Kampala — Since her return to Rwanda as a presidential candidate, Victoire Umuhoza Ingabire has animated media interest. The main issue in her campaign is her claim that "those who killed the Hutu in the 1994 genocide have not been tried." This is another way of saying the Rwanda Patriotic Front (read the Tutsi) is guilty of genocide against the Hutu.
Many people expected Ingabire to be arrested. She has not, at least not yet. Ingabire is good analytically for those interested in African politics. Her claims have formed a decade-long academic obsession by scholars on Rwanda most of whom are either French or enjoyed close links to the government of the late Juvenal Habyarimana.
Ingabire's main campaign theme demonstrates the major challenges African nations face in seeking to establish democratic systems. In the West, elites share an agreement on basic national values; there is a political culture built around shared beliefs that define the terms and scope of political discourse. Electoral campaigns are therefore guided by what is accepted as legitimate debate and what is not.
Relevant Links
I currently live in the world's leading democracy, the United States of America. Here, the terms of the debate are clear, violation of which generates strong societal sanctions. In the last campaigns, Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, made remarks considered injurious to the national consensus. There was broad-based condemnation of Wright's claims that forced Obama to disown him. Equally, if a politician in America denied the Jewish Holocaust; it would be their last day in politics. Every political party would denounce them; mainstream media would shun them, and most civic associations would follow suit.
Political elites in Africa lack these shared national values that define the nature and scope of political discourse. This partly explains why electoral competition degenerates into violence; victory is seen as a defeat of one group by another; not a triumph of one idea over another. Yet it is in our immature nations with less educated electorates where democracy demands a lot of responsibility from our leaders.
Were there Hutu civilians who died at the hands of the RPF in 1994? I think so. But this was never RPF's official policy. Any soldier who killed innocent civilians was punished. Are there some who for some reason were not punished? Very likely! However, the broader point should not be ignored: RPF ended genocide in Rwanda. It became the moral conscience of the country in its moment of national catastrophe.
During the Second World War, it was the official policy of the Western allies to bomb centres of German civilisation and civilian settlement. Estimates suggest that more than four million German civilians were killed. Now just imagine a presidential campaign in Germany, UK or USA in 1960 where a candidate was saying: "Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt should be alongside Enrick Himmler and Herman Goering at Nuremburg for trial." That candidate's career would just die.
It is unacceptable to attempt to create moral equivalence of the crimes of the Nazis with those who saved Western civilisation from fascism. Churchill and Roosevelt, whatever their acts or omissions cannot be put in the same dock with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Scholars like Gerald Punier and my own friend Prof. Rene Lermachand who argue genocide of the Tutsi against Hutu cannot make a similar argument in regard to Churchill and Roosevelt.
On 9/11, America lost 3,000 people at the hands of Al-Qaeda. In response, the US invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq to fight a "war on terror". Thousands of Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians have died in air raids. However, a politician in the US cannot last one day in politics if - on this basis - he equated George Bush to Osama bin Laden.
Therefore, for a presidential candidate in Rwanda to say those who ended genocide should share the dock with those who orchestrated it; that victims of genocide should be tried alongside its architects, is irresponsible, insensitive and not worth being a leader. Whatever their mistakes and miscalculations, the RPF sought to end genocide - just like the UK and US during the Second World War sought to defeat fascism.
Rwanda today faces a great opportunity of deepening its democracy and of expanding its spheres of free expression. But it equally confronts a challenge of how to pursue this vision without igniting the forces of ethnic polarisation that contributed with such vengeance to the fragmentation of society and allowed evil to almost dismember it.
Ingabire stands at an historical moment to assist the process of democratisation in Rwanda. This requires the ability to appreciate the fragility of the political settlement in the country. She needs to reassure those who feel endangered ethnically that there can be debate without stoking the fires of hatred. Even if she were to become "the" legitimate voice of opposition in Rwanda, her claims show that she lacks the strategic foresight to help consolidate the platform for free expression in that country.
Given the emotive power of ethnicity especially in Rwanda, it is easy to rally a political following by making ethnic claims. But it is also extremely dangerous. Those who desire to see growth of a strong and viable opposition in Rwanda need to be cognisant of this fact. But if the opposition that grows focuses on scaring those who hold the instruments of control, we can say kwaheri to the democratic experiment.
Rwandans have strong and burning policy issues to battle today - on economic growth, infrastructure, health, education, agriculture, industry, services, urban planning, corruption, housing, the quality and effectiveness of institutions of government - the list is endless. It seems that opposition politicians in Africa often lack the ability to offer a real alternative to incumbent regimes at the level of public policy. This possibly explains why they retreat to identity claims to secure political support.
