Tag: Rwanda Patriotic Front

Rwandans; Is Kagame willing to give power to You?

By Eleneus Akanga

The planning had been as meticulous as the voting that preceded this event. Having successfully come through as winner of the predictable presidential election on August 9, this was a day Kagame and his supporters knew was coming. And boy, did they plan.

After all, Kigali is known for its pristine and tidy streets, so most of their job was already cut. A few decorations here and there and everything would be in motion. People were asked to turn up in numbers and business in the city, especially near the national stadium came to a standstill. If you did not make it to the stadium due to heavy security or venue capacity limits, you had no reason not to stay at home and watch it on national television. Giant screens were erected around for those that would claim they did not have televisions at home.

Somewhere across town, the cult figure that is Paul Kagame prepared to cut his cake and serve it, as dignitaries from far and near, ensconced themselves in comfy seats, waiting to witness history. Oh yes, history! History because not long, someone would stand in their midst, take his oath and become the first ever head of state to assume a second seven year term in office. To put this in context, that is 2 years short of 3 presidential terms in any of his neighbouring countries and 2 years short of a possible 4 American Presidents, assuming each served only one term, or 2 if each served the legally accepted 2 terms.

This was a day that had come right on the heels of mounting pressure on Kigali. Pressure – resulting from heavy criticism of a regime and government that the guest of honour understands as being on the right path. If there was going to ever be an opportunity for President Kagame to put one past his critics or for Kigali to express how confused and angry it is at those who continue to question its style of leadership, his overall judgement, or his role in the politics of the region, this was it.

And he took the invite it with open arms. “It is difficult for us to comprehend those who want to give us lessons on inclusion, tolerance and human rights. We reject all their accusations. Self-proclaimed critics of Rwanda may say what they want, but they will neither dictate the direction we take as a nation, nor will they make a dent in our quest for self determination,” he roared.

With his face grimacing in what some will have viewed as fear as opposed to his cowboy seriousness, the one time member of Africa’s new brood of leaders continued:

“These external actors turn around and promote the dangerous ideas of those who have fallen out with the system; ignoring the choices of the majority of our people … it is evidence of hypocrisy and a patronizing attitude towards our entire continent”.

For all his greatness and his one time grand vision for the country, President Kagame remains a peculiar character. For reasons well known to him, he views critics as self styled. He has never understood or blatantly chooses to ignore that critics are what any one needs to be perfect. He has this feeling that for some weird reason or a deliberate sort of raison d’être, certain people hate him and his people. And he can’t stand these critics leave alone the thought of getting lessons from them.

As someone who is understood to have brought an end to the genocide (some contest this), Kagame would rather he earned maximum praise. He sees Rwanda as his brain child, a nation which needs him so badly, that without him, it would extinguish away in flames. He also sees the world, as gradually ganging up against him by siding with or lending a few ears to his critics. And for this he wants a fight.

The Kagame we saw today is the Kagame we saw some 3 years ago in front of dignitaries at then Hotel Intercontinental, chastising and directly telling off dignitaries most notably the French ambassador to Rwanda at the time for his country’s decision to prosecute some of his men. Now, fighting for fellow countrymen is a sign of solidarity, but this fight has got to be both reasonable and appropriate. President Kagame needs to know that sometimes, over reaction, can come through either as a sign of guilt or weakness.

While I understand his anger and his desire to put his point across, I am not overly convinced that he has to use his swearing in ceremony to moralize his beatitudes.  Anyone would be angry. Everyone human would be so angry if after years of innocence, their army as well as their person suddenly stood accused of crimes against humanity – especially by an organisation they themselves accuse of folding its arms against them when they needed help. Angry rhetoric is no solution. While it may help send a clear message to your accuser to expect a tough fight, like I said before, it risks creating the impression that the noisemaker is wary of something.

Mr. President, everyone remembers how easily you swept through the election, winning 93 percent of the vote. We know too that according to you, dependency on aid and not the lack of democracy is Africa’s major problem. Is it not fair that after all these years in power, you should return power to the people as provided for in the constitution, decentralise power and provide for free speech and press freedom. And that way, “we the people” can have a proper debate on the way forward for this wonderful nation that you so easily are tilting towards a dictatorship?

