Notes on Rwanda, Democracy & Authoritarianism

A few weeks ago, I wrote a very optimistic post about Rwanda for the Guardian's Comment is Free.  A very many people accused me of being a propagandist mouthpiece for Kagame, although I wasn’t sure how much weight to give certain comments once the conversation descended into a debate about whether there was ever a genocide in Rwanda.

But then I received an email I could not ignore.  It was written by an aid worker who has been living in Rwanda for 3 years and who undoubtedly has a much deeper understanding of the country than I possibly can.  She found my depiction of the situation there "appalling."

I'd like to share some of my thoughts on Rwanda and whatever understanding of the country I gained after spending a little under 3 weeks there, which is to say, not much.  These are notes to myself, really.  I can't promise organization or coherence, but if you are interested, read on and I hope you'll help advance the conversation.

I'd also like to share that aid worker's email here as a way of giving time to the uglier side of the Kagame regime, which I admittedly glossed over in my article.  In the process I ended up coming off sounding like an idiot. 

(In my defense, I did compare Kagame's Rwanda to Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Nguesso-Sassou' s Republic of Congo, so it's not exactly as if I cast the current government as a champion of freedom and democracy.)

First, let me say that there were some errors made when the post was being edited for length. For example, I’m perfectly aware that the New Times is pro-government mouthpiece where journalists can be fired just for selecting unflattering photographs of the president (even if the article itself is positive!). The New Times does not convey the optimism of the Rwandan people. It conveys the government’s perception of itself or the way that it would like to be perceived. But that’s OK. That counts for something. 

Also removed were references to continuing Hutu-Tutsi tension and my own uncertainty about what I observed.  So let me say for the record I was, and still am, very uncertain.  As anyone who has spent time in Rwanda can probably attest, it can be challenging getting people to share what they really think.

What a difference good leadership makes

Perhaps my greatest error was equating the attitude of the government with the attitude of the people.  I blame this on a deficiency in my writing ability, more than a deficiency of understanding; I apologize for being unclear.  The government has crafted a concrete vision for the country and is enthusiastically pursuing it.  The government has set hard targets for reducing poverty and increasing literacy.  The government has decided to make Rwanda a hi-tech service hub for the whole East African region.  The government is unequivocally, unapologetically enthusiastic about Rwanda's future.

That, for me, is reason enough for optimism. I have a lot of hope that Rwanda will fulfill much of its 2020 Vision simply because they have one. Whether you’re talking about individuals or nations, if you want to create positive change, articulating a clear vision, goal, or purpose is half the battle. And where the government leads, Rwandans will follow.

In so many other countries, leaders don't lead.  They use their office solely to rape their own country, enrich themselves and their cronies, and hold on to power at all costs for as long as possible, funneling what they can into offshore bank accounts so they can enjoy their retirement (read: exile) in luxury.

Then they blame some external force, namely the West, or some group within their own borders, as the genocidaire leaders did, for the misery and poverty of their  country.  They don't ask for more.  They don't say: "We don't have to live like this.  We have what it takes to create a better future for ourselves.  We deserve more." Kagame does. And he doesn’t play the blame game.

Rwanda's "follower culture"--a tool for good or evil

What about the Rwandan people?  Many I spoke to have said there has been no true reconciliation, nor can there be one until people say what is really in their hearts. They don’t. There is still a lot of unspoken hatred.

There are undoubtedly many Hutu who feel excluded. There are Hutu  in the cabinet, in parliament (the Prime Minister is Hutu), and in local government. But for many, the presidency IS the government, and the presidency is Tutsi. 

This may seem like a narrow view at first, a legacy of the “big man” concept; but considering the way Kagame rules, it’s not unwarranted. There is no true opposition. No space for debate. Most in government are Kagame’s yes-men, faithful executors of his vision for the country.

While fear of losing one’s livelihood keeps many in line, Kagame’s power is more hegemonic than coercive. Of themselves, most Rwandans say they follow wherever the president leads. If the next day, the President declared a national holiday on the radio and called upon all the residents of Kigali to gather in the national stadium, they would.

It is this “follower culture” that made genocide possible. And there are undoubtedly some Hutu who would pick up their machetes tomorrow and continue killing their neighbors if someone in power told them to.

It's fortunate that Kagame is mobilizing that culture for more positive ends; but ultimately, societal well-being shouldn't be so wholly dependent on the luck of the leadership draw.  Rwandans need to develop the capacity or will to think and act independently. 

