Why opponents of removing term limits should listen more to
Rwandan citizens than their own theories and the preaching of America
Last week, the United States issued a statement calling on
Rwanda not to amend the constitution and remove term limits on the presidency.
America carries a false sense of morality, believing its own myth that her
political values are superior and should be the guide for other “lesser”
nations. Yet it has one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional political systems
in the world and has consistently failed to live up to its self-proclaimed
values. But that is a subject for another day. For now, let us debate Rwanda.
There are strong and legitimate reasons why it should have
term limits. Incidentally, Kagame shares many of these reasons. There are also
strong reasons why multitudes of Rwandans would like Kagame to stay on as
president. The challenge is how this should be decided? Some say it should be
decided by reference to a verse in the gospel of democracy. Term limits are
sacrosanct; every country, regardless of circumstances, should have them. I
used to embrace this view, so I will criticise it with the humility of
experience.
Others think Rwanda should keep term limits because Western
nations, which have been supportive of the nation’s reconstruction do not
approve of it. Appeasing Western public opinion is important to buy legitimacy
for African governments in large part because they are client states of Western
powers. When the master speaks, Africans need to take his counsel seriously.
(Post genocide Rwanda rejects this colonial-slavish submission).
Finally there is a perception in Africa that those
presidents who have removed term limits have equally had bad records. So if
Rwanda follows suit, many Kagame fans in Africa and elsewhere may begin to see
him like “any other African despot trying to cling to power”. This is a big
risk because Kagame has built a reputation as a progressive leader. In order to
protect it (because it brings a lot of benefits to Rwanda via trade, tourism,
credit and investment to the country) Rwanda should keep term limits. (Of
course this assumption is false. Rwanda’s creditors, investors and trade
partners want Kagame to stay longer because his presence reassures them).
In all the reasons for respecting term limits, the choice of
the people of Rwanda, those most affected by the decision, is missing. Instead,
the views of the US government, of the international democracy priesthood, etc.
are the ones given most prominence. In short, the opponents of the amendment
are saying that Rwandans should abandon politics; surrender the governance of
their country to textbook theories and the preferences of America and Europe
and Kagame’s fan base in Africa and elsewhere. Incidentally, the priesthood has
always argued that the voice of the citizen should be the basis of democracy.
Now that the vast majority of Rwandans want Kagame to stay, the priesthood is
saying Kagame should act autocratically, reject the views of the majority of
his people, and decide by diktat.
The unspoken view among those making these arguments is that
Kagame and RPF are the ones manipulating public opinion in Rwanda in favour of
removing term limits. This view is based on the assumption (actually a
prejudice) that Rwandans lack agency. This is nonsense. This movement began on
its own from the grassroots, taking RPF by surprise. When people started
signing petitions, the upsurge was so big that RPF was actually trying to
demobilise them. In all this, there is not a single person – soldier, minister,
MP, local government official, name it – who can claim that he met Kagame and
got encouragement from him to go and push for the amendment.
I say this with a lot of confidence because I have been a
personally involved in it. When this mass movement began, Kagame was actually
hostile to it. I was supporting him in resisting the pressure to amend the
constitution and spent time discussing with him and other key players in Rwanda
on how to organise a transition. But pressure from below was overwhelming.
Kagame decided to test public opinion and went on country tours. He was overwhelmed
by the sheer mass of people asking him to stay. He called the RPF meeting and
argued passionately that change has to happen. He has held this line without
gaining much support for it. Why?
It became obvious to all of us that Rwandans were not being
irrational. The country has had a bad experience with political transitions,
each one of them being accompanied by genocide – in 1959, 1974 and 1994. So
when Rwandans express extreme anxiety about a possible transition, they are not
being irrational. As a responsible leader, Kagame has to listen to them,
accommodates their views, assuage their fears and ascertain their needs.
One could urge Kagame not to follow mass hysteria; that he
should lead. It is true he can go into RPF and harangue and bully everyone to
agree with him. Many will be intimidated and yield. But is the democracy
priesthood really saying this is the right way Kagame should resolve this
issue? Many responsible people in Rwanda think there is a better way. Kagame
should manage public demands with a view to create a compromise. Rwanda can
extend his presidency so that the country achieves clearly measurable landmarks
that form a basis for a stable transition. I have written about these in `When
Should Kagame Retire?’ (The Independent May 01, 2015)
To argue that every country should respect term limits as if
it is a religious gospel is to abolish politics. If the constitution of a
country is determined by a textbook theory based on some universal standard,
why should there be politics at all. The advocates of term limits are
anti-political. They deny citizens agency to shape the constitutions of their
countries based on their experiences, fears and anxieties. They want Rwanda
governed according to their theories rather than the preferences of its
citizens.
In removing term limits, Rwandans could be making a big
mistake. But whatever happens, it is Rwandans to reap the fruits or bear the
consequences. That is why they should be the ones to make that choice. If it is
a mistake, they will learn from it. Some countries in Africa have attempted
removal of term limits and it has generated instability – witness Congo DR and
Burkina Faso. But in Rwanda, this effort is stimulating optimism and
excitement. My advice to the democracy priesthood; you cannot love Rwanda more
than Rwandans. So let Rwandans shape their politics.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment