For me, consultations with the people carried out by Parliament awoke me from some kind of slumber and I realized what was happening. People simply understand they have an opportunity to say, “Yes, this is the right man, for the right time, at the right place.”
I had heard and read about term limits and beyond 2017. As any political being, I also wondered if a law could be allowed to annihilate the will of the people and violate their right of self-governance and self-fulfillment. I wrestled with the question if the law can be used for anything except protecting the will and rights of people?
Academia and our elite on one side argued that politics and government are about delivering on the needs and desires of citizens. They defended that the people are the authors of the law, and undoubtedly it is their responsibility to make law the ultimate principle of national fulfilment.
Senators Gallican Niyongana, Jeanne d’Arc Gakuba and Consolee Uwimana with residents in Shyogwe.
On another side, some argue that a certain provision of the Rwandan constitution is untouchable because someone has to go, regardless the goals and results set by the authors of that Constitution.
Even Rousseau, the godfather of democrats, who is credited for his social and political theory based upon the will of the people, he condoned the inertness of people in the presence of omnipotent laws. But he also engendered disciples who disagreed with him arguing that laws must be obeyed, not simply because they are laws, but because they ought to be laws.
They argued that people are the underlying principle of democracy, not gods or their laws. Rousseau acknowledged that he had some misfortunes in his life, and one of those is certainly to deify laws.
Back to Rwanda now. The people claim ownership of the social contract, and they are defining a destiny not imposed upon them by an Article. They have understood that the rule of law is where laws apply indeed, but not the people decide for themselves. Laws are embodiment of the will of the people, not the substitute at the people at the people’s expense. Democracy is not about the free will of the people regulated laws, but rather enforced by laws.
In that regard, the question that should be constantly asked, is if the law in place works or delivers the intended or envisioned results and values for the people. People need results, not gazettes and codes. The citizenry just need provisions that work for them, unless we are talking about a certain religion or community where laws are given from above the clouds or overseas.
Fortunately however, what is common to Rwandans as it is being observed, is the firm attachment and desire to their right and power to personally participate both in a direct democracy and through their representatives, with the belief and hope in a better, united and respected Rwanda.
The popular storming of Article 101 of the Constitution of Rwanda is a turning point or the “kairos” in the democratization of Rwanda. The Rwandan uniqueness in the present case is other than a spirit of comfort zone on issues of modern politics, such as socio-economic development, education, healthcare, justice, service delivery.
The sustainable leadership of the state is all that is on their mind and the problem being posed is not actually about term limits or what the Constitution stipulates as such. And in that line, Rwandans, like the first Greek democracy, have understood that at this particular time, democracy and the law must ensure that the most able are elected to public office.
The social contract underlying the present debate is therefore about sustainable results of growth and stability. This is the charter of the Government’s own existence and laws are supposed to implement that charter and to guarantee success of the state.
That being said, some other people have the democratic right to boast in laws, despite poor results, often with “democracies” dominated by demagogues and populists, bureaucracy and legalism on control, and over proud of enforcement of laws that shouldn’t be laws. We know very well that poor delivery can be achieved with the least of imagination, if even imagination at all, by efforts of remaining within political traditions, rather than taking on the burden of daring to think and pragmatic democracy.
Some cynics and foes, caught up in their own talking points and attack lines, will therefore only bring shame upon themselves trying to denigrate the social contract of Rwandans who consider President Paul Kagame as the “Kairos” that cannot be let go, if success is to be achieved. People have discerned that in him they have their supreme favourable moment. It takes the highest degree of skepticism to doubt the spontaneity of the people’s arguments run on local waves and online.
It is obvious that the citizens are practicing direct democracy. The future of Rwanda is the choice of Rwandans by themselves in their sovereign infallibility, unembarrassed to adopt the advantages, and reject the inconveniences, and not bothered with unscrupulous you know who, who attempt to oppose or denigrate the will of the people of Rwanda. This time though, I guess Rwandans have outdrawn them.
Like, the “kairos” happens, Rwandans look more than ready for the ride in their supreme moment of sovereignty. And the mere thought of taking advantage of the rightness of President Paul Kagame ignites their imagination, not just the right person, for the right time, at the right place, but also a leader of the people who does the right thing at the right place on the right time.
MUSHIMIRE Olivier