Of Rwanda and the coveted image

By Eleneus Akanga

Writing August 3, in The Guardian, another of UK’s newspapers I regard highly, Robert Booth exposes yet another of those rambling defences that the regime in Kigali now considers part of the lingua-franca. One, of a nation which under President Paul Kagame has managed to develop, foster unity and completely re-invent itself 16 years after it was torn apart by the genocide.

Rwanda under Kagame continues to fascinate. You have a leader, who has managed to silence all opposition, crack down heavily on free press and dissent despite ushering in a period of economic progress and prosperity (at least for some) but he never gets any criticism from leading nations like the US or the UK.

Well, if you have been wondering why Kigali gets away with accusations of state terror, violation of human rights, suspected journalist killings, sham elections or serious concerns about the level of political freedom, here is the answer. According to The Guardian, a London PR firm Racepoint , hired by our dear head of state himself, is in control.

When I wrote the other day about the gutter that is The New Times, a few people wondered why I was so dismissive of my own national newspaper, some even reminding me that I mustn’t trash TNT so much as it is where I began my career. Well, they were right, why trash an organisation that gave you a chance. While it would be humane for me not to bin The New Times for the opportunity it gave me, it would be suicidal on my part as a journalist to knowingly not tell the truth. By questioning why Rwanda spends millions on adverts in foreign papers or why Kagame always chooses foreign media when giving interviews instead of our own newspapers, I was only trying to point to the fact that The New Times is not taken seriously even by the people it serves. And if Paul Kagame, the man who and whose government The New Times has pampered since 1998 does not think it is worth giving an interview, why not say the truth?

But this is not the point today. Publicity is good.  Make no mistake; Rwanda needed some great publicity after what happened in 1994. I know of people in Europe who still know of Rwanda from the movie Hotel Rwanda. And so often, I have had to explain that the genocide ended some 17 years ago. Good publicity has helped revamp our tourism industry which, it has to be said, remains our highest foreign exchange earner to-date.

But if this publicity is going to come at the expense of the truth about the country’s democratic path, facts about free speech and press freedom or the exact truthful experiences of the local Rwandan, I rather we don’t get it. There is coming to London to look for a good PR firm to help you get recognised and known world wide, this I agree with, but when such trips, are made with the sole aim of striking deals aimed at promoting spin and lies about the real experiences in Rwanda from the Rwandans up and down the country who wish they could have some bread on the table and are not sure what tomorrow holds, then it becomes highly questionable that the taxpayer should foot the bill.

President Kagame is free to become a dictator if he chooses to but he must not forget that Rwandans reserve the right to demand he explains why he is leading the country dangerously to the brink with his reclusive and iron-fisted approach to leadership.  And if he or those working for him have no moral authority to explain this to the masses choosing instead to employ the services of spin masters in London and at ludicrously high prices, then that is betrayal.

It is clear who Kagame wants to hear his music. Like one of the PR moguls put it in Robert Booth’s piece, “If you are managing a client’s reputation, whether individual, company or country, it is the Anglo-Saxon media that matters and particularly the London-based media,” said Ivo Gabara. And you would not have to search far to see why Rwanda is keen at spending so much in London for image rights.

Rwanda received £70 million from the UK last year and as Kagame prepares to assume another seven-year term on Tuesday August 10, he can look forward to another cool £56 million from London this year. And if Racepoint is there to help advance a spin that will blind London and Washington from seeing that this is a gentleman whose government refused opposition candidates to register, has successfully outlawed dissent, banned independent media from operating in the country, persecuted critical journalists and above all spent an astonishing $100 million on two executive jets when 60 percent of the locals are classed by the UN as living below the poverty line, why not pay millions of this free money to those who help you gain it?

There is probably not much the West can do given the power of Paul Kagame’s public relations machinery ironically financed wholly by their (West) free money. But besides reading and following the choreographed stories in these London or Washington publications planted by the lobbyists at Racepoint and others like it, the West might want to borrow a leaf from researchers and Rwandese themselves who at least know what is going on.

And like Susan Thomson pointed out, there are three things that donors (development partners as Kagame calls them) can do to encourage him to create a more open and peaceful culture after his re-election on Monday.

“First is to question the government’s ability to manage Rwanda’s natural resources its people and its land.

“Second is to encourage open dialogue and a culture of constructive criticism and debate about government policies amongst the political class.

