Rwanda has ‘Kagamecracy’ to thank for 15 years of continuous development

Rwanda has ‘Kagamecracy’ to thank for 15 years of continuous development

mchambawima1

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Posts
2,487
Reaction score
738
[h=1]Sunday, April 26th, 2015[/h]

It was a Saturday, 11.45am local time (0945 GMT) on April 22,2000, at Amahoro National Stadium in Kigali, Paul Kagame, thenVice President, took the oath of office, ushering in a period of unprecedented renewal that has placed Rwanda among the new ‘African tigers’.
Six years earlier, more than a million Tutsis had been slaughtered by government militias.
It was the first time in the history of Rwanda that there was change of power without bloodshed.
The new leader, Kagame, said: “Peace and security have been established in the whole country. More than three million Rwandan refugees have returned home. Rwanda will become a nation that every Rwandan will want to live in.” In 2000, Rwanda’s total production or GDP was at Rwf 1.066 trillion ($2 billion), meaning that from 1962, when the country gained independence, to 2000 (more than 30 years), the country was only able to reach $2billion in GDP.
President Kagame began global diplomacy with a visit to the USA, meeting George W. Bush, March 4, 2003.

Speaking after the swearing-in ceremony, Kagame had the first task of assuring a hopeless country. “Poverty in Rwanda will not last forever,” he said inKinyarwanda to tens of thousands listening intently. “Our first resource is hardworking Rwandans,” he added.
“We will build schools, especially in information technology, so we don’t lag behind. We will invest in electricity, telecommunications and roads and use what we have to improve national well-being.”
Not anything else but Kagame
At that time, the country was almost under UN Trusteeship, and internally embroiled in massive corruption. A $23m grant from the World Bank had disappeared in thin air. The Prime Minister, then Pierre Celestin Rwigema, all he could give back to the hungry Rwandans, were excuses.
Instead of concentrating on uplifting the lives of ordinary citizens out of bitting poverty, politicians were more bothered about how many Hutus or Tutsis were in government.
“Kagame is exactly what we need. Discipline and organization skills,” Andre Kimonyo, a 25-year-old student, told The Associated Press in the stadium then.
Global best-seller author Stephen Kinzer, and only writer of Kagame‘s biography, says Kagame is a man who has gone on to become the angel Rwanda has been waiting for.
On 1 July 2007, Rwanda officially joined the East African Community, benefiting from the market of over 120 million population. (From Letf: East African Community leaders then, Uganda’s Yoweli Museveni, Kenya’s Mwai Kibaki, Rwanda’s Paul-Kagame, Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, and Pierre Nkuruzinza of Burundi)

Kinzer‘s book, “A Thousand Hills: Rwanda’s Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It”, released June 2009, describes Kagame as a man who emerges as a personable, tough-minded, extraordinarily disciplined realist.
Back in 2000, after the swearing-in, Kagame was in office on Monday morning. Three years later, Kagame won with a landslide victory in a presidential election.
Everybody wants a piece of Kagame
Kagame’s mission was to create a new Rwanda. Fifteen years down the road,Rwanda’s GDP is roughly $8 billion. The economy has maintained an average growth rate of 8%.
Kagame has propelled the country from the western stereotype place known formachete-wielding cruel beings, to one of the world’s most business-friendly hotspots.Under Kagame, one can register a business in the morning and open shop before midday.
Prior to that, one required nine procedures and about 223% of income per capita to start a business.
Registering property took more than a year (371 days). Transfer fees amounted to 9.8% of the property value. Today, registering a business and acquiring all legal documents is just a quick click on the web.
“The government’s commitment to business reform and their zero-tolerance approach to corruption is making Rwanda a better place to do business each day,” says former British PM Tony Blair on his website. “Combine that with the country’s continued economic growth and investors have a whole host of reasons to sit up and take note of this emerging economy.”
President Kagame addresses Michael Porter’s class on Rwanda’s economic transformation at the Harvard Business School – Boston, 11 March 2013