Sadly for Ingabire, many countries in Africa can afford ethnic politics. Rwanda cannot. In ignoring the lessons of history, she is actually undermining the very process that allowed her to return home. Hopefully, the people of Rwanda will have the wisdom to look at the content of a candidate's policy proposals not their ethnicity in making electoral choices.
Comments Post a comment
Andrew Mwenda's article makes a critical point in the political development of the region especially in Rwanda and Uganda. Society is made of people with different ideas (ideologies) some of them outrageously dangerous in the process of building a democracy. Unfortunately some of the people with such ideas emerge as ptions for leadership and it is up to society as a whole to make it a point that they are not given opportunity to occupy leadership positions because how they would use them would be very injurous to the builging of democratice values. While the VIctoire as a citizen of Rwanda has rights to say what she says, we need to acknowledge that the Rwanda society has aright to point out how dangerous her pursuit is to the values they are trying to construct. But if they doo not let her say what she says then the country's society will miss the opportunity to remaind itself that such utterings are not acceptable. A similar thing is developing in Uganda with the coming on the scene of Otunu at the top of the UPC party. While I had celebrated his win of the UPC top leadership, I was badly disappointed by the poor and insensitve judgement he exhibited when he appointed Rurangaranga among the top leaders of the Party. To me it was like Otunu was saying: the Leadership of UPC in the 1980s did nothing wrong and so it needs to be brought back. I understand that Otunu wants an invistigation in what happened in Luwelo and the role of Uganda in Rwanda. Given the development policy issues confronting the country, I was surprised to see that Otunu could think of these as priorities instead of looking for reconciliatory positions to push the country's development agenda forward. My consolation now is that since Otunu is clearly revealing what his intentions and thoughts are Ugandans will have opportunity to put to rest the urgument on the quality of Otunu as a leader. I am however still disappointed in that his stance on Luwelo, Rwanda, nad rome leaders of UPC in the 1980s might complicate the coming together of the opposition for 2011 election. I am seeing a situation whereby DP, FDC and Bidandi Sali's party ask themselves: If we come together with a party that believes that the UPC leadership and its army in the 1980s did nothing wrong in Luwero, then are we telling Ugandans that all the fighting og the NRA and liberation was an act of crime? Then how would the leaders including Besigye, Muntu, Ruzindana, Bidandi Sali look in the eyes of Ugandans? Look if Victoire in Rwanda implies that RPF was guilty of genocide, and Otunu is implying that the NRA is guilty of massacres in Luwero, what history is the regiona clinging to to build values of democracy? Certainly the two leaders have a problem and it has to do with their political judgement! However, while Victoire may not progress much politically, really Otunu will hurt the political development of Uganda because he is going to mess up the possibility and value of a united opposition for political leadership change which many people have been looking foward to.
You know what? If you were asleep when things happened, you should continue sleeping because your point of view makes no sense at all. Why do you look at Hutus who died in Congo, were you given any bribe to speak on anyone's behalf?
We should learn to say the things the way they are.
It is not only the Tutsi who died, in fact, the majority where Hutus. It's only that the Tutsi were even anonymous.
Read the or make field trips to Congo, after that, utter your words.
Thank you
Always a balanced opinion from you Mwenda!! As you said, I hope people of Rwanda will vote the content of a politician not his/her ethnic... because rwandans cannot afford to go back where they come from...and i agree with you on everything but most of all RPF cannot be compared to Interahamwe!!
It is clear to everyone that you dont know what you are talking about, you are asking yourself if there are hutus killed by RPF;after 16 years of Genocide do you think that those who are being buried on the memorial are only Tutsi? Hutu are being killed even today and the current government will have once to give explanation.Otherwise don't lie Ingabire polics is based on real reconcilitaion and develpment of every rwandan
An apple my look good on the outside but rotten from the inside and if you were to eat that apple you would have to cut the rotting part off.I shall not compare Rwanda to an apple but we rwandans who live outside and have found it hard to go back because of the sheer amount of politics involved,find Madame Ingabire very brave to say what all or most hutu people feel because even though we lost a war through our bad leaders we do exist and want to live in harmony with the tutsis, but with mutual respect,there should be a fitting comemoration for all the victims,the lady is a voice for the voice less the millions the whole world wants to forget.After all her chances of winning are minimal let her have her fair chance at democracyThen the winner can allways say look am legitimate even the people want me for real.Otherwise I for one feel the rwandans were betrayed by the western push for democracy.Democracy can not exist if itachieved using weapons and a lot of false propaganda.Madame Ingabire is a litmus test for the current government.Do they play fair?
See All Comments