“Third is to encourage Kagame to engage the diverse political views of the Rwandan Diaspora”.

From me, it is congratulations President elect Paul Kagame on your second term as Rwanda’s head of state. You may have won confortably but surely events in this year’s campaign will have proved to you that freedom is not divisible. The tighter you control the tenets of democracy, the more it is going to be harder to loosen it once that time you so keenly talk about comes. Silence is a bad thing, and just because people are silent does not mean they are contented.

Over to you my little monsters…

Rwandan Election: Doubts About the Poster Boy

Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame, long the darling of western donors, is widely expected to win August’s presidential polls, the second since the 1994 genocide. But is his success down to pure popularity, or because of an apparent crackdown on voices of dissent?

Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame, long the darling of western donors, is widely expected to win August’s presidential polls, the second since the 1994 genocide. But is his success down to pure popularity, or because of an apparent crackdown on voices of dissent?

Paul Kagame stands at a podium in an open-air stadium in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, where terrified thousands sought refuge from the men with the machetes as the killing started exactly sixteen years earlier.

It is Genocide Memorial Day, April 7, 2010, and the president is talking about turning grief to strength and determination. So far he has spoken mostly in Kinyarwandan, his nation’s language, but without warning he switches to English.

What he says next is clearly directed at the suited dignitaries representing the world’s diplomatic missions, the donors who together pump roughly $700million into his country annually, or a little less than half its budget.

‘Political space, freedom of expression, press freedom, who are these giving anyone here lessons, honestly?’ Kagame asks, softly, seemingly genuinely puzzled, as applause breaks out behind him. ‘These Rwandans…are as free, as happy, as proud of themselves like they have never been.’

On the surface, Kagame is a poster boy for the west’s aid policies, an African leader who stamps on corruption, who uses international help to educate children, treat the sick, repair roads and boost business.

Former United States President Bill Clinton last year recognised his ‘public service’ with a Clinton Global Citizen Award. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is an unpaid and enthusiastic advisor to his government. Blair’s successor, David Cameron and senior members of the British Conservative party have for the last four years spent part of their summer recess building schools across Rwanda, and cosying up to its President.

So, why, at an event charged with the memories of sixteen years ago, is Kagame appearing to bite the hands that help feed his people? The reason is another date, August 9, when Rwandans vote in only their second democratic presidential election since the genocide.

UGLY EVENTS

In the lead-up to polling, a series of ugly events has focused the international spotlight on Kagame in a way that has never happened before. He suspended two popular independent newspapers, Umuseso and Umuvugizi, described by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists as ‘the only critical media voices left in the country’.

A week later, Victoire Ingabire, head of the opposition Unitied Democratic Forces, returned from exile in Holland and was promptly arrested and charged with denying the genocide, among other indictments. She has been bailed, but is under house arrest. Her American lawyer, Peter Erlinder, was arrested too, also accused of genocide denial, and only released on medical grounds after three weeks.

A second presidential hopeful, Bernard Ntaganda, is in prison awaiting trial on four charges, including terrorism. A Human Rights Watch researcher was expelled from the country over alleged visa irregularities.

Only three opposition parties have been allowed to nominate presidential candidates. They are accused of at best being strategically soft on Kagame’s ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front, at worst, being its proxies. ‘There is nothing we can do, we have supporters, we are ready to contest the election, but we cannot because we cannot register,’ said Frank Habineza, leader of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

Most seriously, a reporter from one of the banned newspapers, Jean-Leonard Rugambage, was shot dead outside his house on the evening of June 24.

Earlier in the day, a story he had written appeared online, alleging Rwandan security force involvement in the apparent assassination attempt of a disaffected army general – and former ally of Kagame’s – in South Africa.General Kayumba Nyamwasa, who reportedly fled Rwanda earlier this year afraid for his life, is expected to survive his injuries.

Two other army generals have been arrested in Rwanda, one for corruption, another for immoral conduct. Both were accused of links to a series of mysterious grenade attacks which killed one person and risk frightening-off tourists, who supply the largest share of the country’s foreign exchange earnings.

The vice-president of the opposition Democratic Green Party of Rwanda was found dead near his abandoned car on July 15, in what authorities said was a robbery. But his Green party colleagues immediately voiced suspicions that this too was a political killing. Kagame’s government has angrily denied any involvement in the deaths or shootings.

