Drawing from the article by Fred Mufulukye and Honourable Dr Karemera in the New Times, January 19th, and 9th February respectively who highlighted many salient features of our political direction and the need to change the constitution so as to allow exemplary leadership of President Paul Kagame to deliver more for Rwandans, as I appointed out in my earlier article as in many earlier articles on “Change with stability and Continuity…” I strongly hold similar view, and my stone cast belief/conviction in no change is informed by our heinous past to which I, like many of my generation (most Rwandans) has left an indelible mark on our conscious and no time, positions, privileges, and other consolations can change this wounded conscious of a people for who they were born as if this was an eternal crime.

My belief is equally reinforced by our present and how it has been shaped/ transformed by exemplary leadership of President Kagame so much so that, one had to have the faith of an angel to believe that the transformation we witness in our country would ever have happened. These two extremes then raises questions regarding our future, and a future that becomes so blurred that, we can only hope it will be better. In development discourse however, hope is not a strategy. It is a preserve of spiritual world anchored on powers above (God) who holds all strategies for here, and hereafter.

Stability Vs Continuity.

Although the two are inseparable, nevertheless we need to ponder on stability with regard to our context. Anyone can assume office, and ‘assure’ continuity. But continuity of what? In many developing countries as well as developed, populous fall prey to continuity of seemingly stable environments only to find out later that, leaders in place don’t have the qualities to assure the same.

Such populous only fall victims of rhetoric a high value currency typical of political world, only to find out that, delivery and rhetoric have an inverse relationship. Not so with regard to Rwanda. In fact some of us who have been fortunate to work with/under President Paul Kagame found pretty soon that we have an extremely gifted (genius) leader that will give solutions to virtually all national problems, from economic to social, health to agriculture, security to politics. Name it. The ownership with which he runs the country is only akin to private sector spirit of doing business, a spirit unknown to the political world.

His word has always been delivery to Rwandans and how such delivery can be sustained. He will go to the heights to attain delivery for every Rwanda. Which is why term limits or no term limits should not be allowed to over cloud/ blur the stability we have in all sectors of our lives as a people and nation, so much so that we can only endear to scale up the same.

No country has done so with change of an exemplary leader, not even sustaining what such an exemplary leader had achieved in the first place.

End State

Moreover, the discussions/debate with regard to 2017, should not be reduced to mere third term. Such an approach misses the end state (stability of everything Rwanda today). Rather our debate should about the continuity of our stability, and development thereof, and how this can be sustained, and who should sustain the same. It should be about the values that are budding and shaping the character of our country, values that are work-in-progress, at its earliest phase. The debate should be about the choices of Rwandans. Choice between stability or instability/destruction. Choice between continuity or stagnation/regression. Choice between order or chaos. Choice between development or under-development. Choice between peace/security or insecurity/instability. Choice between unity or disunity. And above all choice between a viable nation state or a failed state. Truth is; we have tasted all the above states, and we very know that if it wasn’t for the exemplary leadership of Paul Kagame, we couldn’t be talking of a new Rwanda today.

This debate would not make sense in the first place. Besides, the debate must be about what Rwandans wish for their country, and not what others wish for us no matter how well intended. It must be guided by what constitutes common good for all Rwandans today and for future generations as opposed to one size fits all (except for our outsized past, present and future) narrative by parties who hold context constant.

And if we then draw from our heinous past, correlate it with our transformed present and factor in our uncertain future, which will be shaped and influenced by variables/actors/agents (in the past as in present) the trend becomes so scary that only a diehard gamble can take a chance to change our leadership at this point in time. Such a gamble would affect lives of millions of Rwandans. And for worse.

Supported by Empirical Research.

There is lots of empirical research conducted over long period of time (consensus built), that point out that, unless a developing country sustains stable political systems anchored on strong leadership, such country’s development is bound to be erratic, uneven, in most cases stalls in some cases reversed fundamentally. This research draws from the previous episodes of sustained growth and development, from western economies as well as in newly industrilialized Asian Tigers, and are all in agreement that, those countries which latched into virtuous cycles of development happened to have strong leadership that spanned over a long period of time (no less than thirty years on average).

Thus for instance, empirical research done by Edwards (1998, 2003) on Asian Tigers, found out that, sustained strong leadership accounted for much of the development of such countries as Singapore, South Korea, and Malaysia. He points out that, such sustained strong leadership reduced the degree of political instabilities, and uncertainties and instilled confidence among savers both local and foreign, which in turn enable these countries to usher into material accumulation (high sustained savings and investment levels over time), leading to their miraculous growth and thus development.

Such research holds that, the political climate created such levels of certainty that, development agents both local and foreign, were able to forecast and plan long-term, to the extent that, these economies developed at unprecedented levels. The reverse was true for other East Asian countries that saw their growth stagnate due to sporadic and chaotic leadership changes. This same research point to such countries as The Philippines, Vietnam, North Korea, Thailand, many other examples of similar countries abound in East Asian pacific Rim as they do in sub-Saharan Africa.

This empirical research then points out to SSA’s (Sub-Saharan Africa) chaotic changes in leadership by way of coups and term limits that fundamentally reversed gains made by newly independent African states so much so that where as these very SSA sates were a head of most Asian Tigers (in all development indicators) at independence in early 1950s/60s, the later overtook them becoming newly industrialized/developed nations, whereas SSA nations were doomed to failure of proportions mainly due unstable leadership and leadership deficit.

Thus, a few Asian Tigers which maintained stable, visionary and strong leadership, marked the difference in growth path for the regions that were at the same levels of development in 1950s/60s. These observations reinforce views expressed most commentators with regard to our political home work. A large section of readers of these articles believe that, if our context is highly unpredictable at this point in time, and may remain so in the unforeseeable future, why even debate change.

Especially so, given that, most changes documented in Africa so far, point out to the change for the worse. Folk wisdom has it that: ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. We ignore that adage at our peril”. This adage is held dearly by a large number Rwandans that have reacted to these series and who in their opinion, change for the sake of change; is but, a call for doom. They do observe that, what is the end state of any political economy? Economic growth and better standards of living for themselves and their children, security for their lives and property, social cohesion, etc. if these are in place more than any other time in our history as a nation, why should we change the architect this political economy? Thus empirical evidence above should inform our decision of no change as opposed to emotive and subjective evidence loaded with don’t care mindset, a preserve of enemies of our country and their associates. They can’t be allowed to define our destiny, our future.

Correction:

In the first series, last paragraph, I had pointed out that…That USA amended her constitution in 1951 after President Roosevelt had run for four terms (this was a war period)….

It should have read: … “USA President Roosevelt was reelected four times, he passed away in office in 1945. The Constitution WAS changed in 1951, but to limit term limits, not to allow him to run for office more than twice. The original Constitution of the United States did not limit the number of times a President could be reelected”. My apologies for the above error.

{To be continued…}

Professor Nshuti Manasseh.
Economist and Financial Expert.
Email: [email protected].