Why Rwanda’s democracy is worth a second look

Rwanda’s National Electoral Commission has just published the final results of the July 14 General Election.

President Paul Kagame of the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) won by 99.18 per cent of the vote.

The RPF and partner parties won 68.8 per cent of the vote or 37 seats out of 53 directly elected in the 80-seat Chamber of Deputies.

The other 27 seats are for representatives of special interest groups (women, 24; youth, two and one for people with disabilities). Mr Kagame’s win has been met with a mixture of reactions.

From many Rwandans, it was deserved but to critics used to narrow wins, low voter turn-up, and violence, it was baffling. From them, therefore, gasps of disbelief or dismissive derision.

Such happens only in a dictatorship. No surprises there. It is standard practice to make such comments and also use the occasion to evaluate the state of democracy on the continent. If the incumbent loses the election, it is democratic and evidence democracy has taken root.

If he is returned more than two times, that is definite proof of the absence of democracy.

If the winner gets more than 70 per cent of the vote, it is positively undemocratic. More than 90 per cent, a horrible dictatorship.

Democracy is distorted

In this simplistic evaluation, democracy is distorted, reduced merely to electoral fortunes. That has been the criticism of democracy in Rwanda. It ignores several factors that determine the choice of citizens: history and social and political context.

Political systems evolve from local conditions or are devised in response to them. This organic nature and ownership are what give it a sense of acceptability and permanence. For instance, the American system of both popular and Electoral College voting was designed to prevent the possible emergence of an imperial presidency or anything that resembles the monarchy from which they had freed themselves.

Rwanda’s political system is a response to its recent history: decades of politics of extremism and hatred, division and exclusion, and the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 to which they gave rise. It is designed to foster unity and prevent a recurrence of the divisions that nearly destroyed the country.

Casting the vote therefore matters. It is a vote to secure the future by rejecting this sort of past and ensuring it never recurs. That has led to the choice of consensus politics and rejection of the adversarial variety while recognising the existence of divergent and competing views as well.

The logic is simple. If all political parties have a vision for propelling the country forward, would it not be best if all these were brought together and then all agree on the most suitable and adopt them as a national programme?

This is why Rwandans choose coalitions or why different political parties elect to back one presidential candidate. It is to ensure inclusion, stability, and predictability. In the Rwandan political system, the principle of coalition (power-sharing) is built into the constitution.

Ministerial posts

For instance, the party that wins the majority of seats in parliament cannot get more than 50 percent of ministerial posts. The President of the Republic and Speaker of Parliament cannot come from the same political party.

Coalitions are, of course, normal political arrangements. Kenyans know quite a bit about them.

However, in most places, they are ad hoc arrangements entered into for specific, short-term reasons. They are often unstable and usually disintegrate once the objective has been reached. Or squabbles set in and lead to paralysis in governance.

For example, they happen when no political party has a majority in parliament and in order to govern has to form a coalition with one or several others. This has increasingly become common in Europe. No one accuses them of being undemocratic.

Sometimes, they are put together to win elections or oust the party in power. The different political formations in Kenya fit this very well.

Or to prevent a party they deem dangerous to democracy from taking power as happened in

France recently when the left and centre-right parties agreed on an electoral pact to deny the far-right National Rally electoral victory. No one accused the French of undemocratic practices for that. Europeans know the cost of political extremism.

Yet when Rwandans say no to individuals or organisations that espouse or are linked to the ideology of genocide that threatens the very existence of the nation, they are accused of stifling democracy. But they, too, know the cost of extremism and experienced genocide only thirty years ago.

Perhaps the aspects that draw the most criticism are the margin of President Kagame’s win and the length of his stay in power. However, none of the critics ask the basic question before they rashly condemn. Why does Mr Kagame win big? He liberated the country from extremist and divisive politics, ended the genocide against the Tutsi, rebuilt the country set it on the road to progress, and promoted unity and reconciliation.

If I may use a Kenya analogy, imagine if UDA and Azimio, and probably two other small parties decided to come together to front a single candidate and pursue a common political goal to guarantee peace, prosperity, and stability for the Kenyan people. What would the final tally be for the sole candidate fronted by the two coalitions and parties? Exactly!

Something else that critics ignore: Rwandans have enormous trust in their president by a margin even bigger than his election win. Surveys by the Rwanda Governance Board show that every year since 2018, they have trusted him by 99.52 per cent or more. Choice matters. It is more than processes or systems borrowed from elsewhere.