the current one) and not four as Mr Onyango Obbo alleges. The first one Honourable Bernard Makuza served ten year term, one wonders whether this is a short tour of duty. He is now the President of the senate, the second highest position after The President according to our constitution. Our second Prime Minister Damien Habumuremyi served a three year term, and left due to his own problems which he confessed publically.

The argument that “being a PM in Rwanda is generally a short tour of duty, not allowing them to develop the skills to pretenders to the throne”… is a serious distortion of the reality on the ground. Our Prime Ministers oversee government business and they do that according to our constitution. They are not chosen to be heir apparent (nor running mates to The President). If they are to be, they have to measure up to the task, and be seen to be. The President has not and doesn’t limit their capacities in anyway to imply that, they are not allowed to develop into Presidential materials. Every Rwandese has the same and equal chance to hold the highest office on the land. But such must merit it, and Rwandese (who are generally critical) must be convinced that, so and so is a presidential material. But if most of the potentials failed to manage even sectors entrusted to manage, who can entrust them to manage a country as difficult as ours, this far?

Enemies of The President or Enemies of Rwanda?

Mr Onyango Obbo also argues that ‘his enemies (President Kagame) though have always lost – finding it a hard job to run against his record and they are angry. “…they are waiting for the right moment …handed to them when constitutional amendment removes term limits”. Now, it is precisely because of this very excellent record against all odds, that Rwandese want him to sustain and scale-up to even a higher level. I don’t know which enemies we have against his exemplary record, but if they are there, then they are enemies of Rwanda, and not enemies of President Paul Kagame. For the record that has put them off is for the people of Rwanda, and it is these very people that will amend their constitution to allow the sustenance of the said exemplary record, enemy or no enemy not withstanding. What is important for us Rwandese is what is in our interest, and anybody against these interests (development) becomes a national rather than a personal enemy of President Paul Kagame.

Mr Onyango Obbo argues that, …”stepping down leave him with the moral authority to influence direction of the country, much like Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere did, and even stage a come back should the country be plunged in a future crisis”. First, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere ruled Tanzania from Independence in 1964 to 1985 a total of 21 years. He united a country void of genocide history that tore Rwanda’s social, economic, as well political fabric apart. Rwanda is not Tanzania, or any other country for that matter, and comparisons renders simplistic what is otherwise a very complex environment indeed. For instance, the abnormal country Rwanda has been is not yet out of the woods. It is on course. Secondly, the unity and reconciliation project central to the survival of Rwanda as a nation state is such that, President Kagame has had the moral authority to manage trusted by parties for unity to happen. This project would be adversely affected by his departure. It may probably end with his departure in 2017.

Furthermore, once a leader in Africa has left office, chances of coming back when the country is in crisis are remote if not impossible as the office holder will make sure that the outgoing leader is out of sight. Many examples of this scenario abound in Africa. Moreover, given our past context, the issue of national crisis is a reality, and not a possibility. If so, why allow it in the first case? Rwandese know Rwanda best, and it is not that we are not democrats per se, but rather one size fits narrative would spell doom for our country and irreversibly. This has informed our choice of continuity project, and the rest will have to respect our choices. We are ultimately the sole beneficiaries and sole losers either way. We can’t lose what we can afford not to, and must avoid to lose. Kagame, and Rwanda.

Professor Nshuti Manasseh,
An expert in Finance and Economics.