WESTERN WORRIES

‘It is strange. Why, if he has all this support, will he not allow opposition and then trounce them at the polls,’ asked a Kigali-based European diplomat. ‘Clearly all this other stuff is not the kind of press we were expecting out of Rwanda in the run-up to the elections.’

Certainly not, agreed US President Barack Obama’s point-man for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson. In testimony to the US House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, he said: ‘The political environment ahead of the election has been riddled
by a series of worrying actions taken by the Government of Rwanda, which appear to be attempts to restrict the freedom of expression.’

Carson’s comments came as something of a pleasant surprise to those frustrated at a lack of international pressure on a leader who, they felt, was being allowed to run his nation like a dictatorship.

‘Carson’s statement was significant, and encouraging,’ said Carina Tertsakian, the Human Rights Watch staffer whose Rwanda visa was cancelled. ‘Sadly so far we have seen very little will on the part of western donors to deal with this issue, we’ve seen nothing like that coming out of the UK, for example, which is by far the biggest European donor and main supporter of the Rwandan government. We hope for more [international pressure], but we’re not seeing it yet.’

But this is exactly the kind of attention that irritates Kagame that prompted his puzzled statements on Genocide Memorial Day. Much of the concern, from human rights organisations and media freedom advocates, centres on the accusation that the government uses the charge of denying the genocide as a political tool to silence critics.

Britain’s new coalition government has said it is watching the run-up to Rwanda’s election closely. Speaking to The World Today during a visit to Nairobi, Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, said Britain was Rwanda’s ‘good, but candid, friend’ and that he had raised concerns publicly and privately with the government in Kigali.

‘There are real issues about ethnicity in a country which saw over eight hundred thousand people murdered principally by machete and single shot in ninety days,’ he said.

‘You have an incredible legacy to balance between the desire of the survivors for revenge and the rights of the Hutu people to live in peace. I think we in the west should be respectful of that very difficult situation in arriving at conclusions about how the Rwandans handle it.

‘I’m not saying that the restriction on political space should go unchallenged, far from it. But I think that they are entitled to be cut quite a lot of slack in addressing ethnic issues which have the power to be deeply destabilising in a country with Rwanda’s history.’

From holding an iron grip on a generally supportive military, the same army which he led from exile into Rwanda to stop the genocide sixteen years ago, Kagame is now facing dissent among some senior officers.

There are accusations that political patronage is spread too thin. Or that control of privatised state assets is being passed to too small an inner circle.

But critics claim, discuss this and the strong arm of the state will find you. Further, they question the long term sustainability of what is, in essence, the world’s first real experiment in post-genocide state reconstruction.

Kagame’s unspoken theory is that if people are richer, they are less likely to fight because they will have far more to lose.

But that is not proven, and what if another seven years of firmly keeping the lid on dissent means that, come the next election, the pot is boiling and ready to explode?

‘It shouldn’t be us raising these issues, but as a Rwandan, what can you do’, asks Tertsakian. ‘As soon as you say anything, you are arrested and accused of genocide ideology, or threatened with it, or forced into exile.’

That is to entirely miss the point, counter Kagame’s supporters. ‘For Rwandans, guarding against genocide ideology is a matter of core national security,’ said Andrew Wallis, an advisor to Kagame’s government and author of Silent Accomplice: The Untold Story of France’s Role in the Rwandan Genocide.

‘Kagame feels that if you have a western-type full freedom of expression, that will allow revisionism, genocide denial, and that can lead to genocide itself. It’s still too soon since 1994. The feeling is, give the guy a break.’

BEST FOR BUSINESS

And Kagame’s record – human rights concerns aside – is impressive. A country utterly on its knees sixteen years ago, where neighbours had turned on neighbours, teachers on pupils, churchmen on congregations, is now among Africa’smost successful.

Since Kagame was first democratically elected – privately saying his models for how to run his country were South Korea and Singapore -economic growth has averaged above eight percent, and this year the World Bank named it as the world’s best business reformer.

Kigali aims to become a regional hub for conferencing and the service industry. Broadband internet cables are snaking up and down the hills.

Primary schooling is now free, extra teachers are being hired, new universities planned. Subsistence farmers – still eighty percent of the eleven million population – are advised on modern techniques and organic fertilisers.