Democracy is neither a silver bullet nor a one size fits all solution

I know I will get flak for saying this, but I’m going to come right out and admit that I am not as adverse to authoritarianism as most of my peers from Western countries. In my mind, getting a good leader is almost as much a matter of chance in a democracy as it is in a dictatorship.

(Perhaps I’m thinking of George W. Bush. His opponents had all the space, all the freedom to protest, but it had absolutely no effect on any of the decisions he took during the first six years of his presidency. He prided himself on making decisions without reference to any of his constituency (i.e., all of the American people, whether blue or red) who disagreed with him.  He's also responsible for decisions that have led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people.  And yep.  We chose him.  In free and fair democratic elections.  Twice.)

The question I ask myself when I judge a regime is not, “How democratic is this regime?” but rather, “How well can this government govern?” Can it deliver on its promises to its people? Can it provide all those basic services—electricity, water, infrastructure—that people tend to discount, Rwandans included, when they have them, even though they are luxuries in most African countries?

I’ve been in Asia for a year now.  Living under an incredibly oppressive government with a rapidly expanding economy, where standards of living are rising before my eyes, has completely changed my perspective.  There is so much I hate about Chinese government repression and about the population's self-censorship, or more aptly, the apparent inability of many Chinese people to think certain kinds of thoughts.  But there is a lot to be said for effective, decisive governments, even ones that can be brutal, and their competitive advantage vis-a-vis low-functioning democracies.

This aid worker is not wrong when she says the Kagame regime is autocratic. But it’s not Burmese autarky.  It’s Singapore.  Authoritarian, oppressive, pro-business Singapore.  Ask the Burmese and the Singaporean people and I think they will say there is a distinction to be made.

Perhaps I am guilty of the kind of racism Kofi Annan recently described, which excuses dictatorship in Africa but not in white countries. But maybe there is another kind of racism which tolerates dictatorship in  Asia, but presumes democracy is the appropriate salvation for highly fractured, ethnically factionalized African societies.   

(I'm personally of the mind that many African countries need to build states and nations before they even begin to consider building democracy.  There's a tendency to be ahistorical when discussing the development of democracy in the West...sequence matters.  We didn't even have universal suffrage in the US until the 1960s.) 

Authoritarianism OK, for awhile

But let me be clear: authoritarianism is NOT sustainable in the long run.   (Japan and South Korea, after periods of pro-business authoritarianism, later evolved into democracies, of a sort; China will too.)  Eventually, even enlightened despots, like all those who govern for too long, become bad rulers. And elections can be a very effective, and hopefully bloodless, way of getting new ones.

I hope Kagame will not try to alter the constitution to allow him to exceed his two terms. I hope people like opposition journalist Charles Kabonero will continue agitating for a freer, more open political space and criticizing the government where criticism is deserved. Moreover, I hope Rwandans themselves will begin to ask for more, to nurture values within their own culture to question, criticize, and arrive at opinions independent of whatever the Big Man on top tells them to think. But that’s up to Rwandans to demand for themselves. 

Most Rwandans I know follow. They believe that success as a country requires being gifted with good leaders, that all leaders, whether good or bad, inexplicably fall from the sky.  But it is society that produces them. 

Even looking back into precolonial history, Rwanda has never been a democracy. Nor is it likely to become one for some time.  Not when the people have no experience or concept of it.

On the reader's comment that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was peaceful. First off, just as Rwanda is not Burma, Kagame is no Hussein! But there’s another important lesson implicit in her point which is that democracy is not a solution for all societies. Societies have a way of developing or selecting the political systems that work for them at the moment (and elections are not the only means of selection).  This is I guess a rift on the old adage that people get the governments they deserve. And while I do believe that democracy is the best political system we humans have yet to devise, it’s only a solution for those that are ready for it.

Is the rhetoric of "One Rwanda" a policy to ensure continued domination by the Tutsi minority?

So Kagame has a vision for the country. Great. Isn’t that vision just a little self-serving considering that most of the country’s business leaders—the ones who stand to benefit most, or at least first, from economic growth—are Tutsi?

Yes, probably. “Optimism can turn into opportunism,” as one Rwandan told me. It’s one of the current government’s most difficult and complex challenges, and will become an even bigger issue as the economy grows.

Tutsi domination of the economy is in part a function of ongoing discrimination. Despite the official zero-tolerance policies in place, ethnic politics is still a big problem in the workplace. Hutus and Tutsis might play nice in public, but in private, they’d rather not work together and they certainly (in most cases) would rather not marry each other.

