There have been a bunch of articles looking backwards and forwards at Rwanda as the presidential election approaches. The consensus seems to be that Paul Kagame is becoming more repressive and stifling opposition - sometimes violently. At the same time however, he is also showing success rebuilding and improving the country. Corruption is low compared to the rest of Africa, violence is also relatively low and his iron fist may be helping to eliminate the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi (if anything can). Aid donors are happy and international investment is up.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment