By David White
Late last month Paul Kagame gathered his presidential advisory council, made up of foreign and Rwandan dignitaries, for a meeting that was duly reported in local media and on the president’s Flickr Photostream. What they failed to mention was the purpose of the meeting, which was to test the waters on whether the constitution should be amended so that Mr Kagame might seek re-election when his second seven-year elected term expires in 2017.
The president raised the issue himself at the meeting, according to a participant. Advisers pointed out both the risk to his international reputation of holding on to office and the risk of uncertainty that a change of leadership would entail. Business figures on the panel tended to favour him staying on.
At the time of writing, the 57-year-old Mr Kagame had not made his intention clear. He told a later press conference that he was not asking for a further term but was open to being convinced. This came after a succession of Rwandan media commentaries arguing the case for keeping him on as president.
A change to the term limit requires backing from parliament and a referendum, but the outcome and the presidential election result would be in no doubt. Credited with restoring order and calm in Rwanda and reconstructing a collapsed country, Mr Kagame won 93 per cent of the vote in his last election.
For Rwanda’s donors, with mixed feelings about Mr Kagame’s style of government, a constitutional change to extend his tenure would be awkward. The dynamic development agenda and pro-business policies they support come with uncompromising political control and accusations of ruthless tactics towards opponents inside and outside the country. Western indulgence has shown signs of wearing thin. Some aid was held back in 2012-13 after a UN panel accused the government of supporting rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in a continuing spillover from Rwanda’s 1990s genocidal conflict.
The attitude of the US, the largest donor, which has promoted the use of Rwandan forces in African peacekeeping, will be key. The prospect of incumbent presidents manipulating to stay in office has been a live issue in both neighbouring Burundi and the DRC.
In a country with a tradition of obedience to authority, power is concentrated in the person of Mr Kagame. He has been de facto leader since the 1994 genocide, becoming president under a transitional constitution six years later. “There is very little scope for dissent or meaningful opposition in Rwanda.” says Carina Tertsakian of Human Rights Watch. “The lid is still firmly on.”
No space is allowed for anyone else within the regime or outside it to form a significant political power base. There is a high turnover of ministers, who are held to demanding expectations.
Supporters of Mr Kagame argue that the rebuilding of Rwanda’s institutions only began in earnest in the late 1990s. “This is a country that has had 15 years of reconstructing itself. Is the time sufficient?” asks one ally.
While the 2003 constitution embraces the principle of pluralist democracy, divisive and identity-based politics are outlawed. The strongest opposition resides outside Rwanda, and includes former Kagame confidants.
Although some radio stations have aired debates about the “third term” issue, the press is tame. The authorities suspended the BBC’s Kinyarwanda-language radio six months ago following a television documentary contesting the accepted version of Rwanda’s genocide.
Harsh sentences have been handed out in recent politically related trials. A singer, Kizito Mihigo, who a few years ago received a peace award from Mr Kagame’s wife, was in February jailed for 10 years for conspiring against the government and inciting hatred. Two co-defendants received terms of 25 and 30 years. This follows a string of detentions, disappearances, attempted murders and suspicious deaths, including that of a former intelligence chief found dead last year in a Johannesburg hotel.
Mr Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front, well resourced and with contacts in a range of businesses, keeps a firm grip. “It doesn’t allow anyone to spoil its party,” a foreign diplomat comments.
Only one of Rwanda’s 11 registered parties, the Democratic Green party, has taken a position against lifting presidential term limits. “There is no one in parliament who is going to oppose it,” says the party’s leader Frank Habineza.
At the parliament in Kigali, statues commemorate RPF heroes. Battle-scarred walls are a reminder of an episode at the start of the genocide in April 1994 when soldiers of the RPF, then a rebel movement made up mainly of exiled members of the Tutsi minority, were based there as part of a peace process. They came under fire from forces of the then Hutu-led government.
The RPF’s 41 seats in the 80-seat chamber of deputies would in theory not suffice to launch a constitutional amendment. But the two parties that hold the other 12 directly-elected seats have been co-opted into the government. Remaining members, representing women’s and youth organisations and disabled people, pose no barrier.
The parliament’s echoing concrete auditorium has as its focal point, between two flags, a picture of Mr Kagame. It will be hard for Rwandans to imagine anyone else’s photo in its place.
Source: http://www.ft.com/
