Is Rwanda ready for democracy?  President Paul Kagame says no.

In an increasingly more straightforward manner as August elections approach, Rwandan President Paul Kagame tells The Independent his opinions about what Rwanda needs and, coming as no surprise, democracy isn’t part of the recipe just yet.  From the article:

Quietly spoken and given to philosophical flourishes, he states that perhaps Rwanda isn't yet ready for a dose of democratic “medicine.” “Democracy has two sides: substance and form,” he explains. "Sometimes they are packaged together and you must swallow it as a medicine. We share the substance, meaning the definition, but how that is expressed is contextual."

"Democracy and human rights are niceties and are all important, but tell me, if somebody is wondering if they have anything to eat, they are not listening," he continues. "It's a fact that when somebody has food, when you bring another message, then they listen."

This attitude explains the recent denial of a work visa to a Human Rights Watch representative.  It’s logical, but where do we draw the line between when human rights are necessary and not just nice?  As Kagame has intoned numerous times, Rwanda is not ready for democracy.  One could take a cue from Peter Uvin and argue that democratic processes helped push pre-1994 Rwanda over the edge in the first place via aid conditionalities that helped extremist parties gain power, although that is just one part of the complex story.

Now, Rwanda is generally held by a favorable light in the international community.  Despite the manner in which Kagame “divides opinion,” he has attracted a great deal of foreign investment.  Most Rwandans have a living standard much higher than a few years ago, although the number of the population below the poverty line is still elevated and inequality is growing. However, from Rene Lemarchand: “the ‘premise of inequality’—greatly reinforced by the legacy of colonial rule—emerged as the central axis around which Hutu-Tutsi relations revolved.”  Perpetuating new inequality through income strata and lack of political voice is therefore a dangerous path for the government to tread.

He believes foreign critics fail to grasp the dynamics at play in Rwanda and says he sees role models in countries like Singapore and South Korea. "Developing countries are on the receiving end all the time, of being pushed back, of people saying that's where you belong. We are not deterred by what outsiders think. I am not guided by criticism. What we want to achieve is for ourselves. If you ask Rwandans how they feel about the government they will give a different view from outsiders."

That is, if they were allowed to tell you.  The nature of press freedom within Rwanda can only be described as virtually inexistent despite the government’s claims otherwise—hence why Rwanda has been named to the list of Human Rights Watch’s predators of freedom.

Not to simplify, it is indeed true that Rwanda’s political climate is subtly crafted and one has to read between the lines to attempt to understand the “dynamics at play.”  But, for example, the de jure elimination of ethnic groups does not eliminate the fact that de facto ethnic identification still occurs within Rwanda and continues openly in the surrounding regions. It just means that statistics on ethnic discrimination and open dialogue on the issue aren’t present because, according to the government, ethnicity does not officially exist.  If Rwanda is a historically divided nation that has had few healthy outlets for dissenters over the decades, is it really wise to maintain such a stronghold on the opposition?

Mr. Kagame believes Rwanda should be allowed to develop its own way of dealing with its past, free from the critical eye of "teachers" in the developed world. "We have not had the luxury to do things according to the rule book. We have to experiment, to see if it works. The West has democracy but it also has the institutions to hold people accountable." He cites as one example Rwanda's own solution to the challenge of balancing justice and reconciliation without a proper legal system in the aftermath of the genocide. Gacaca courts gave perpetrators the chance to ask forgiveness from their communities. "This is a problem for which we generated our own answer."

Kagame resists international pressures with selective hearing about recommendations and, in a way, presents a refreshing perspective on how development works.  But can Gacaca truly be embraced as a solution when many Rwandans feel that it does not dole out appropriate justice?  Moreover, the New York Times recently ran a piece on round-ups of petty criminals and streetchildren, sent to be rehabilitated on Iwawa Island without any type of legal process.  The Rwandan Minister of Youth naturally objected to the portrayal while the director of the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum upheld the original article saying, “Ethnic divisions and political authoritarianism have not disappeared from Rwanda, nor has a tendency to use violence to resolve differences dissipated.”

Without creating a balance of power and healthy dialogue, how can democratic institutions evolve?  (An attempt is a current events fact-checking website where many “facts” come from the state newspaper.)  Quoted in the New York Times, the executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth worried over the government’s plan: “Kagame’s strategy for stability is a dangerous, long-term gamble. By stymieing a political opposition, an independent press or a critical civil society — in short, by not allowing democratic institutions to form — Kagame is leaving people little to identify with but their ethnic group.”

Recent grenade attacks in normally tranquil Kigali over the past few months also highlight the tension in the pre-election climate.  Opposition candidate Victoire Ingabire has been arrested for having “supported and funded groups linked to the 1994 genocide” (and so too has her American lawyer which is causing quite a hoopla). 

It is a tough call.  A semi-authoritarian regime has been able to provide security, economic development, and fulfill the basic needs of its population in a tense environment.  But is the heavy hand too heavy, and will it create unintended consequences in the long term?  Reuters has a good piece on the key risks to watch in Rwanda in the near future—namely, the tension between members of the ruling party, crackdown on critics, general region stability, and emerging capital market—and I will definitely be watching.

We can admit—it is indeed an experiment.  But one that is risky.  And we can hope that all ends well.