But even more difficult to address than simple inter-group rivalry or hatred is that fact that Tutsis are, on the whole, much more skilled. This is, in part, a legacy of colonial-era pro-Tutsi education policies (thank you Belgium), but it's also a product of more recent history. Tutsis who fled the first pogroms in the 60s and 70s went to Anglophone countries like Uganda or even farther afield to the US and the UK. There, they got much better educations and business experience than Rwanda could have afforded them.

Improving educational opportunities for Rwandan society as a whole, and Tutsis in particular, is key.

(This reminds me very much about the whole debate of adopting a colorblind or a race-conscious society in the US.  Which is really "neutral" or non-racist?  But more on that later.)

Conclusion

In Rwanda, journalists continue to face intimidation, and sometimes exile. Gaccaca court witnesses are murdered by families of the accused to secure their silence. Prisoners die under police custody. There is no denying Rwanda has a very, very ugly side.

But it is still one of the most well-governed countries on the continent. And I will be watching closely to see if Kagame can pull off a Lee Kwan Yew-style takeoff.

In brief (ha!), the only way to ensure there is not another genocide is for Rwanda to develop, and to make sure the benefits of development accrue to all Rwandans, whether Hutu or Tutsi.

Moreover, societal well-being shouldn't be so wholly dependent on the luck of the leadership draw.  In the long run, Rwandans need to develop the capacity or will to think and act independently.  Committing or excusing genocide shouldn't be so easy as, "the leaders told us to."

The UN is moving its Africa headquarters from Nairobi to Kigali. Several Chinese tech companies have chosen to base their East Africa operations in Rwanda—and hire Rwandan employees at the government’s behest. These are achievements of the Kagame regime, which has privileged security and development over democratic freedoms. I think that, at least in the short-run, it’s a perfectly reasonable tradeoff.

For discussion...

I feel as though I've just committed heresy.  Let’s try and engage in a civil and constructive debate on: authoritarianism v. democracy; Africa v. Asia; freedom v. development. Are these false dichotomies? What does a nation need to develop? Is democracy an end to be pursued in and of itself? Can all societies become democracies? Which countries in Africa have democracies that work? Governments that work?

My opinions are not fixed. This blog is an open notebook of my head which I hope (for the length of my life) will be in constant evolution, aided by a frank and open dialogue with brilliant people like you :-)

As promised, that other side:

I am truly appalled by the article you wrote on Rwanda. While I do not want to deny that Rwanda has made impressive progress on many fronts, this remains one of the most fragile and complicated places in Africa. To give such a one-sided, and shallow analysis, which has no relation to the reality of the situation in Rwanda is very disappointing, and even dangerous.

It is clear from your article that you have seen little else of Rwanda than what the government sets up for show on the road that stretches between the airport and the intercontinental hotel. In fact, one thing that has strikes me about Rwanda, is how much it resembles Burma. And those who have been here long enough will, in fact, tell you that Rwanda was a pretty tidy place even before the genocide…

…Instead of judging a country from what you see from the window of your car, you should read the reports (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, MONUC, UNDP, Swiss Peace, etc.) that have been produced about Rwanda and which show that the living conditions for the crushing majority of Rwandans has hardly changed since the end of the war while the tiny Ugandan Tutsi elite that is controlling the country like a prison is amassing vast amounts of wealth.

I do not know whether there is any alternative post-genocide scenario under which Rwanda would have been better off than it is today, and I wouldn’t want to fall into the pessimism of those (including Rwandan Tutsis!) who think that another genocide is inevitable in Rwanda. However, one thing is very clear to me for having lived here for three years: Rwanda is not a country at peace and it is not moving in the direction of reconciliation. It may be peaceful, but so was Iraq four years ago…

I just wish that journalists could stop telling the story that people want to hear or that governments want to tell you, and start looking into the facts, the hard, unglamourous and complicated facts, that lie behind the façade.

…I wish you good luck, and please remember, you are not helping Rwanda by lying. We will all have to answer in 10 years from now for what we are saying today. What story will you want to tell you children? (Editor's Note: Ouch!)

(Just for the record, I arrived in Kigali by bus, not plane, and am certainly not staying at the Serena, but if anyone has a gig for me involving airfare and luxury accommodation, you can email me at worldisroundblog at gmail dot com.)

Comments

[Claude Adams]

Jennifer:

Enjoyed your very frank, clear and honest "Notes on Rwanda." I too was recently in Rwanda, for five weeks on a media training project, and came away with very conflicted feelings about the current state of the country.

