How the debate on amending the Constitution to remove term limits is evolving in Rwanda and the issues to consider
President Paul Kagame recently said he does not want Rwanda to amend
the constitution to remove term limits. But I do not think this will
stop calls by ordinary citizens who want him to stay. If I were not
conversant with Rwanda, I would have thought this is an argument by the
president’s courtiers telling lies to retain power. Whoever
underestimates the amount of pressure on Kagame to stay should try a
referendum. Indeed Kagame has rigged the debate by taking a position.
This places senior politicians and military and security chiefs in a
difficult position of having to openly disagree with their boss. But
even this may not stop the momentum that has begun at the grassroots.
It is possible the removal of term limits will stimulate secondary
political contestations that will lead Rwanda back to instability. This
is because the biggest challenge facing developing nations, is how to
ensure peaceful transfer of power from one president to another and one
ruling party or government to another. Kagame’s greatest contribution to
Rwanda would, therefore, be his ability to midwife a peaceful transfer
of power to another president as Julius Nyerere of Tanzania did. Then he
could retire to mentor and nurture this new political culture behind
the scenes.
The likelihood that Kagame’s stay will stimulate instability is
premised on the fear that if people realise there is no way the
president can be removed peacefully, they may resort to violent means.
And if removal of term limits diminishes Kagame’s national prestige, he
may retain power only by buying favours from elites; hence corruption
and likely instability. Here we need examples of presidents in Africa
who tried to cling to power by removing term limits and thereby
stimulated instability. To my knowledge none of the countries that has
removed term limits has collapsed.
The other scenario is that if term limits are removed and Kagame
remains president, Rwanda will sustain the current momentum for reform
and fast growth. Changing leaders in 2017 will slow down Rwanda’s pace
as the new president, seeking to consolidate his position will try to
win over powerful elites. The most cost effective way to do this is to
trade favours, hence corruption and patronage. Kagame’s overwhelming
legitimacy allows him to crack down on corruption. It also allows him to
enforce technocratic management by minimising political deal-making
that dilutes state independence and performance. In the context of
Rwanda’s still young and fragile institutions, Kagame’s departure can
stimulate elite contestations for power that will overwhelm the
political system hence instability.
The first democratic transition of power in post-independence Africa
happened in Somalia in 1967 when Abdirashid Ali Shermarke defeated
President Aden Abdullah Osman Daar in a general election. Sharmarke was
assassinated in October 1969, followed by a military coup. Today Somalia
is a failed state. An even more organised peaceful transition happened
in Sierra Leone in 1985. President Siaka Stevens retired voluntarily
after 14 years and handed power to Joseph Saidu Momoh. A few years
later, the country degenerated into civil war, a military coup, and
state collapse. Most recently Mali was being hailed as a stable
democracy because of two leadership transitions. Now it is being held
together by French troops.
The point is that neither a democratic transition (Somalia and Mali),
nor a peaceful retirement (Sierra Leone) is a guarantee that the
country will be stable. The supporters of term limits as a guarantor for
stability make this argument out of religious faith, not history. But
missionary politics of this type will not be helpful. I used to be a
fanatic of term limits exactly out of faith than history. The words of
Lord Bolingbroke, that “philosophy is history teaching by example”, need
to be taken seriously. I hope that Rwandan citizens will debate this
matter more out of political pragmatism than religious faith. If Rwanda
has to make an error, it must make it on the side of caution.
There is a lot that has happened in Rwanda to give hope that even if
Kagame leaves, the country would not slide to instability. The RPF is a
strong and more institutionalised political party than many of its
contemporaries on our continent. The Rwandan military and security
forces are more professional than in many African countries. And state
institutions and the economy are on a sound trajectory for growth and
consolidation. Kagame therefore can retire with his head high knowing he
has done a great job. It is, therefore, imprudent for advocates of
removing term limits to create doomsday scenarios that if the president
retires Rwanda will fall apart.But since Kagame is performing well, why
change him especially when the vast majority of citizens still want him
to govern? Is leadership change a purposeless fashion? The constitution
of Rwanda places all power in the hands of its citizens who can exercise
it indirectly through their elected representatives or directly through
a referendum. The framers of the constitution had the wisdom to
foresee the likelihood of circumstances calling for the amendment of the
constitution to meet the aspirations of the people. They provided for a
referendum to remove term limits if circumstances so necessitated.
Those opposed to removing term limits cannot eat their cake and have
it. If they want democracy in Rwanda, let the people’s voice be heard.
And for those who think Kagame is a dictator determined to retain power,
there is nothing to argue with them. But there are many admirers of
Kagame who would like to see him retire if only to retain his prestige
as an enlightened leader. This is because those on our continent who
have removed term limits have had unsavoury records. Kagame’s admirers
do not want him to be misunderstood. This is the constituency those
advocating for removing term limits should address themselves to. But
this also means that Kagame’s retirement would most certainly enhance
his personal prestige but not benefit Rwanda. I hope these admirers do
not want him to be that selfish.
Ultimately the people most likely to be most affected by Kagame’s
stay or retirement (the citizens) should make the choice through
Rwanda’s democratic institutions. Any attempt to rely on a theory
imported from abroad as “best practice”, instead of the objective
conditions obtaining on the ground in Rwanda, is likely to be an
exercise in unnecessary and unprofitable experimentation.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment