Track record, not term limits count in elections

[mchambawima1]

In the next three years all the countriesmaking up the East African Community will have held general and presidentialelections. Already there is a great deal of talk – even concern, especially byoutsiders – about who will contest and who should not.

These concerns are often couched in whatappears to be reasonable terms – adherence to democratic practice, respect forthe constitution and sticking to term limits, and so on. In reality, however,their focus is on individuals not on issues that elections are decided on.

Theemphasis and tone of all the talk seems to be about barring some individuals.It is not about giving the people better services or making the system ofelections better. In my humble opinion, this is missing the point aboutelections, why they are held and won or lost. It actually skews the debate fromthe real issues of democracy to undue attention on personalities.

The question should be about why politicalparties and their leaders get elected in the first place and are returned insubsequent elections. In all democracies the electability and continuity ofgovernments depends on a number of factors. The first is whether they have aprogramme for governing the country effectively and whether they are capable ofdelivering it. If they have been in power, the test is whether they havedelivered on election promises, also known as manifesto.

Secondly, governments and their leaders arejudged on how they have solved challenges the country faces and laid a strongfoundation for a better future. For instance, people make decisions based onthe government's record on such things as growing the economy, creating jobs,raising citizens' living standards, and providing better education and healthcare. They also consider if the environment within which they live and work issecure and stable.

If they have done all these things, then theysurely must have the trust and confidence of the citizens.

That is what counts and makes an individual,party or government electable. It is not how long they have been in power thatmatters.
That is why it was normal for PresidentBarack Obama to congratulate German Chancellor Angela Merkel on winningelections for a third time (in 2013) when she was in Washington last week. Itwas normal for him because that is what happens when a leader delivers onpledges and meets the expectations of the people.

If this is true for Merkel and Germany todayand for Tony Blair and Britain sometime ago, or indeed any other person inanother place, it should be just as correct for Paul Kagame in Rwanda or anotherperson in a different country. The test and reasons for being returned to powershould be a universal standard, equally applicable to all and not one reservedfor a few depending on where on this earth they live.

And talking about Rwanda, what is thesituation like regarding electoral pledges and the general performance ofgovernment that would, in normal circumstances, warrant continuity?

The President and his government have doneall the things mentioned above. The economy has been growing steadily. Rwandansare progressively moving out of poverty and beginning to enjoy rising livingstandards. They have greater access to education and healthcare. They are freerand enjoy more security than at any time in the history of the country.

In addition, Rwandans have chosen an allinclusive governance system in which they have a real say in how they aregoverned.
Clearly the President and his government havemet their part of the bargain in the election contract with the people.

Rwandans, too, feel that the President has fulfilled his pledges and taken themsome distance on the road to development. That is why they approve of the waythey are governed, which they have expressed many times in different ways.

First, they have shown this in the massiveendorsement of President Kagame in the two previous elections.

Secondly, they have said they trust theirPresident and other national institutions, such as the Police, the RwandaDefence Force, the Judiciary and many others. Various independent national andinternational surveys have confirmed this high level of trust.

For instance,according to the findings of a recent study by the Institute for PolicyAnalysis in Rwanda, 99 per cent of Rwandans trust President Kagame. Thesefindings compare favourably with others by such organizations as the GallupPoll and Legatum Institute.

Going by the reasons why political leadersand their parties are returned, President Kagame and the Rwanda Patriotic Front(RPF) have met all the criteria for being returned should they wish to contestany future election.

They have met their promises, have moved the countryforward, and enjoy the trust and confidence of the people and even of theinternational community.

In normal circumstances and where rules applyequally and fairly, this fact should be the only standard to determine whetheran individual or party should seek to continue governing the country. It is what happens elsewhere.

There is no reason why Rwanda should be the exception.