I invite you to visit my Rwanda blog at http://web.mac.com/claude.adams/iWeb/SpyglassHill/Blog/Blog.html

As you can see, I am very interested in the subject of reconciliation: myth or reality, and would welcome any thoughts or references you could put my way.

Regards

Claude Adams

[Jennifer Brea]

Thank you for our comment. Your narrative & analysis are excellent.

I encourage everyone to read this: http://web.mac.com/claude.adams/iWeb/SpyglassHill/Blog/7ABCC06C-B1E1-444C-9929-BC4E34058E8E.html

“The government has taught us that we are Rwandan and we are one.”

I heard this exact phrase from so may Rwandans I talked to. It sounded like both a prayer/hope and an excuse---for almost any kind of behavior. So many Hutu I meet seemed to want to forget about the past and some of the horrid things they may have done, and are perfectly happy to embrace this idea of oneness. I even met some Hutu masquerading as Tutsi; these were the most ardent professors of the ideology of "one Rwanda." But I know that it's a myth.

Still, myths serve a use. True reconciliation cannot happen until Rwandans can speak the truth. But could the nation survive it?

One thing's for sure. I've never in my life encountered a society so deferrent to its leadership.

[cc]

Democracy cannot exist in a place where the majority of the population is under 16, and most of the remainder are uneducated and struggling to feed themselves.

[Sijui]

Jennifer, you're a fantastic writer and have an excellent blog! I'd like to comment quickly on this thread, PLEASE DON'T APOLOGIZE for NOT canonizing the freedom and democracy spread in Rwanda!!! As an African I am sick and tired of Western presumptuousness and sanctimony as it relates to dogma that liberal democracy is the panacea and precursor to economic development and social well being. As many citizens throughout the world have come to realize, YOU CANNOT EAT DEMOCRACY! It is infinitely more important to have enlightened leadership and responsive governance that facilitates economic and social freedoms.......the cart does not come before the horse!

Rwanda is a perfect example of that realism and pragmatism in practise. Rwandans WILL NOT FORGIVE each other anytime soon so the organic ingredients for democratic cohesion are non existant......Kagame in my opinion has RIGHTFULLY concluded that the greatest guarantor against another wholesale slaughter is economic traction and demonstrable results NOT high minded idealism and nebulous 'freedom' conventions especially in a society that is as fractured and dysfunctional as his. I admire him immensely for refusing to succumb to fatalism, defeatism and victimhood......especially the fact that he is literally forcing his countrymen in to the same pysche. As for his authoritarianism, I would challenge his critics and opponents to invest their energy in DEMONSTRATING to Rwandans an alternative choice by effecting THEIR OWN positive changes within the business, social and political landscape so that there is a legitimate comparison to be made.

[Sijui]

Post script:

Even more condescending is the assertion about reading what Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International et al have to say about the status quo.....HOW ABOUT asking Rwandan entrepreneurs, civil society activists, politicians, every day law abiding citizens about what they are facing and how they feel about the prospects? The barometer for me is the fact that many East Africans are MOVING to Rwanda because of the emerging opportunities in that country, you can call that naivete, oblivion, self interest, opportunism......the fact is Rwanda has a mixed record, there are definitely failures but equally there are remarkable successes and the government deservedly should get credit.

[Claude Adams]

Sijui, I agree that liberal democracy is not a panacea. But after a lifetime of work in the world's trouble spots, I find it interesting that those who are most vocal in denouncing liberal democratic values, are the very kleptocats, dictators and other tyrants whose entitlements begin to disappear when power moves into the hands of the people and the institutions which they create. Which is really what "liberal democracy" is all about . . . Authoritarianism may result in the trains running on time, but it inevitably leads to autocracy and abuse, and has no medium- or long-term merit.

[Tim]

I am posting this very interesting piece to my site, http://racism101.net
It will be on the More Oppressions 4 page and on the Perspectives page.

