This past month, Tufts invited President Paul Kagame of Rwanda to speak. After President Kagame’s lecture, an op-ed was submitted to the Daily criticizing the university for giving him a platform on our campus. The article — written by Alex Gladstein and published on April 24 — was one-sided in a way that is detrimental to any attempt at a complete discussion about the country and President Kagame’s leadership. When analyzing Rwanda, it is necessary to look at the country’s history. An open political space is a privilege of countries without legitimate worries about the takeover of genocidal ideology. It is true that, under President Kagame’s leadership, there have been massive human rights violations. The Rwandan Patriotic Front takeover in 1994, while not genocide, did result in great casualties and war crimes, and the subsequent invasion of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) was similarly tainted. There is not complete freedom of speech in the country, nor is there space for dissenting political opinions. Rwanda is not a full and thriving democracy, but 20 years after the genocide, can it be?
Twenty years ago, Rwanda was destroyed. After the genocide, in the wake of an unprecedented judicial backlog, ruined infrastructure and endless trauma, the country needed strong leadership. Today, that leadership is still needed. A 2010 survey showed that 39.9 percent of Rwandans agreed with this statement: “Although it is against the law, some Rwandans would try to commit genocide again, if conditions were favorable.” I am not saying this to give President Kagame a free pass for political oppression, but for some people to slam the quelling of free speech without contextualizing the issue is rash and ill-advised. FULL STORY
