POLITICS apex of Rwanda ’ s “ political space .” If Rwanda ’ s political space is filled with such a diversity of actors at the gender and party levels – and even at the ethnic subtext – then why does the country continue to face the charge that its political space is closed ? Here ’ s why .
During Urugwiro meetings , of the late 1990s , a gathering of opinion leaders from all walks of Rwandan life , whose aim was to chart the direction the country would take following the catastrophe of genocide , it was agreed that the country would continue to operate a multi-party system . The decisions that came from these gatherings were taken to the people through consultations that would lead to the first post-genocide constitution . Perhaps the most shocking discovery during the consultations was that the people did not want multi party politics . The argument was that the charged political atmosphere ( of political ethnicity ) around the introduction of multiparty politics in the early 1990s had served as a catalyst for the genocide . It is the politicians who brought their divisions to the people , they argued .
How to reconcile the position of the Urugwiro gatherings and that of the consultations became a pressing issue . Since political parties were known for bringing divisions to the people , what if they could call them something else ? The framers of the constitution returned to the people the argument that unlike in the pre-genocide period , there would be a political family
“ umuryango ” that would deliberate in a spirit of cooperation on key challenges facing the country and share ideas on how to overcome them ( kungurana ibitekerezo ).
Astonishingly , the people didn ’ t have a problem with political families that may have different ideas but they could discuss and the superior ideas would emerge as long as the objective was to address Rwanda ’ s pressing challenges . This explains why Rwanda constitution recognizes political “ organisations ” [ Imitwe ya Politiki ] rather than political “ parties ” or “ amashyaka .” Most significantly , the requirement that they work together to solve challenges held in common is what gave birth to the politics of dialogue and consensus .
Article 10 of the Constitution establishes power sharing a “ fundamental principle ” of the state of Rwanda . Article 62 operationalizes this fundamental principle thus :
“ The President of the Republic and the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies cannot come from the same political organisation . Cabinet members are selected from political organisations on the basis of seats held by those political organisations in the Chamber of Deputies . However , a political organisation holding the majority of seats in the Chamber of Deputies cannot have more than fifty ( 50 %) per cent of Cabinet members . It is not prohibited for other competent persons to be appointed to Cabinet .”
Once the power is shared the political actors are required to arrive at decisions through a “ constant quest for solutions through dialogue and consensus ,” another fundamental principle of the Constitution . The Constitution also establishes the National Political Consultative Forum as a permanent , voluntary , platform for such cooperation of political organizations . The face of the Consultative Forum is Dr . Frank Habineza of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda ( DGPR ), its spokesperson .
We have seen charged political contestation deliver multipartyism without democracy . This is partly due to the dogmatic commitment to the process rather than the content . This is what Rwandans rejected : they had learned the hard way about the ruins of a cosmetic model of democracy that places a premium on form rather than content , on process rather than outcome . Instead , they chose a model grounded in cooperation ( process ), itself grounded in solving society ’ s most pressing issues ( outcome ).
This is the much-maligned political system that doesn ’ t live up to liberal democracy ’ s demands for charged contestation . A political practice that does not live up to the adversarial expectations that are the hallmark of western democracy cannot get the stamp of approval from the “ architects of democracy .” Indeed , until the process is aligned to the expectations of liberal democracy then whatever outcome results from any other process will not get the validation of the “ international community .” Consequently , the political space will continue to be defined as “ closed .” Which begs the question : to whom is the political space closed if the actors in the political system
07