[Sijui]

To Claude:
Thank you for your response, I agree with your comment concerning the vested interests in denouncing liberal democratic ideals however as an African who has lived through a harsh dictatorship I am very conversant with the naivete and simplistic reasoning advanced by many liberal democratic proponents especially as it pertains to Africa. The facts and reality on the ground as I see them are threefold:
1) there are many societies throughout the world who have nurtured authoritarian forms of governance to meet their social and cultural identity. The difference for me is: is the authoritarianism borne from organic political expression with vast legitimacy throughout the body politic or is it forced and coerced? Clearly there is a difference and that is why you have Singapore at one end of the spectrum and Zimbabwe on the other.
2) Democracy can only exist when you have voluntary and organic social cohesion, take it further by saying there is a genuine national identity shared by the populace that consequently gives the state legitimacy. Very few African countries have this because the emergence of the nation state was NOT an organic evolutionary process. Does this destine African countries to dictatorships and autocrats.....NO, but what it means is that THERE ARE REAL underlying and deep seated social schisms, and democratic ideals quickly loose relevance when individual identity is projected only as far as the tribe or clan and thus take precedence ALWAYS. Many African countries have remained mired in dysfunction and statism because of this inescapable fact, and wishing away those schisms in pursuit of democratic idealism will not alter that fact.
3) Lastly which brings me to the important point of organic political legitimacy. Does Kagame have political legitimacy in Rwanda despite the fact that he is an autocrat, HELL YES! and that goes for many political leaders of his ilk. 100% of Rwandans may not think so but the vast majority do.......I'll use the same illustration for explaining why many African despots have been supported by their people. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how messy and untidy the reality is, many despots receive succour from the majority of their people......it may be a bare majority but it is still the majority hence the reason why they are ousted only when a critical mass of opposition emerges through the bullet or ballot.

Hence the lessons learnded for many of us is, equitable access to opportunity for betterment is PRIORITY #1, the mode of delivering that access matters least, as long as it is delivered.......and yes it stands to reason that liberal democracy may be a good vehicle but it is clearly not always the best.

[Duva]

It sounds like a form of "liberal autocracy" is being advocated here, if such a thing is even possible. the flip side of the "illiberal democracy" that Fareed Zakariya discusses in his book "The Future of Freedom". in fractious and economically underdeveloped nations, it may be necessary to have a political elite with a tight grip on the reigns of national political power, such as in China, while the masses are allowed to gradually benefit from increased individual expression and economic opportunities that can provide both the basics and the comforts of life.

[Claude Adams]

I'm at a disadvantage here, having only a layman's grasp of political science, but there's an implicit presumption in both Duva's and Sijui's postings that bothers me: the presumption that political elites, or individuals, with a "tight grip" on power will somehow let the economic or social benefits of society trickle down to the people over time, out of altruism or benevolence, until the people are "ready" for democracy, kind of like a temporary, caretaker autocracy. This is a warm and cosy idea, but it has never happened, and it likely never will. Look at Cuba. Look at the Congo. Look at China. Power DOES corrupt; without checks and balances, it fosters arrogance and megalomania. Tyrants tend not to build schools or encourage a free press or an independent judiciary. They'd rather spend the people's money on secret police and the military. Why? Because education and free speech and free judges are incompatible with one-man or one-party rule.

In Rwanda, Kagame was elected with, what, 90% of the vote. He insisted it was a fair result. Was it? Exploiting what some academics call his party's "genocide credit," he effectively cleared the field of all and any opposition. In power, he appointed a number of prominent Hutus to his cabinet, people whom Paul Rusesabagina calls "empty suits." (Look what happened to Bizimungu; look what is happening to Rusesabagina.) This creates an appearance of democratic rule; in fact, it's a government of moral (and physical) coercion. People are afraid to talk openly. There is reconciliation by diktat. Meanwhile, the Kagame government talks about Rwanda as a future high-tech hub. In one Rwandan village, a woman with one cow and three children, who could barely feed her family, told me that what she really wanted . . . was a cellular phone!!! She associated the phone with some kind of social value, even though she had no one to call, and could never afford a sim card, nor did she have electrical power to charge the damn thing! This is a mindset that the state has helped create.

And pray tell, what "African despots have been supported by their people?" Mobutu, Amin, Mugabe. Bokassa?? Scratch the surface, and you will see that the only real support they got was from their cronies, those they intimidated, and those whom they managed to bamboozle with their bluster and lies.

You mention Singapore as a model of autocratic democracy. But this has only come about through negotiation: You give us power, and we will give you wealth and creature comforts and stability. It's a delicate equation, and workable only in a very efficient economy.

[Sijui]

To Claude:
Don't you think it is a tad bit disingenious to imply that all autocrats have been blood thirsty, tyrannical maniacs? You're last statement about Singapore is a case in point........you mention negotiation "you give us power and we will give you wealth and creature comforts". This is a legitimate discussion and trade off that is going on in many parts of the world where people are voluntarily choosing a certain degree of authoritarianism over democracy.