There is a $130 million fiber cable running across Rwanda, for 2,300km, linking up all the country’s 30 districts. On internet speeds, Rwanda is incomparable, regionally. South Korean tech giant Korea Telecom, has completed laying the entire infrastructure for 4G connectivity. The idea is to link the country to a global community and provide an avenue that facilitates an information communication-based economy. The immigration department is overwhelmed by tourists and business visitors coming to Rwanda.
The immigration office says 1,220,000 visitors were received in 2014 – bringing in some $305m in revenue, from a mere $62m in the year Kagame became president.
Apart from being the safest spot for vacation in Africa, RDB told KTPress “wildlife sight-seeing, especially gorilla and bird watching, and conferences draw the biggest portion of the revenues”.
Kagame’s achievements are endless. But there one popular opinion among the Rwandans that usually divides global perspectives on Rwanda and Kagame.
Years ago, a local businessman was contracted to build a road in Muhanga district, Southern Rwanda. The contractor would employ hundreds of villagers. Until the end of the project, however, no laborer had received a penny, KTPress investigations showed. The villagers were held on endless promises until the contractor vanished.
During Kagame’s “Presidential Citizen Outreach Program”, where Kagame moves down the villages to speak directly to locals in an unscripted format, the matter of the fraudulent businessman was raised.
Kagame, who is always complete, with his advisors, ministers, all top security chiefs, and heads of institutions, ordered that the matter be solved, with guidance. The problem was no more in a couple of weeks.
“You do not want to be absent when people are raising concerns on projects that concern your ministry,” one of the ministers told KTPress. Some ordinary folks have a description for Kagame’s way of doing things; Kagamecracy!
President Kagame greets residents of Nyamagabe at Nyagisenyi Stadium, Southern Province March 7, 2005

However, all these milestones have come at a cost, with critics saying Kagame is a dictator and an autocratic leader who governs with an iron fist.
One would ask, would Rwanda be what it is without Kagame?
It is hard to find anybody who answers to the contrary. Even his most ardent critics sayKagame had to be convinced to take the challenge of leading the country when it became clear much more was needed than just politicking.
“I personally never wanted to become President …” said Kagame in 2006.
And when he accepted, at least one thing synonymous to his success is the fact that his office is having a hard time coping up with the ever-flowing invitation letters to speak at global conferences.
To many a Rwandan, today, April 22, 2015, like all previous same dates since 2000, have been moments of celebration.
President Kagame confronts Education Minister, Silas Lwakabamba, to explain why his ministry has failed to establish an efficient students’ loan scheme and also recover Rwf82 billion issued since 1980.
 
Mmeelezea mazuri tu mabaya no, powa bwana lakini pia mmesema kila raia atapenda kuish rwanda itakuwa vyema japo kunawatu hawana jinsi wanaish rwanda kwakuwa hawana pakwenda, na wengine hawajui kama kesho watakuwapo
 
Siyo Kagamecracy, inaitwa Illiberal democracy na zipo nyingi tu duniani

Illiberal democracy

An illiberal democracy is a system of government which endorses and undertakes "democratic actions" (e.g. popular voting, constitutional limitations on government power) but in reality fails to live up to the "democratic spirit" of those actions (e.g. doesn't adhere to constitutional limits on power, voter intimidation, restrictive voting regulations).

Singapore is often touted as a prominent example of an illiberal democracy. Singapore holds regular elections and has a constitution that limit the powers of the national government. But their election laws are designed to make it hard for other parties to challenge the the People's Action Party. Short campaigns (the legal minimum for a campaign, from election announcements to the actual voting is nine days and it's not often that campaigns are longer than nine days), large deposits that are required for a candidate to run, and the fact that some districts are lumped together and teams of candidates are elected are all regulations that make it harder for opposition candidates to win, and in some cases even contest, elections. So while Singapore engages in the democratic process, the process is not undertaken in the spirit that it's meant

An illiberal democracy, also called a pseudo democracy, partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy or hybrid regime, is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties. It is not an 'open society'. There are many countries "that are categorized as neither "free" nor "not free," but as "probably free," falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes." This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but its liberties are ignored, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist.

