Fourteen years after a genocide in which more than 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu citizens were slaughtered, the Rwandan government has made enormous progress in bringing political stability and economic development to one of Africa’s poorest countries. Among the main successes of this period are the establishment of one of the most effective bureaucracies and civil services in all of Africa; a leadership position in the continent in promoting women’s rights and gender equality; lower corruption than many African peers; and a record of sound public finances. These achievements can mainly be attributed to Rwandan’s ruling Patriotic Front (RPF) party, which has ruled the country since its military victory ended the killings in 1994. As expected, the RPF was reelected in a landslide three weeks ago. However, the story of Rwanda is far from unbridled success, and requires a look at the shadows as well as the lights.
As far as the national elections go, by most accounts they were fairly successful. In contrast to local balloting - where intimidation of candidates and ballot-box-stuffing, as well as lack of secrecy and real alternatives still seems to be the rule - this year’s elections for parliament seemed to be cleaner and better organized than those of 2003. However, as in nearly every one-party dominant country, the High Council of the Media (HCM) reported that “public media did not cover political parties equally.” This is especially unsurprising considering that overall media independence and freedom of expression have declined significantly in recent years. While press freedom and the prohibition of censorship is guaranteed by the Media Law of 2002, practice shows different results: there is only one daily newspaper and according to the State of the Media Report of 2007, 54% of all registered newspapers are “regularly irregular,” with some of them not even reaching the streets. Further, members of the media practice considerable self-censorship because the same law that guarantees their freedom imposes criminal sanctions for a wide range of ill-defined offenses, including divisionism and genocide ideology, each punishable by up to five years of prison. Accusations of those crimes are used to intimidate and silence journalists and the largest advertiser, the government, invests only in pro-RPF publications.
Political bias also seems to be a problem in the constitutionally independent judiciary. This is especially true for the Gacaca courts, which are in charge of the genocide cases. RPF members are only rarely tried for their crimes, and judges seem to be susceptible to pressure from the executive. This year’s judicial reform has brought some improvements in the efficiency and educational quality of the courts, but overall Rwanda’s judiciary still fails to provide basic fair trial standards such as the presumption of innocence, witness protection, and access to independent counsel.
Such restrictions have not stopped Western governments and businessmen, delighted by the country’s (relative) stability, from continuing to pour aid and investment into the country, partly to atone for the missed opportunities during the genocide. In fact, Rwanda could be one of the few African countries to reach the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. But this rapid development has come at the price of weak democratic governance. Just as the legacy of the genocide has spurred Western interest n the country, it has also provided the RPF with an excuse for denial of domestic claims for democratization and civil rights, which might supposedly destabilize the fragile security situation. Critics fear that President Paul Kagame ’s government is becoming increasingly dictatorial, and according to the linked Economist article, his regime leaves less political space even than Robert Mugabe does in Zimbabwe.
Development must not come at the price of weak democratic governance, and Rwanda’s recently reelected government should ensure greater transparency in political processes and stop interfering with civil society, the judiciary, and the media. As noted in the Crossroads report, the legislature should urgently give a clear and restricted definition to the crimes of promoting “divisionism” and “genocide ideology” to make them less apt to be used to punish critics of the regime. Last but not least, fair trial standards must be established to secure that after the big bulk of pending trials have been resolved, Rwanda gets a true chance to move on. Preferably, this time more democratically.
Photo Credit: Flickr user nando.quintana
