The implicitly racist language that has emerged from Western media, the so-called “NGOs”, and political commentators in response to President Kagame’s announcement of his intention to run for a fourth term next year, as requested by the Rwandan populace, once again demonstrates a failure to consider the context.
To kick things off, it is worth highlighting the ethical dilemma presented by term limits in a context where citizens possess the democratic freedom to choose their preferred leaders. Presently, the majority of Rwandans perceive President Kagame not as a typical career politician but rather, as a visionary leader with an unwavering commitment to transforming the nation economically, socially, and culturally, regardless of the duration required to achieve these goals.
There are compelling reasons for this perspective. One need not be a genius to recognize the remarkable turnaround that Rwanda has experienced under President Kagame’s leadership. The statistics speak for themselves: an average annual growth rate of 7.21% from 2000 to 2023, reaching a record 20.60% in the second quarter of 2021. Rwanda has excelled in the education sector, boasting Sub-Saharan Africa’s highest net enrollment rate, with 98.8% of children enrolled in primary school. Life expectancy at birth has increased by an impressive 47.37%, from 47.5 years in 2000 to 70 years in 2023.
In light of these achievements and many more, many reasonable individuals would conclude that a leader who has delivered such remarkable development should be allowed to continue governing to build upon these successes. Yet, contrary to reason, some critics label Kagame an African “dictator” who “pushed a constitutional reform that granted himself the opportunity to stay in power until 2034.” However, the truth is the opposite. President Kagame did not embark on a campaign to manipulate the constitution in his favor. Instead, 98.3% of Rwandans approved the constitutional amendment that would enable him to run for another term.
The decision to extend President Kagame’s tenure was a reflection of the Rwandan context. One may argue that this context-driven decision is not unique to Rwanda. Consider, for instance, the United States in 1940 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought an unprecedented third term, later securing a fourth term in 1944. Americans, facing the challenges of World War II, were willing to allow Franklin Delano to continue leading during a tumultuous period.
Yet, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will decry Rwanda’s choice, branding it as undemocratic and immoral. Why is it moral for countries like Israel or the United Kingdom to operate without term limits, while Rwanda’s decision to extend a successful leader’s tenure is met with utter condemnation?
The reality is that democracy is not one-size-fits-all, and different nations may have unique circumstances that warrant adjustments to conventional norms. In Rwanda’s case, the overwhelming support for President Kagame’s continued leadership reflects his great record in leadership, the will of the people, and their belief in his ability to steer the country toward further progress.
Leave a Reply