I read the interview His Excellency President Paul Kagame gave to Jeune Afrique magazine March, 29th, with extreme admiration for the answers given on virtually all issues concerning 2017, and the future of our beloved country, a country he has devoted all his life to liberate and later on rebuild from the failed state we were in 1994, to a case study of miraculously fast developing country today.

The President’s key ward is: Rwandese will decide. Period. That is democracy. If anybody listens to other parties to this debate, it is not for us Rwanda, it is theirs and for their own consumption for at this age, and stage in the life of our country we know what is good for us, and we also know how to get it.

Political lecturers of one size fits all by colonialist and neo-colonialists who always have hidden agenda, and economic interest in what their lecture us, remain in history books. One wonders whether those lecturing African are aware that, despite our many problems, we are very enlightened people, unlike our forefathers whom their manipulated cashing on their ignorance. No more.

Scattered Detractors.

Going by numerous emails I have received for a while on our debate even detractors agree that it is a done deal. We will change our constitution. We will. It is our prerogative and birth right to decide our destiny and how we move into the future , and with or by who. What is interesting is that, the same detractors agree that, President Paul Kagame has done exemplary job, in turning round and transforming Rwanda in a record time known in the development discourse.

They also acknowledge that, Rwandese love him dearly for he has not only lead by deeds and his record is before all to see and appreciate, but also is a national knot for our unity and reconciliation without him the national unity project would certainly fail with serious and irreversible consequences to our country and by extension to the regional. This is a surety.

However, these detractors deposit various theories ostensibly alternative theory to emerged consensus in the name of democracy as they wish it, and not as we want it. One wonders what love they have for Rwanda more than Rwandese have for their country. Secondly, who appointed them ‘spokespeople’ for Rwandese and in whose mandate they espouse alternative theories for us.

Thirdly, whether they act in utter ignorance (I doubt) of our historical and futuristic context that inform our decision with regard to 2017 or whether they hold hidden agenda (true) that works into their interest and those on whose payroll they happen to be. 99 percent of detractors happen to be Rwandese negative forces in the Diaspora (going by origins of emails) who are remnants of interehamwe with their unfinished genocide ideologue and their associates who openly argue that, the only leader who has tamed them is President Paul Kagame, and that once he is out of office, they will let loose their demons on Rwanda. This is a certainty.

Hypocrisy:

Most of the detractors have dwelt on not changing our constitution as if it is a biblical covenant. No parallels here. It has been argued in the various fora, and by different parties that the constitution is our to change. To change to insure stability and continuity of the progress we have registered which is a handiwork of President Paul Kagame. At this stage of the debate, constitutional changes is a lazy and a tired argument for not changing it is more expensive and indeed disastrous.

Mo Ibrahim A ward Argument .

These detractors are so divisionally that to them if President Paul Kagame retired in 2017, he will receive the Mo Ibrahim awards and the perks that come with it. First, the process of selection of award winners is seriously flawed with information collected through hearsay evidence, which is highly subjective to the extent that, basing an opinion on such evidence leads to flawed selection of award winners. Secondly, this award collects it information from the web which is itself awash with trash and it is most times difficulty to decipher the truth from such information, least use it to form a conclusion that is used to select a former head of state for such award.

But these flaws are not the main issue in our case. Detractors (and they will be many downstream the debate) want to build no case at all in such arguments for a country and its future and the future of 12 million Rwandese (at stake) is more important than perks that would be offered to President Paul Kagame if he retired in 2017. Besides, given flaws in their methodology one is not even sure he will get the award anyway. Going by the lifeless President Paul Kagame has lived for Rwanda, and Rwandans, his most important award above awards is Rwanda. The rest is divisionary.

Legacy:

These same detractors have argued that, if President Kagame left in 2017 he will leave a legacy (a democrat) for others to emulate. In my opinion the legacy he can leave behind is a secure, and stable Rwanda, states that are far from attainment at this stage of our development as a country.

One can be forgiven if only he has no knowledge of the context of Rwanda, for even reading the same is mere academic. For most of us of who leaved past abnormal Rwanda, and have seen the evolution of normal Rwanda (work-in-progress) if President Paul Kagame left in 2017 Rwanda will leave with him.

This is not obsession, paranoism, sycophancy name it. This is the hard and yet bitter truth of our situation. This abnormal Rwanda will re-emerge in a more sophisticated state than the former. This is the legacy (no legacy) he would have left behind despite the priceless and heroic effort he has put in to make Rwanda what it is today. Rwanda is more complicated than third parties think, and most Rwandans are aware of this. The simple street truth is: 2017 is survival point for everything Rwanda, and Rwandans.