Rwanda became only the second non-Anglophone country – after Mozambique – to join the Commonwealth last year, and Kagame has come to something of a rapprochement with the French, whom he long accused of favouring the Hutu genocidaires before and during 1994’s horrors.

Both moves are aimed at broadening Rwanda’s business partnerships. Beijing is being courted, but is unlikely to be as big a player as elsewhere in Africa because Rwanda has few minerals.

So, it is clear that Kagame will win re-election this year. For many Rwanda-watchers, the more fascinating contest will be the next presidential polls, in 2017. The president is unlikely to stand again, but as yet there is no clue as to his successor.

‘The question is whether Rwanda is ready for a Western-style democracy, and the answer at this point probably is no,’ said Wallis. ‘He has been called many things, but one is for sure: Kagame is a man of immense vision, and that vision is being impressively implemented. Why must outsiders keep pushing their theories of how to run a country onto Rwanda?’

‘Give him another seven years to bequeath a country where everyone’s too busy making money to risk anything like 1994, and then, perhaps, that will be time for true multipartyism. It’s far from sure, though.’

Mike Pflanz, Correspondent, East, West and Central Africa, Daily Telergaph, in Nairobi

A False Reconciliation

By Susan Thomson

As Rwanda gears up for Presidential elections in August, it is a good time to reflect on the progress the country has made since the genocide in 1994, both in image and in reality.

By most popular accounts, Rwanda is a nation rehabilitated. Diplomats and journalists talk of President Paul Kagame’s phenomenal success in rebuilding the once-shattered country.

The capital, Kigali, boasts a modern airport, several international hotels, a modern ICT infrastructure, and countless new residential and commercial properties. Numerous cafés and nightclubs have opened, catering to the city’s growing middle class of bureaucrats and businesspeople. Kigali’s crime rate is low and its streets are clean.

In the Rwandan Parliament, women hold 56 per cent of seats, the highest proportion of female representation in the world. Tony Blair is a presidential advisor and international dignitaries, including Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and Howard Schultz of Starbucks, frequent the country.

Kagame is praised as a benevolent and thoughtful leader who cares deeply about his people. His policies have reconciled the Hutu perpetrators of the genocide with Tutsi survivors. Community-based gacaca courts have processed more than 100,000 Hutu accused of acts of genocide with most successfully reintegrated into society.

But most foreign visitors do not see the deep poverty and daily hardships that confront ordinary Rwandans. For most of them, Hutu and Tutsi alike, life since the genocide is not as bright and shiny as the authorities in Kigali would pretend.

Some 90 per cent of Rwandans are peasants who rely on subsistence agriculture. Few of them have benefited from the country’s rapid reconstruction. The gap between the wealthy urbanites and the poor rural dwellers is on the increase. Government policies favour the urban elite, many of whom are Tutsi who returned to the country after the genocide.

The vast majority of Rwandan women and men who survived the genocide remain extremely poor, politically marginal, and, in many cases, traumatised by what they lived through. Almost 95 per cent of Rwandans in the country during the genocide have post-traumatic stress disorder. Few receive government-sponsored counselling or support.

With rare exceptions, Rwandan peasants are thin, their eyes lacklustre from continued hunger, with weathered hands and faces, giving them the appearance of being older than their actual age. Some have orange hair, a telltale sign of malnutrition. Many go barefoot and dressed in ragged clothes – often the extent of their wardrobe.

Most of the Rwandans I spoke to lamented the constant struggles of everyday life since the genocide. For them, there is a lack of food, clean water, and affordable and proximate health services.

Increasing levels of authoritarianism by the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) stifle any attempts to address these inequalities.

Public space for free and open political expression is limited. The media and civil society operate at the behest of the RPF. Any individual or group that challenges the official government version of Rwanda as a rehabilitated nation, peaceful and secure, is harshly dealt with.

Opposition politicians, journalists, and ordinary folk alike who criticize the government are all subject to harassment, intimidation, disappearance, and, in extreme cases, death. Just ask Joseph Sebarenzi, the former Speaker of the House. Kagame forced him into exile in 2001 for his efforts to constitutionally limit the powers of the president. He writes about his experience in his recent bookGod Sleeps in Rwanda

Instead of allowing for frank and open discussion of the genocide, the RPF has forced reconciliation upon the people. They make Hutu tell the truth about what they did during the genocide, and make Tutsi forgive them. Reconciliation is not a sincere affair of the heart; it is an administrative matter.

