By Brendan
Cashewman
November 9, 2009
["Benevolent dictator" is almost, but not quite, an oxymoron. I suppose there are very few precedents in history, but I could be wrong on that. A recent example that comes to mind is Salazar, who governed Portugal as Prime Minister and dictator from 1932 to 1968. To be sure, he had secret police and most of the accoutrements of a typical dictatorship, but it has to be said that he did Portugal a great deal of good in a bad time===Doug].
I worked in Rwanda this summer, for the second time. It’s a fantastic country, and one that I’m very enthusiastic about. 2010 sees the next set of Rwandan Presidential elections, which Paul Kagame is almost guaranteed to win. President Kagame is getting more of a voice on the international stage, and so Brendan asked me to take a brief look at him.
It’s fifteen years after the genocide in Rwanda, and seven years since Paul Kagame assumed office as President. In that time, Rwanda has thrived. Kagame has actively pursued pro-business policies, making Rwanda attractive to international companies, and to large funding organizations. As a result, Rwanda has shown year-on-year GDP growth of over 7%, for the past three years.
Kagame has been getting more international publicity recently. Everything he says is in vogue with current development thinking: he favours foreign investment over aid, and his pro-women policies have resulted in 56% of the parliament being female (a higher percentage than anywhere else in the world).
There is, however, a downside to all of this. As the Economist says: President Kagame “allows less political space and freedom of the press than Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe”; reporters are frequently threatened, and even the BBC was suspended from broadcasting for criticizing the government.
Plato said that the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, and this is, in effect, what Rwanda has. Kagame is officially elected, but he has 95% approval – indicative of a stifled political process. When I’ve spoken to Rwandan friends about this, no-one has a bad thing to say about Kagame. But it’s hard to have a debate when the opposing voice isn’t allowed to speak.
In my opinion, Kagame says all the right things. He’s a strong leader in a country crying out for leadership - Rwandans I’ve spoken to feel that the country could have collapsed into another genocide without his presence. I love the country, I’m impressed by it’s leader, and I really want to believe that he can transition power effectively, when his constitutional mandate ends in 2017.
What do you think? Is restricting the press and other political parties acceptable, if the country is progressing? Are a functioning democracy and free press an important part of development?
Note:
Manpreet Singh seems to have scored both the first guest Shot of the Day and Guest post on Cashewman. He is currently completing his degree in Medicine at Cambridge, and works with clean burning stoves as a way of combating pneumonia among children in Rwanda. Fascinated by Kagame but lacking the knowledge, I asked him to write a guest spot for Cashewman.
Related Materials:
More than 50% children in Rwanda are stunted
Rwandan peasants on the brink of extinction
Rwanda: Paul Kagame’s War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and Crimes of Genocide
Rwanda: Is Paul Kagame the New Hitler?
On The Myth of Economic Prosperity in Rwanda
Rwanda Today: When Foreign Aid Hurts More Than It Helps
Rwanda: Economic Growth Sustained Through Free Labor
Rwanda has not healed: "Tribalism, state sponsored abuses continue"
Planting bio-fuels, in Rwanda, while Rwandans go hungry
Rwanda: campaigners say the country is starving while the government says criticism is unfounded
No comments:
Post a Comment