Kagame's Re-Election as Rwanda's President Smells of Fraud

In April 1994, the African nation of Rwanda quite simply lost its mind. A nation ethnically divided between Tutsi and Hutu, some 800,000 people (mostly Tutsi, and some of the Hutu protectors) were killed in about 100 days. Paul Kagame led the rebel militia, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RFP by its French initials), into the capital and halted the killings. The RFP made peace with the previous regime, and the business of re-building the country began. Mr. Kagame gets a great deal of credit. So it is sad to see him starting to act like Robert Mugabe, also a former rebel leader who is now the worst dictator on the continent.

Mr. Kagame has served as his nation's president since 2000, between 1994 and 2000 he was vice president. During that time, Rwanda has become an African success story in many regards. Despite the social damage genocide caused, the gacaca courts (the local version of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission) have started to put things right between the Tutsi and Hutu. Foreign aid pours in regularly, keeping the country's government afloat. The economy is healthier; a $3.7 billion GDP for a population of 5 million is pretty solid by African standards and reflects 8-10% annual growth since the genocide and a general lack of corruption. Although 60% of those 5 million live below the poverty line, it is vastly better than in 1995.

However, the election results are coming in, and they reek of fraud. Poll chief Chrysologue Karangwa announced last night, "His Excellency Paul Kagame has 1,610,422 votes - this is equivalent to 92.9%. Fellow Rwandans, this is the result in eleven districts. Clearly, there is likely to be not much difference even after we announce the result in the remaining districts."

This is not to say that RFP supporters have stuffed ballot boxes. Instead, Mr. Kagame's three opponents are non-entities with ties to the RFP. In Poland during communism, there were two parties other than the Communist Party of Poland, but they always backed the regime's plans, so Poland surely wasn't a free democracy.

Frank Habineza, who founded Rwanda's unregistered Democratic Green Party, said he would be more impressed if Mr. Kagame had "competed with the real opposition." His party's vice-resident was murdered last month. Its candidates were not on the ballot. He complained, "We don't have freedom of the press, we don't have freedom of association, we don't have freedom of expression."

Human Rights Watch agrees noting that the run up to the elections featured "increasing political repression and a crackdown on free speech." The New York Times has reported, "Several Rwandans said in recent interviews that local officials and police officers had made them contribute to the Kagame campaign and vote for him. They could lose their jobs if they didn't." And when Rwandans vote, they do so by placing a thumb print next to the candidate's name. That print is easily used to determine who voted how -- there is no secret ballot.

Saddest of all is the fact that Mr. Kagame doesn't need to resort to fraud to win a 7-year term. The accomplishments of his government ought to be good for a majority of the vote. As the man who stopped the killing, as the man who has secured huge amounts of foreign aid, he should simply trust the Rwandan electorate. He does not need to tarnish his reputation with dictatorial behavior. One Mugabe on the continent is one too many; surely, Africa doesn't need any more.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home