'Uncle' Paul Kagame should read some Greek mythology

Rwandan strong-man Paul Kagame, a mere year shy of the expiration of his last constitutional term in office, lately sparked a plethora of bittersweet reaction when he announced before state-television, an intention to present himself before the Rwandan electorate as a candidate in next year’s presidential polls – following an overwhelming plebiscite victory assenting to the removal of presidential term limits, in that country.

The irony in Kagame’s announcement is that it came at the height of celebrations to usher in the Gregorian year 2016 A.D.

 Since new years are typically welcomed with the turning of pages and ‘new leaves’, the idea of Kagame depriving the Rwandan people of a fresh pair of feet to see them through the next Presidential tenure was an interesting antithesis to this tradition.

Whether Kagame’s advisory team chose the timing of the declaration to coincide with a period of general social optimism, and thus take advantage of the ''positively irrational ''mindsets most people have at the genesis of a new annum, wouldn’t be an implausible theory altogether.

I’d like to employ some comparative arguments, to examine some of the superlative implications President Kagame’s decision to stay-on, will present for his country and the greater continental body-politic.

One: Has Kagame been a Transformational President?

Oh yes – the unanimous opinion in political conversation is that he has managed to salvage a country on the brink of statelessness. 

Economic and Human development indices show Rwanda as a fast-rising society; where the essential needs of citizens are prioritized by the state; in addition to a very successful, organic and home-grown effort to synthesize the national-tragedy that befell the country in 1994.

None can deny that under Kagame, Rwanda has literally executed a U-turn and is clawing its way steadily up the embankment of human progress.

Of course, along the way, Kagame has had to massacre a few hundred unimportant everyday people and assassinate a few tens of strong-headed political opponents; but this, as they say, has been a means to an end.

In order for the country to have peace and tranquility, some dispensable loudmouths and enemies of progress have to be contained, or altogether silenced – lest the entire nation suffer the consequences of the ‘indiscipline’ of a minority.

 It is only ''standard practice'' in statecraft.

And indeed, to quote Taban Amin, the flamboyant son of Uganda’s late dictator, when upon his return from exile in 2005 he was accosted by a nosy journalist about the volume of carnage on his father’s hands;

‘‘Look here – everyone has killed! As long as one is in government, killing is unavoidable. 

Idi Amin killed, Milton Obote killed, Mao Tse Tung killed, even the Americans kill …

The only question that should be asked is how and why the killing is done, not if …’’

Taban only fell short of mentioning that the man who was granting him amnesty, Y.K. Museveni, had also killed hundreds of political opponents, lest his amnesty be summarily revoked!

It certainly goes without saying, that if this article was being written in Kigali, there are some real chances that the writer wouldn’t live long enough to read any responses to it.

So heavy is the state’s clamp-down on free speech that any attempt at criticism, however objective, is swiftly labeled ‘genocidal propaganda’ and gagged or pulverized.

So perhaps – the fact that Paul Kagame’s government has been receiving popular reviews from almost every corner goes not so much to show that Rwanda actually deserves these (blanket) reviews, but to imply that an attempt to speak ill of Rwanda’s progress will either earn one the unsavory reputation of a genocidaire; or worse still – single them out for assassination by Rwandan state agents.

The fact that Mr. Kagame’s government pursues its opponents, real or perceived, to the countries of their exile is a sign that they seem to have a lot to hide, and are saddled with a paranoia-inflicted conscience.

How different does this make Kagame from Russia’s Vladimir Putin or North Korea’s Kim Jung Il, who receive only praise and approbation from their home press, yet the world daily discovers otherwise?

So no – I am not denying that Kagame’s leadership has had major impacts on the lives of everyday Rwandans, and gone a long way to lift millions out of poverty; but I wish to invite us to question the almost blanket acceptance of bloodshed as a necessary rite of passage, for the coming of age of the modern African nation-state.

Rwanda’s population faces an existential threat from the presence of FDLR rebels in neighboring Congo (Democratic Republic), who are not only sheltered but also actively patronized by Joseph Kabila’s government.

But does the Rwandan army have to counter-support Kinshasa’s rebels or loot Congolese mineral wealth in its offensive and defensive incursions into that country’s territory?

These are questions that have been brushed under the carpet in our haste at achieving political expediency, without realizing that what count as the failures of Rwanda or DRC can never be the successes of the other, at least not in the long run.

Two: Is Rwanda’s internal politics really that internal?

Paul Kagame has gone on record as calling for his beleaguered neighbor, Pierre Nkurunziza, to step down following the wave of citizens’ protests in Bujumbura.