I find simplistic your assertion about Mobutu, Idi Amin and Bokassa.....who were the everyday executors of their tyrannical regimes? Contrary to using the convenient scapegoats of a 'powerful clique of cronies who exercised complete authority' when you analyze what this translated to for the common man you'll see that their tribespeople, sympathisers, corrupt bureacrats, law enforcement etc willingly oiled the machine of corruption and intimidation because of what was in it for them. Again it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that people were cowed senseless in to becoming collaborators and perpetuators because...well, they were scared and had no other options! I believe it has been alluded to earlier, people get the leaders they deserve. They either nurture the environment that breeds tyrants or they tacitly support the power and prestige afforded to them because of their 'associations.'

Last but not least, I'll come back to the comments that Rusesabagina made. Does he have a legitimate right to be highly critical of Kagame, absolutely, however I take his criticisms with a grain of salt. For one, Rusesabagina has the luxury of not being entrusted with the future of Rwanda in his hands. Let's be honest, if a completely free and fair election was held in Rwanda today do you think Kagame would lose? He may not win 90% but he would win resoundingly and that is a fact. Kagame possesses both the moral and political authority to lead Rwanda now, and I find it interesting how many of his detractors attempt to minimize the fact that he EARNED that authority. Secondly, given the fact that the man has obvious limitations I would like to hear their ideas on 1) how they would have won the peace 2) how they would have reconstituted the state 3) how they plan on sustaining economic growth and 4) how they intend to deal with the legacy of genocide. Thirdly, I'd like to see demonstrations of this alternative vision in Rwanda.

Since not all Rwandans support Kagame, it is imperative that his opponents build the same legitimacy that he weilds so that they can win the comparison contest politically. It is easy to demonize Kagame, it is much harder to match his achievements because if they had they'd be a different political dispensation in that country now and we probably would not be having this discussion.

[Claude Adams]

Sigui, can you name one country, in Africa or elsewhere, where people "voluntarily (chose) . . . authoritarianism?" I don't think you can. As happened in Singapore, the authoritarianism came AFTER electoral campaigns that promised liberal democratic values. Nobody gets elected on a platform of social bullyism. No one votes for a leader who promises to curtail press freedoms, freedoms of speech and association, or other basic rights. Would you vote for someone like this?

In Rwanda's case, how does a political opponent of Kagame build "legitimacy" when he or she has to deal with arbitrary charges of divisionism, negationism or "genocidal ideology?" What do you say to the woman publisher who was sentenced to a year in prison because her newspaper published a letter from someone saying Hutus are not treated equally in the justice system? What do you say to opposition editor Charles Kabanero, who was awarded the Golden Pen award for his crusading journalism, only to have the state apparatus abolish the award rather than acknowledge a persistent critic? What do you say to a Hutu who is proud of his ethnic identity, and his history, but who is now required to submerge that identity and history, in the name of a state-mandated policy which proclaims that "ethnic differences no longer exist?"

[Claude Adams]

Sigui:

You say: "Let's be honest, if a completely free and fair election was held in Rwanda today do you think Kagame would lose? He may not win 90% but he would win resoundingly and that is a fact."

If this is indeed the case, why would a man of Kagame's political acumen miss the chance to win "resoundingly" and fairly, instead of stacking the deck by outlawing the opposition. The answer is simple: He believes he is the only man fit to rule the country, but he doesn't trust that a majority of his countrymen, given a fair and open choice, would agree with him. That's the Achilles' Heel of so called "big men."

[Sijui]

Claude,
I can give you plenty of examples where people have chosen authoritarianism, in parts of Asia and the Middle East where constitutional monarchies or just plain monarchies exist. Obviously these cannot be regarded as democracies. Lets also take examples of military juntas that came to power and still maintain the popular support of the people.......I believe Taiwan, China and Vietnam are examples that readily come to mind. Let's throw in Cuba and Venezueala as well because as much as people hate to admit it, Castro and Chavez remain popular with the largest swathe of their populations.

Again, I make the distinction that obviously these regimes do not have the total support of all their citizens, but the majority support the status quo or are not actively engaged in attempting to topple it.

How do Kagame's opponents build legitimacy, they do so by starting enterprises, establishing civil society organizations, participating in the political process to effect public policy. Do you want to tell me that EVERY prospering Rwandan is a Kagame sycophant and the poor, struggling down trodden are victims of his political repression? In all the examples you have given me not one has demonstrated a deliberate government policy of marginalizing certain segments of the population from pursuing economic opportunity. Or that his policies have had the net effect of making Rwandans WORSE off. Definitely there is an argument that can be made that there is a policy to curtail political opportunity but somehow I find that less egregious in a country where retaliation and resentment bubble beneath the surface on both sides.