Source:newtimes

 

[msemakweli]

By: Joseph Rwagatare

In the next three years all the countriesmaking up the East African Community will have held general and presidentialelections. Already there is a great deal of talk – even concern, especially byoutsiders – about who will contest and who should not.
These concerns are often couched in whatappears to be reasonable terms – adherence to democratic practice, respect forthe constitution and sticking to term limits, and so on. In reality, however,their focus is on individuals not on issues that elections are decided on. Theemphasis and tone of all the talk seems to be about barring some individuals.It is not about giving the people better services or making the system ofelections better. In my humble opinion, this is missing the point aboutelections, why they are held and won or lost. It actually skews the debate fromthe real issues of democracy to undue attention on personalities.
The question should be about why politicalparties and their leaders get elected in the first place and are returned insubsequent elections. In all democracies the electability and continuity ofgovernments depends on a number of factors. The first is whether they have aprogramme for governing the country effectively and whether they are capable ofdelivering it. If they have been in power, the test is whether they havedelivered on election promises, also known as manifesto.
Secondly, governments and their leaders arejudged on how they have solved challenges the country faces and laid a strongfoundation for a better future. For instance, people make decisions based onthe government's record on such things as growing the economy, creating jobs,raising citizens' living standards, and providing better education and healthcare. They also consider if the environment within which they live and work issecure and stable.
If they have done all these things, then theysurely must have the trust and confidence of the citizens.
That is what counts and makes an individual,party or government electable. It is not how long they have been in power thatmatters.
That is why it was normal for PresidentBarack Obama to congratulate German Chancellor Angela Merkel on winningelections for a third time (in 2013) when she was in Washington last week. Itwas normal for him because that is what happens when a leader delivers onpledges and meets the expectations of the people.
If this is true for Merkel and Germany todayand for Tony Blair and Britain sometime ago, or indeed any other person inanother place, it should be just as correct for Paul Kagame in Rwanda or anotherperson in a different country. The test and reasons for being returned to powershould be a universal standard, equally applicable to all and not one reservedfor a few depending on where on this earth they live.
And talking about Rwanda, what is thesituation like regarding electoral pledges and the general performance ofgovernment that would, in normal circumstances, warrant continuity?
The President and his government have doneall the things mentioned above. The economy has been growing steadily. Rwandansare progressively moving out of poverty and beginning to enjoy rising livingstandards. They have greater access to education and healthcare. They are freerand enjoy more security than at any time in the history of the country.
In addition, Rwandans have chosen an allinclusive governance system in which they have a real say in how they aregoverned.
Clearly the President and his government havemet their part of the bargain in the election contract with the people.Rwandans, too, feel that the President has fulfilled his pledges and taken themsome distance on the road to development. That is why they approve of the waythey are governed, which they have expressed many times in different ways.
First, they have shown this in the massiveendorsement of President Kagame in the two previous elections.
Secondly, they have said they trust theirPresident and other national institutions, such as the Police, the RwandaDefence Force, the Judiciary and many others. Various independent national andinternational surveys have confirmed this high level of trust. For instance,according to the findings of a recent study by the Institute for PolicyAnalysis in Rwanda, 99 per cent of Rwandans trust President Kagame. Thesefindings compare favourably with others by such organizations as the GallupPoll and Legatum Institute.
Going by the reasons why political leadersand their parties are returned, President Kagame and the Rwanda Patriotic Front(RPF) have met all the criteria for being returned should they wish to contestany future election. They have met their promises, have moved the countryforward, and enjoy the trust and confidence of the people and even of theinternational community.
In normal circumstances and where rules applyequally and fairly, this fact should be the only standard to determine whetheran individual or party should seek to continue governing the country. It iswhat happens elsewhere. There is no reason why Rwanda should be the exception.

You can not compare Germany's chancellor to the president of rwanda! The chancellor of germany is not appointed by the people and therefore is not subject to term limits, and is just a head of government, unlike rwanda's president who is elected by the people and is both head of state and government.
Paul Kagame needs to step down and let the country move on!