Kagame’s logic is that Nkurunziza is an unpopular leader hanging on to power, as demonstrated by the intensity and continuity of the protests calling for his resignation in the aftermath of a controversially won third-term bid.

If Kagame’s measure of illegitimacy is the number of people brave enough to die in the streets of a given country’s capital to show how unpopular their president is – then he lacks a core understanding of human psychology and protest dynamics.

While Kagame is widely popular in Rwanda, winning elections in the 90^th percentiles, it cannot be discounted that this overwhelming support accrues to him because Rwandans are generally scared and fearful of their past, and thus of each other.

The unique history of the country entrenches this fear, and many Rwandans, old and young alike, feel that President Kagame’s iron-hand is the only protective barrier standing between them and their neighbors – who at the nearest opportunity would gladly turn on them with a machete or axe, and dispatch them to the afterlife.

The Rwandan government has therefore attempted to set itself up as a more fearsome entity than its citizens – so that instead of fearing each other, they should fear it and its capacity to avenge individual and collective wrongs.

While the thinking behind such an effort is noble; the downside is that it assumes people are machines who can be tuned to particular frequencies depending on how one desires them to function.

The suppression of ethnic identities and insistence on Rwandan-ness, as the core identity for its citizens is a good thing – but if it must be reinforced by one party, and one individual at the helm of state, then that effort is only bound to live as long as that individual is alive, or that party in power.

The noble ideology that Paul Kagame and his party functionaries embody needs to be sold to the other players in the political arena, let alone other potential presidents (within or outside the party) - if it is to be truly sustainable.

This is where timely and peaceful transition of power becomes of the essence.

Otherwise, what befell Milton Obote and his grandly forward-looking UPC ideology (The Nakivubo declaration, among others), is likely to be Kagame's fate if the man has to be forced from the presidency, at some time in the future.

And any way – Paul Kagame isn’t the only African leader to win an electoral majority upwards of 90%; Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe has been more than able to give him a ran for his money, severally, on this count.

Three: Will Kagame’s Third Term be good for Rwanda, ACTUALLY?

Without a doubt, if Mr. Kagame continues with the present policies of his government, Rwanda seems headed for a Singaporean rendition.

Lee Kwan Yew, Singapore’s independence leader, set a ‘dangerously successful’ precedent when he served so long and so well.

African potentates like Museveni and Mugabe now quote Lee, willy-nilly, in their comical attempts to justify their long-overdue presidencies - essentially reasoning that Third World economies are so fragile and their citizens so vulnerable and intellectually inept that regular political transitions would only have a distracting effect.

Of course, Singapore’s success also needs to be looked at in the context of geography and good neighborliness the country enjoys, which Rwanda direly lacks.

Singapore was surrounded by equally progressive neighbors in Malaysia and to an extent, Indonesia.

Lee Kwan Yew didn’t have rebel armies lurking at the borders of his country, waiting to rush in at the earlist sign of weakness, but Kagame does.

Beset on all sides by unstable democracies and war-torn countries, our own Uganda inclusive, Paul Kagame’s hard-earned success may not long outlive him, especially if he waits until he dies in office, as the ensuing power struggle and vacuum is likely to be taken advantage of by opportunistic neighbors like DRC, Uganda or Burundi - with imperialist and sundry motives.

There will be nothing new about this, and it’ll unfold in the same old way the region has always treated its disturbed members; by rushing in to plunder their resources and attempt to install puppet regimes.

This is why Paul Kagame’s decision to amend the constitution, (or allow for it to be amended), shouldn’t be looked at with the snobbish heroism of an African President defying the imperialist hegemony of the West, and attempting to be independent.

This phenomenon has played out too often.

If the West really dislikes Kagame, it won’t take them too long to assassinate him, orchestrate a coup or frustrate him through economic sanctions.

And he knows this – which is why he has been all over Eastern Europe and the Middle East making ‘‘new friends’’. But this didn’t save Sankara, Nkrumah, or Qaddafi.

And after the fall of Sankara, Nkrumah and Qaddafi – guess who suffered most? 
The ordinary people of their respective countries.

In only five or fewer years, the great infrastructural accomplishments registered by all these men had been effectively reduced to rubble essentially because of the cruelty and sadism of the West; but also because these African strongmen refused to acknowledge that societies are built by many people over generations, not by one god-like figure, overnight.

The necessity for term limits is enshrined in the common-sense idea that man is mortal.

That no president, however progressive and infallible, can live forever. 

The allowance for institutional continuity, by stepping down (or rather, aside) and permitting other able citizens to steer the ship of state, isn't an admission of failure, but an acceptance of the transience of life.