Finally, correct me if I am wrong but did not Kagame accomodate tribal arithmatic after the genocide rather than outright popular will to placate all sides? If outright democracy and popular sentiment was allowed to prevail do you think Bizimungu would have been elected? So the nub of the matter is, flawed elections or not, is he or is he not a popular autocrat with the mandate of the majority?

[Claude Adams]

Taiwan is a freely elected democracy. China and Vietnam are socialist, one-party states, that have NEVER submitted themselves to a popular vote. (Ask the Chinese of Hong Kong, where I lived for three years, which system THEY prefer. In 2003, half a million marched for democratic elections, which China has adamantly refused. Ask the hundreds of millions of peasants. Read "Will the Boat Sink the Water? The Life of China's Peasants" by Chen Guidi and Wu Chuntao, and you may reconsider your statement that the "majority" of people support the status quo. Ask the survivors of Tiananmen Square.)

I really cannot understand why anyone (other than an autocrat) would try to make a rational argument on behalf of authoritarianism. History has exposed its true colors time and time again.

I've been to Cuba, and talked to many people about Castro, and I haven't met a handful who would vote for him in an election. Indeed, they look over their shoulders and shudder when I even ask the question. Cuba should be a rich country. Fidelismo has helped keep it poor. In fact, Castro, the one-time hero of the left, was the man who urged the Russians to launch their nuclear missiles at the Americans in 1962--a lunatic idea made even Khruschev shudder. Castro's best friend, Chavez, is indeed still popular, because of his anti-Americanism, but his charm is starting to wear thin.

Name a democracy that has suffered a famine. Name a democracy that has had a genocide. (Germany was a fascist state in 1939.) Name me democracies that are at war. These things only tend to happen in authoritarian regimes

Kagame didn't "curtail political opportunity." That kind of language is classic spin doctoring. He crushed any opposition. He appointed Bizimungu, and then he threw him in jail because he wouldn't read his lines. Yes, he has created some social organizations, and furthered the cause of women, and rebuilt infrastructure, and kept the country at peace for 13 years. But can you really argue that 85% of the population has a representative voice in the central government?

[Sijui]

Sorry Claude I remain unconvinced, and the reason I remain unconvinced is that DESPITE your numerous interactions with citizens who oppose the prevailing regime in China, Rwanda, Cuba et al the PROOF OF THE PUDDING is that in many of these countries MASS POPULAR OPPOSITION MOVEMENTS ARE NON EXISTANT!

And we can argue all we want about widespread political oppression and suppression until the cows come home, you and I both know that until that opposition is projected by a critical mass, the majority tacitly support the status quo or remain ambivalent about effecting change.

And please don't be naive about famine in elected democracies, Kenya where I'm from had isolated instances of famine last year and this and we have a popularly elected government, Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia have had recurrent bouts of famine during popularly elected regimes, famine has occurred within the past 10-15 years in many pockets within Latin America despite 'democratic' systems of government.....infact considering the adverse weather impacts in Latin America during the past 20-30 years, Cuba compared to many of its neighbors has been able to withstand the threat of famine consistently throughout that period!

So many of your arguments fall apart in the hard, cold glare of reality:
1) Why didn't the regime in China fall after Tiannamen, was it because the Chinese were scared catatonic or because the vast majority decided that ECONOMIC MOBILITY was the more pressing priority?
2) Why has Castro hung on so steadfastly despite determined American investment and sophistication in effecting regime change? Where are the organic mass opposition movements that can be used as vehicles to topple the regime especially in a region where regime change is achieved easily with clinical precision?
3) Taiwan became a democracy only quite recently, during its fastest growth in the 70s and 80s it was under an AUTHORITARIAN regime
4) As for Rwanda, spare me the sanctimony....when the 85% majority held the reigns of power a genocide occurred under their watch! So let's not pretend if the shoe was on the other foot that 85% majority would be more magnanimous and just in the equitable distribution of EITHER POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. They were not and that is precisely why Kagame is is power! Like I said, let his detractors demonstrate to moderate Hutus and Tutsis that they ARE A VAST IMPROVEMENT FROM THEIR PREDECESSORS WHO RULED OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS.