The ordinary Rwandans I talked with are more than just skeptical about the government’s commitment to reconciliation; they also recognise it as a form of social control.

As Olive, a Hutu widow whose Tutsi husband died during the genocide told me, “All these confessions are a program of the government. Hutu confess to get free. But we know what happened! We were there in 1994. Not all who killed get justice – the government pardons them for reconciliation. Not all who didn’t kill go free – the government puts them in prison for reconciliation. What kind of peace is this? It is not from the heart.”

Local officials harass and intimidate those who fail to embrace this reconciliation; anyone who questions the sincerity of it can be imprisoned.

This is not a process grounded in an enlightened vision of peace and security. Instead, it forces Rwandans to remain silent and to not question the RPF version of peace and security. Rwandans are only simulating reconciliation as a means of coping with the demands of their government. As Jeanne, a Tutsi widow, said, “There can be no peace in the heart if there is no peace in the stomach.”

For many ordinary Rwandans, this has been an alienating, oppressive and sometimes humiliating experience – something that could, paradoxically, crystallize and create stronger dissent in the future, perhaps erupting into violence as early as August 2010 when Rwandans go to the polls again.

Susan Thomson is a SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa. She’s researched written and continues to be a great source of information about Rwanda. She runs a blog http://democracywatch-rwanda2010.blogspot.com. This article was first published on January 21, 2010.

Why I do fear for Rwanda

Depending on how you look at it, Rwanda is a country in chaos. That is of course if like me, you define chaos to mean a state lacking order or predictability. The establishment in Kigali knows this but accepting it is a parody.

President Paul Kagame, the powerful aristocrat who we now know will win the August 2010 presidential election for yet another seven-year term knows this. His henchmen know this as well. They of course won’t tell you now but soon you will know because the writing is on the wall.

For 16 years, Kagame and his Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) have tried and successfully developed the country. The economy is booming, buoyed by constant aid from Western countries. Unity and reconciliation have become the ruling government’s catchphrases. For over 10 years, the government has drummed these two in the minds of Rwandese with the belief that one day, people will forgive and forget. Whether this has been successful, no one can realistically tell. It is a case that I will leave for another day.

What I do know is that Rwanda today, is a nation threatened not by a rampant genocide, but the side effects, of it.

For any nation, race or creed, history is important. It is through knowing one’s history that focus is derived. However, there is a marked difference between using this history for the better and using it to one’s advantage. Explaining this phenomenon in relation to Rwanda, is as hard as explaining the chaos theory itself.

Chaos Theorist will have you believe that when a butterfly flaps its wings on the North coast of Africa, there is going to be a monsoon in Uganda. Strange as it may seem, this is predictable and sometimes, it has happened. While science tries to explain such behaviour through the analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, politics does not. What politics does is give you the opportunity to see and predict.

The idea, that a government should tightly guard against public rallying, suppress and stifle its population out of the basic freedoms like association, speech and press, all in the name of avoiding a repugnant history is one that I struggle to understand. History has shown that people will always move on, whatever the circumstances, as long as the issues that matter to them, are duly resolved and addressed.

If as a pastor, I spent 17 years preaching to my congregation to turn to God and they looked like they never care after those years, I certainly would consider doing something else. Either, my preaching is bad or am not the best man for the job. It is not a formula; it is simply, how things are done.

From the day Rwanda announced it was going multiparty, something seemed odd. The question on many people’s minds was, how do you effectively go multi-party with a society like Rwanda’s and at the same time avoid harming the basic fundamental human rights?

From the word go, Kagame’s government was torn between letting go and effectively crushing dissent. But because they had to appear all encompassing, they opted for accommodative politics. First Faustin Twagiramungu became Prime Minister, Pasteur Bizimungu was made president. A host of other names who many would have doubted to feature in the RPF government made it to the A-list. The idea was to look accommodating while laying the foundation for a successful real RPF take over. Behind the scenes of Bizimungu’s presidency was a powerful general called Paul Kagame. To accommodate his ego, Rwanda had to even go against its constitutional provisions and create the post of Vice President, which mind you had never existed before and does not exist anymore.