 Kagame shouldn't step down, or do anything for that matter, to please the United States and its ‘democratic’ allies.

He should step down to let Rwandans remember that the country is bigger than him, or any individual, and will long outlive him and any other Rwandan alive today.

Of course, the colonial nation-state isn't an organic African entity, and for it to work, should respect some of the tenets of Western democracy.

Like other elements of Western democracy, term limits aren’t an end in themselves, but are simply a conduit through which modern democratic principles can be exercised.

The notion that term-limits are alien and inappropriate to Africa is no different from the argument that modern parliaments, elections based on universal-suffrage, tarmac-paved roads or denim jeans are ‘‘non-African’’ and should therefore be rejected.

If Kagame wishes to reject things on the basis of their non-nativity; he should start with his flashy, European tailor-made suits and sparkling rimless spectacles - because there is certainly nothing African, let alone Rwandan, about these articles of raiment.

Let him walk around clad in only leopard-skin loincloths and brandishing a buffalo-tail flywhisk, in addition to other ''authentic'' African vestments; then we can perhaps begin to take stock of his allegedly Afrocentric rhetoric - believing it to contain even a vestige of probity.

Any principle or philosophy should be appraised on the basis of its objective purpose, and not on the abuse of it, or any perceived contextual merits.

The fact that Zambia, Senegal or Ghana; despite their observance of term-limits, are economically less progressive than Rwanda; is really a non-sequitur.

The unique problems of those countries stop them from progressing – and this has little or nothing to do with term limits. 
Actually, it could be argued that without term limits, those three countries would probably be in a much worse state than they presently are.

And who is to say that Singapore, had Lee Kwan Yew stepped down earlier, wouldn’t actually be better today than it has turned out?

But only a shaman would have that answer.

Nothing stops President Kagame from being a major influence on Rwandan politics, even after he cedes office to a successor. 
If this successor happens to be a protege, (something Kagame's current fortitude can guarantee), much the better.

The notion therefore that Rwanda will ''go up in flames'' or degenerate into another pogrom upon Kagame's exit seems merely alarmist, condescending and actually opprobrious to the staying-power of the man's tentatively admirable legacy.

Mandela (Nelson) didn't lose even a shred of sway or capacity for influence after handing the mantle on to Mbeki; and Lee Kwan Yew retained an esteemed and honorary position in Singapore's government as First Minister, even after relinquishing office.

Even the idea that Kagame still has ''work to do'' is vacuous; because even after close to 50 years at Libya's helm - Muammar El Qaddafi wasn't quite done! 

Who is to say that 'Uncle' Paul won't request an additional two terms in 2040?

So yes – while Rwandans have every right to love the man that has engineered a social and economic miracle in their state, and want him to stay forever – they must bear in mind that power possesses an uncanny quality for corruption.

The wonderful and progressive Kagame of today will certainly be a very different man 20 years down the road – if not ideologically, at least biologically. 

And even age does strange things to people’s heads.

Uganda has been down this road before; 

In 1996, Yoweri Museveni was everyone’s darling. 
He was so popular domestically and internationally - that Bill Clinton was hoodwinked into rashly describing him as ‘‘representing a new breed of African leaders’’. (Ha!)

Today however, the man seems to have lost all shame and sense of direction, his only objective being the retention of power – even at the cost of undoing all his government’s past achievements.

Who is to say that Paul Kagame, this darling of today’s world, won’t fall down the same well?

Kagame should remember that he is only a steward of the state, and like any other President, he doesn't own his country.

The progress Rwanda has made has been a joint effort on the part of all Rwandans.

If his citizens have forgotten this, in the throes of self-pity and gratitude, and falsely ascribe their country's progress  to him alone; Kagame should consider it his duty to remind them of that fact!

The best way to do this is to refuse to become a hostage of the country, in the same way that Y.K. Museveni claims he is a hostage of we Ugandans who want him to stay on, despite his wishes to the contrary.

''Mr. President, do tell us why you don't retire?'' the typical pressman queries.

''Don't ask me. Ask those 6 million Ugandans who keep begging and crying that I should stay. I am a successful farmer who wants nothing more than to go to my cows, but these Ugandans keep insisting that I am the only one with a vision ...''

Kagame's dilemma (who can deny that the man is in one!), reminds me of an anecdote in Greek mythology about a boy named Icarus.

Icarus was gifted wings to fly, by his father (in this case the people of Rwanda), but because he became too excited, lost himself in the moment and flew too close to the sun, melting the wax on his wings in the process, he fell into the sea, and drowned.

Ah – but only if men weren’t more alike than they appear!