Argument: Authoritarian leadership

President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1].

Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress.

The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3]

[1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014

[2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011

[3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013

Candidate 1: "Rwanda does not limit freedoms of press and speech as such but discourages the use of sensitive articles or speeches that would provoke insecurity in a country still trying to heal from the wounds of genocide. This cannot be therefore considered abusing people’s rights.

Misunderstandings with the 4 officials were not as a result of restricted freedoms but instead the desire of power[1] and cannot be taken a model for Rwanda’s future.

Past conflict broke out due to divisionism which was given space through hate speeches and publications a behaviour that has no room in the country today – indeed there are anti divisionism laws.

Having a large population supporting a leader doesn’t mean they are controlled, he has done so much to revive lost hope hence winning the favour of the people.

[1] Smith, David, ‘Exiled Rwandan general attacks Paul Kagame as 'dictator', thegurdian.com, 30 July 2012"
Candidate 2: "Many donors have been deeply reluctant to stop or reduce aid, whatever the arguments over eastern Congo[1]. Donors like to see their money have an impact, something that Rwanda’s transformation has provided. There might be concern about freedom of speech and the press but donors recognise that the way to change this is not to simply stop aid; an act that simply damages those the donors are trying to help not those who are limiting freedom of speech.

[1] The economist, ‘The pain of suspension’, economist.com, 12 January 2013

[2] Timmins, Jerry, ‘Free speech, free press, free societies’, li.com"
Candidate 3: "Divisionism in Rwanda did not spark as a result of the controlled media and government propaganda in 1994, there were killings reported in the 1960’s 1970’s and 1980’s[1] even before the media was part of society. This came as a result of long standing grudges and misunderstandings between the Tutsi and Hutu groups in the country.

That the media bears responsibility for spreading hate speech and broadcasting where the other could be killed moreover does not absolve the individuals involved. Each individual had the choice whether they acted on what the media was telling them. In a completely free media there would be some of the same hate speech and it would still be up to the individual to decide whether to follow that message. Far better to ensure that message cannot be aired in the first place.

[1] History world, ‘History of Rwanda’, historyworld.net"

Rwanda does not limit freedoms of press and speech as such but discourages the use of sensitive articles or speeches that would provoke insecurity in a country still trying to heal from the wounds of genocide. This cannot be therefore considered abusing people’s rights.

Misunderstandings with the 4 officials were not as a result of restricted freedoms but instead the desire of power[1] and cannot be taken a model for Rwanda’s future.

Past conflict broke out due to divisionism which was given space through hate speeches and publications a behaviour that has no room in the country today – indeed there are anti divisionism laws.

Having a large population supporting a leader doesn’t mean they are controlled, he has done so much to revive lost hope hence winning the favour of the people.

[1] Smith, David, ‘Exiled Rwandan general attacks Paul Kagame as 'dictator', thegurdian.com, 30 July 2012