[Claude Adams]

Okay, Sijui, it's a good time to wrap this up, now that you're going the ad hominem route with "naive" and "sanctimony." Insults don't serve any of us very well. But I have to say, you clearly don't read a whole lot of current or recent history. Cuba has no MASS OPPOSITION MOVEMENT of any kind. What a statement! The dissidents, including journalists, are all in jail. And in China, the People's "Liberation" Army showed what happens to those who openly dissent: I have friends who were injured and killed at Tiananmen, by tanks and bullets and truncheons. So please, no more undergraduate poli-sci polemics. This is the real world we're talking about, a world of Realpolitik and Machiavelli and intimidation, where people die for talking truth to power.

Maybe Churchill said it best: "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for everything else."

[Shabaka]

I feel like I'm actually learning a great deal from both Claude and Sijui( Sijui, you seem to know a great deal, though, despite the nickname),and neither is of Rwandan origin. That means my beloved country is attracting a lot of attention from foreigners and that's a good thing in my opinion. I don't know much about Rwandese politics since I haven't been back there for years now but I don't know if I'd cast Kagame to the brimestones of hell so quickly, Claude. After only 13 years in power he should be given credit for what he's accomplished and that's much more than any of his predecessors EVER accomplished since Belgians left well over 50 years ago. That ought to count for something. What he's doing in censuring free speech is lamentable and Claude is right in denouncing it. I'm just concerned that his stance on all that is wrong with Kagame's regime (and lord knows there's plenty) is preventing him from fully acknowledging what is positively working. A glass half full is what I'm thinking of, considering what the country has been through.

[Claude Adams]

Shabaka, for the most part I agree with you. All things being relative, I wouldn't condemn Kagame to the brimstone, as you put it. He's done a good deal, materially and psychologically, for many Rwandans. But he has a strong authoritarian tendency, and it seems to be getting worse. Only last month, an editor of the government paper New Times was sacked for approving the publication of a photograph that was deemed "unflattering" of the president. Staff was put on warning not to let it happen again. A small thing, perhaps, but it tells you something about the political climate that Kagame is fostering (or possibly even encouraging.)

[Shabaka]

Yes, Claude, you're right. Such a minor detail in a newspaper shouldn't get a president up and about. And having grown up within that culture, I can definitely see how dangerous it can get in the long run. However, let's hope that all the great things he's already done and still doing will eventually lead to a more "democratic" climate where you say what you want and when you want (within reason of course). But then again such a climate doesn't really exist, even here in North America where you say something about Bush and your TV show gets cancelled or your concert gets cancelled (if you're a musician). So one baby step at a time, Claude. One baby step!

[anonymous]

freedom over authoritarianism. kagame may be doing a great thing but there is a time to step a side noone is omnitient. Though i didnt know UN was oving to rwanda thats news to me

[Claude Adams]

Here's an update on the "soft totalitarianism" of Paul Kagame and his handling of the media.

http://www.thestar.com/article/245895

[Shabaka]

Thanks for the link, Claude. I couldn't find anywhere on the net the actual picture. I wanted to see it out of curiosity, but I guess it was quickly removed. Shame though. To see that such a progressive leader would resort to knee-jerk actions such as these!! I guess the saying "image is everything" means everything so some people. Not just celebrities. But going to such great lengths over a picture is pathetic.

[Jennifer Brea]

I've been meaning to comment, but my travel schedule's been hectic lately. I just wanted to thank all of you, and especially Claude and Sijui, for such a lively debate. There's a lot of truth in both sides of the issue, and so I think that anyone reading your comments would learn things they didn't already know. So thank you!

Just one point of clarification on China...China cannot be put in the same category as Venezuela or Cuba, even though they are all "socialist." I hear people speak of Cuba and China in the same breath, but it's an antiquated, Cold War categorization.

The fact is, even if the Chinese government isn't ACCOUNTABLE, they enjoy one of the highest levels of LEGITIMACY of any government in the world.

They aren't accountable because there's no free speech, no democracy, no civil society.

They are highly legitimate because the government does build schools and roads and power plants; and the economy is booming something ridiculous. More Chinese have more money in their pockets than they have ever had in decades.

The government delivers and delivers well not out of altruism, but out of a sense of having a higher purpose--they want to make China a great nation. They also realize that if the hope to survive, they have to deliver.

The biggest question now is whether the Chinese government can solve the problem of wealth distribution, which tends to become more unequal when economies grow fast.

Many academics have asked whether democracies or autocracies are better at delivering development in poor countries. Perhaps the even more interesting question is, why are some despotic systems so good at delivering all that stuff governments are supposed to deliver, while others drive their countries into ruin?

[Jennifer Brea]

Oh lord, I think I smell a graduate school application essay in that last question. Let me know if you know of anyone doing interesting work on that.