President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech got me thinking about Rwanda today. Specifically, his segment on the importance of protecting basic human rights for ensuring a stable peace made me think about the nature of peace in Rwanda.
On Freedom House's "Map of Freedom," Rwanda is shown as being "not free." Why might this be? Every July 4th Rwandans celebrate their National Liberation Day, so they ARE free, aren't they? The government is democratically elected in a competitive election, right? People's individual liberties are protected, right? Competing ideas are protected from persecution, right?
Well, only to a certain extent.
National Liberation Day celebrates the day when the country became free of Juvenal Habyarimana's dictatorship. Note that this marks the end of a genocidal government, not the beginning of a free and democratic one. Rwanda has certainly taken big steps towards a free democracy, but the questions posed above involve some fundamental components of a democracy that aren't very secure in Rwanda.
Let's take the first point: democratic and competitive elections
The European Union observer mission reported some fraud and irregularities during the election when President Kagame was re-elected in 2003 by an undeniable majority. While serving as President, Kagame has taken steps to eliminate his party's competition. Many things that curtail political liberties, such as declaring the major opposition party illegal, are done in the name of promoting national unity for "One Rwanda." And the people either believe it and follow Kagame because he is built up to be such a big hero, or they are too afraid to question it out of fear that they will be accused of "genocide ideology" (a vaguely defined crime).
Which brings me to the next two questions regarding protection of individual liberties and freedom of speech...
Because the concept of "genocide ideology" is so vaguely defined, anyone who speaks out against the government can be held in contempt and charged for supporting genocide ideology. The idea behind the concept is that people are either WITH Kagame or against RWANDA. A hint of criticism of the Tutsi President could be perceived as pro-Hutu, supremacist, and pro-genocide. Freedom of speech is EXTREMELY limited. Various media outlets that are critical of the government have been shut down, including BBC. One possible reason behind these policies is that the government is so concerned with creating a positive international reputation and fostering Rwanda's economic development that it seeks to create a squeaky clean impression of unity among Rwandans.
I've only scratched the surface of the issues at play here, but President Obama would undoubtedly agree with the notion that Rwanda's peace, although it has lasted for 15 years now, is not stable enough to keep it a secure democracy. I was not able to speak with many people who had critical things to say about Kagame. The ethnic tension is certainly alive though, albeit buried, and certain people MUST be critical of SOMETHING. It's concerning to think what might happen after Kagame finishes his current term and a new President steps in, one who can not rally support by playing with people's hopes and who might not as easily be able to sustain similar practices of curtailing people's human rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Lynette, this is a truly pathetic "analysis". Are you interested in the truth or in cutting and pasting half-baked ideas from people as uninformed as you are about Rwanda? Having been in Rwanda you could at the very least offer some semblance of reality - BBC banned? When? A Kinyarwanda language programme was taken off air temporarily for airing highly inflammatory commentary that violated the BBC's own code of ethics. But BBC English, Swahili and French have gone on uninterrupted for years. That's just one example. What kind of "human rights work" has you skimming so casually over the history, efforts and destiny of 10 million people? How about you check in the arrogance at the door and have another look? And while you do - remember nothing matters more than what we Rwandans feel and know about where we have come from and where we are headed. And we are doing ok – thank you very much.
I appreciate the comment, ym. With the BBC incident, I think there is a question of where to draw the line between "free speech" and "hate speech." I will certainly admit that the inflammatory program aired by BBC was in the gray area between the two.
I do not pretend to know everything about Rwandan affairs, and I have a deep respect for the Rwandans I met as well as for what they've done to move forward from the 1994 genocide. I do, however, have criticisms and this blog is an outlet for me to express some of those.
Thank you again for your comments.
Post a Comment