As pressure mounted on Bizimungu to rule as he was being asked to, Rwanda’s strong man saw an opening. Bizimungu was implicated in a corruption case, accused of inciting violence and promoting divisionism through his Ubuyanja Party and later, jailed.

I was there in 2007 when Pasteur Bizimungu stepped out of Kigali’s 1930 Central Prison. I like all present journalists tried hard to get to speak to him in vain. Not even were we allowed to take pictures of him coming out of the prison doors! Why deny journalists a chance to get an action picture of a former president stepping out of a prison where he could very easily have spent the rest of his life?

But that is not the point. Bizimungu was rushed into the prison chief’s main office where he was debriefed by then Internal Security minister Musa Fazil Harelimana. He only spoke to express his gratitude to president Kagame for the presidential pardon and quickly claimed he was too tired and in need of rest. He was whisked away in a waiting white Land Rover and no one has heard from him since. Is he happy, well and free? I will get back to this.

Four years later, life goes on. Rwanda is still the same country. A nation on course of a well treaded development path, some will argue. The locals still go on about their usual business and poor women are still fighting running battles with police and local defence personnel in the city centre as they (poor women) try to sell fruits and vegetables to make ends meet. Rwanda continues to get aid cash but poverty levels are still the same. More than 60 percent of the population, according to the UN, are still illiterate. Spells chaos? I don’t think so.  Just predictable.

Reading the other day that Bernard Ntaganda, the leader of the PS- Imberakuri, had been ousted as party leader, made me think of two things. Who is Ntaganda and why the fuss about him? Mr. Ntaganda, Kigali has made us believe, is an accomplice in the recent bomb attacks in the country’s capital. He has previously, government claims, met with Deo Mushayidi (the gentleman being held over the grenade attacks) and therefore, predictably, was a dangerous fellow.

Now, unless you are a student of mathematics, any one with a notion of what politics is all about will know that Ntaganda, as leader of a registered political party which did not necessarily subscribe to the values or the ruling RPF was bound by circumstances to be meeting with other political parties or members of the opposition. It is normal. Even America’s top leadership was in the days after Sept 11, reported to have met with the country’s enemy number one, Osama bin Laden.

While this does not suffice in condoning the association of Ntaganda and  Mushayidi – if at all there is one – it should be no reason whatsoever to force a resignation and persecution of a leader of the only registered political party so far, that has expressed interest in contesting the August presidential election. What it does prove however, is that in Rwanda, the presumption of innocence exists only in theory. In Rwanda, a suspect is an outright criminal unless of course that suspect is a beloved government official and the arrest warrant from France or Spain.

It is very easy to have predicted from the events leading to Ntaganda’s disappearance that his political future was already cut out. With Victoire Ingabire, the FDU-Inkingi party leader and Frank Habineza of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda all fighting for their registration and having to put up with all sorts of intimidation from authorities, what was easily predictable is that in the event of a total failure to register, the two promising parties, would then most likely back PS-Imberakuri’s Ntaganda. And Kigali was not about to take a gamble on him, he had to be framed. Kagame is fine with Christine Mukabunane because unlike her predecessor, she is less known and will heed to RPF’s political pressure more easily unlike Ntaganda.

The notion of predictability even comes further into fore when one considers the recent events in Kigali regarding an FDU-Inkingi party delegates meeting that was meant to take place on March 13. Kagame is a keen political strategist. He made a mistake underestimating the strength of Victoire Ingabire when she arrived in Rwanda from Netherlands by letting her in. She has since risen as a force to reckon with. No wonder Kagame’s government using the police force, survivors associations and rogue writers in government publications has ben involved in a tarnishing campaign against her.

The police case against Ingabire will drag on and on until well August. During this time, Ingabire cannot hold a party conference, hold a meeting or even get her party registered. That is more like mission accomplished for then Kagame can go unopposed or if indeed someone comes out to stand against him it will be some stooge with a very compromised ideology. The West will pass the elections as having been democratic despite a few hurdles and complaints, and Kagame the dictator, will get another cool seven year mandate. As for Ingabire, the government is now going to keep insisting, sorry we cant help or allow you hold a conference because you are a subject of a police investigation. Ridiculous but effective!