Types

There is a spectrum of illiberal democracies: from those that are nearly liberal democracies to those that are almost openly dictatorships. One proposed method of determining whether a regime is an illiberal democracy is to determine whether "it has regular, free, fair, and competitive elections to fill the principal positions of power in the country, but it does not qualify as Free in Freedom House's annual ratings of civil liberties and political rights." A 2008 article by Rocha Menocal, Fritz and Rakner describes the emergence of illiberal democracies and discusses some of their shared characteristics.

Tentative illustration

In a 2014 speech Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary described his views about the future of Hungary as an illiberal state. In his interpretation the illiberal state does not reject the values of the liberal democracy, but does not adopt it as a center element of state organisation.

A classic example of an illiberal democracy is the Republic of Singapore. Conversely, liberal autocracies are regimes with no elections and that are ruledautocratically but have some liberties. Here, a good example is the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese majority city-states and former British colonies. However, their political evolution has taken different paths, with Hong Kong residents enjoying the liberal freedoms of the United Kingdom, but, as a colony, without the power to choose its leaders. This state of affairs was inherited by the People's Republic of China when it resumed control of the territory in 1997.

In contrast, Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's ruling People's Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as theright to assemble or form associations, bearing in mind that there were race and religious riots at these times), and extended its influence over the media, unions,NGOs and academia.

Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls.

The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in a regularly cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs.

Read more

1. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53577/fareed-zakaria/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy
3. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/897b7214-b12d-11e4-9331-00144feab7de.html


cc
mchambawima1.Maziku Masunga Jr..kayaman.MOTOCHINI
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kui
Kwa bahati mbaya, maendeleo haya yanahusishwa na uporaji wa rasirimali kutoka Kongo. Udikteta nchini Rwanda unategemea sana mitazamo ya jumuiya za kimataifa, hali ambayo inachelewesha maendeleo ya wanyarwanda kwa kiasi fulani. Na siku Kagame akitegemea misaada ya kimataifa, hatafikia malengo yake. Kwani misaada ni sumu ya maendeleo.

Kama marekani anaiba arabuni, afrika,nk na kama china anaiba afrika anapeleka kwake, ni nini ushangaacho? Kipi bora kuiba nje kuleta nyumbani ama kuiba nyumban kupeleka nje?
 
so what would real democracy look like and where can we find it.??
It is well known that the word ‘democracy' originates from Ancient Greece and means ‘power of the people'. Such an idea, in its literal sense, encompassing economic, political and social democracy does not exist anywhere in the world.

This is primarily because the planet's resources, many of which human beings need in order to live, do not belong to the people as a whole. Instead, they are in the hands of a small, privileged, rich minority.

Such extremely limited political ‘democracy' as does exist in parts of the modern world, is scarcely even a shadow of what genuine democracy will be like when it is finally put into practice.

Capitalism, on the one hand, and genuine democracy, on the other, are completely incompatible with one another. The reason for this is that under capitalism, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small minority of the population. This wealth brings its owners huge power, influence and lifestyle opportunities, completely unavailable to the majority..

For real democracy: imagine a society where all the people would be of equal status, with equal, free access to resources owned by the community, as a whole (e.g. food, shelter, healthcare, education, transportation, etc.).

Imagine a world with no leaders and no elite to lord it over the rest of the population. A society where everyone can have an equal say in the issues that concern them. Above all, a world, in which all the people own and share the wealth that we need in order to live.

cc
Maziku Masunga Jr.
 
Hao wamesikia kimeanza kunuka huko Burundi. Kwa hiyo wameanza kuja tena JF taratibu. Inaelekea anataka na yeye aongeze awamu.

But you know what? .... It don't really matter, cos they are kinda irrelevant.
 
There greatest sin & failure of a leader is to fail to prepare a succession plan. Presidents like Mugabe & Kagame any many others need to prepare many leaders of their calibre in order to maintain peace, harmony and keep pace of development otherwise all their good reputation and development success will be buried during forceful eviction from power
 
Back
Top Bottom