This is even hopeless if you consider that the same government a year ago, bitterly complained when Spanish and French judges issued arrest warrants to members of the regime in Kigali. But that is not chaos, it is what should be but sadly, never gets predicted. It is a case of “Kyenkola Banange Sagala Bakinkole”. The West wont even squeak because as long as the dictator in question belongs to the good dictators, everything should be just about ok.

If division-ism or inciting violence is the case that Ingabire is being accused of,  or if associating with FDLR is what is making her go through all the delays, the government should come clean here and expedite her trial. If it can’t, they should clear her name and allow her register FDU-Inkingi.

A friend of mine Keith Harmon Snow the other day leaked a secret document from the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs detailing names of Kigali critics both foreign and national to be eliminated. It gives a clear picture of what Kagame’s government is all about.  Question is, why plot the assassination of your critics if you know everything is in tune?

Murder they will but the idea that by killing Keith, Annie Garrison, Rusesabagina and a few others will eliminate criticism is equivalent to believing the impossible. What Kagame should do is be fair to all and address the underlying issues that have so long characterised fall outs between him, old friends and all those under his leadership.

And yes, the Rwanda Media Fraternity has disowned Godwin Agaba. This is what amuses me. First the association of Rwanda journalists claims Agaba is not and has never been a journalist. Then suddenly they publish a story in The New Times that he has been disowned by them. How is possible to disown someone who has never been part of you?

Unless disowning means something else other than to refuse to acknowledge or accept as ones own. Agaba has and will always be a Rwandan journalist. Am glad to hear he is safe and sound wherever he is. I can only wish him the best of luck.

According to The New Times, March 18, Umuseso, a Kinyarwanda newspaper published a photograph of Agaba Godwin in its December 31, 2006 to January 6, 2007 issue, warning the public not to transact any business with him on their behalf. In the same message, it was indicated that Godwin Agaba had been sacked for extortion and warned that he was still masquerading as their employee.

Then in in 2007, (exactly 6 days after Agaba’s photo had appeared in Umuseso newspaper as alleged) Agaba joined The New Times newspaper. Give me a break. Why would The New Times want to hire a thief and an extortionist whose picture had been flashed on the front page of a rival newspaper unless they trusted him or wanted something out of him?

Over to you my little monsters!

Rwandan president rejects human rights criticism

(CNN) — Rwandan President Paul Kagame hit back Monday at human rights activists who say he’s behaving like an autocrat and fueling a bloody civil war in Rwanda’s neighbor, Congo.

“If you are talking about people in the human rights community from outside… I have an issue with this,” Kagame said, 16 years after he was hailed as a hero for ending a genocide that killed at least 800,000 people.

“You tend to make a judgment of a country, 11 million people, on what a couple of people have said and (they) don’t take into account what Rwandans say.”

Kagame added, “Nobody has asked the Rwandans … it’s as if they don’t matter in the eyes of the human rights people. It’s our own decisions in the end.”

He said everyone in Rwanda has to play by the rules and be accountable. “There has to be leadership to make things move in the right direction,” Kagame stated.

Kagame’s comments came a month after the New York-based group, Human Rights Watch, said opposition activists are facing increasing threats, attacks, and harassment ahead of Rwanda’s presidential election in August.

Human Rights Watch said opposition party members have suffered serious intimidation by individuals and institutions close to the government and Kagame’s ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

The RPF took power in 1994 after its army swept into the capital of Kigali and overthrew the Hutu-dominated government responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans, most of them members of the minority Tutsi community.

In the aftermath of the 100-day genocide, the fastest in modern history, Kagame transformed his country, turning it into one of the fastest growing nations in Africa and — in the view of some — a model of economic and social development.

Kagame said Rwanda has made significant progress in erasing some of the scars left behind after the tragedy.

“That’s why the country is stable. That’s why the country is moving on. That’s why the country is developing.”

Kagame insisted he has nothing to do with the continuing civil war in mineral-rich Congo, even though he acknowledged that Rwandan troops intervened there a decade ago in an attempt to stop rebel groups from returning to Rwanda.

The war became the largest and most destructive conflict in African history, costing more than 5 million lives, as various groups and foreign armies fought for control of Congo’s land and mineral resources.

“I cannot be blamed for the problems of Congo or any other country,” Kagame said. “There are the Congolese who have their own country, who are supposed to manage it, who are supposed to govern it. It has nothing to do with me.”