The Oxford protestors made me ashamed of being African

President Kagame (at front right) holds the ‘Distinction of Honor for African Growth Award’ at the audience rose in a standing ovation (Photo by Albert Rudatsimburwa via Twitter)

I love living and working in the warm Rwandan sun. And honestly, I don’t see anywhere in the world I would rather be than here at home. But every year, I suffer huge pangs of jealousy whenever there is a Rwanda Day celebration, either in the US or Europe. It seems so fun and so informative.  As I watch the celebratory scenes on YouTube and Rwanda Television on Sunday, I was reminded of the October 1^st festivals I used to attend with my parents as a child. When I saw the dancing and singing at the Rwanda Day celebrations, I remember the same in Toronto back in the early nineties. I remember those celebrations as some of the most glorious times during our exile because those were the times the entire Rwandan community came together to celebrate our culture, our tradition and our common patrimony. That was when we proclaimed to the world that we were ‘Rwandan and proud’.

Prior to Rwanda Day, I watched with interest as a bunch of misguided busybodies worked themselves into a tizzy, railing against the Rwandan leadership, and sometimes against Rwandans themselves. Using the might of social media, they tried to throw a spanner in the works of the Oxford University business school event celebrating President Kagame’s achievements in pulling Rwandans out of poverty. When the online campaign failed, instead of admitting defeat gracefully and moving on with their lives, they decided to go native.

On Twitter I saw a bunch of haters go on and on about their triumphant ‘protest’. It was only after I came across a YouTube video by ‘The Voice of Congo’ that I saw what their protest was really like. I had assumed that the protestors would stand on the side of the road, spew their nonsense and lift a few placards. I assumed wrong. Wild looking men and women wearing military fatigues calling themselves ‘freedom fighters’ (with names like James Bond Never Die) ran around, throwing themselves in front of the President’s car and pelting his motorcade with eggs. All the while screaming obscenities in Lingala, hoisting posters of Etienne Tshisekedi (the self-styled ‘People’s President’) and acting like buffoons.

While I was merely disgusted by the antics with the President’s motorcade, I felt the blood drain from my face when I saw the animals (I am loath to call them protestors. Martin Luther King Jr was a protestor, these people where animals) surround the business school, and threaten the students with death and sexual assault if they dared walk out of the building.

Watching the scenes, I was shocked by the vitriol. Not from the tiny group of Rwandan protestors mind you (they stood on the sidewalk and acted civilized. Misguided in my opinion but civilized nevertheless) but from the numerous Congolese. The video left wondering why in the world these people had so much hatred for a president of another country that they would risk being trampled on by police horses?

I came to the conclusion that they had been so confused and lied to, that they actually believed that their country’s political, economic and social problems was Rwanda’s fault.

Watching them call our president a “killer”, I wished I could ask them about Kofi Annan’s recent report which details the manner in which international mineral companies and members of the state apparatus are conniving to strip Congo’s mineral wealth. I would ask about the Minova rapes, in which Congolese troops are accused of sexually assaulting scores of women. I would ask them about the legacy of Mobutu Sese Seko. I would challenge them about the fact that they were hiding in European capitals, living on welfare and menial employment, instead of going back to their country and actually doing their part to develop it.

I’ve noticed a tendency among some of us to blame outsiders for our woes. This must end if we are to actually move forward. Refusing to acknowledge the systemic issues that we have will only keep us in the dark longer than needs be. I am proud to live in a nation that is tackling its issues head on. Now if only the citizens of our dear neighbor could do the same…

Success and succession: What lessons can we take from Sir Alex Ferguson’s reign and retirement?

Sir Alex Ferguson’s reign at Manchester United has been extremely sucessful

As a lifelong Manchester United fan I was left in a state of befuddlement when I learnt that Sir Alex Ferguson was retiring at the end of this week as manager of the English football champions. But as I recovered from the news, I realized that the great manager had left at the right time and in the right way.

When Ferguson became manager in 1986, he found a team that was living on past glory (and the odd Cup triumph) and a squad that was full of drunkards. In fact, the captain and talisman of the team, Bryan Robson (aka Captain Marvel) was the worst offender. Instead of trying to buy his way out of trouble like some modern managers, he slowly but surely changed the club from within by revitalizing the scouting system and encouraging youth. Of course this ‘slow but sure’ approach took a lot of time (he did not win his first major trophy until 1990) but the board stayed the course and kept faith with him.

The team that finally won the Premiership for him included United legends like Mark Hughes, Eric Cantona, Paul Ince, Bryan Robson, Steve Bruce and Andrei Kanchelskis. This team then won him a few more. But instead of sitting on the team’s laurels he dismantled it, replacing it with a team of youngsters like Gary Neville, David Beckham, Paul Scholes and Nicky Butt. Journalists thought that Ferguson had lost the plot, but history proves that he made the right call replacing the veterans.

So, after thirteen Premiership trophies, two Champions Leagues, five FA Cups, ten Charity Shields, one UEFA Cup Winners Cup, one UEFA Super Cup, one Intercontinental Cup and a FIFA Club World Cup, he decided to call it a day. And not did he only call it quits, he also ensured that the next manager would be someone he recommended.

Supporting the wrong team? President Kagame is a huge Arsenal FC fan. But his management style is more Fergie than Wenger

Why am I writing all this (other than to rub rival fans noses in it) is because I see certain likeness between the boss of United and the CEO of Rwanda Inc, President Kagame. Both entered their respective arena with huge challenges (although I would have to say that the Kagame had far greater issues dealing with the aftermath of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi than Sir Alex ever had), both systematically weeded out the subversive elements in the ‘dressing room’ (Kayumba et al), both believed and invested in youth (Just visit any government department. The number of Under-30’s will astound you), both have led their respective ‘sides’ to unremitting triumph despite whatever obstacles they met (whereas Ferguson dealt with the challenges of the Mourinho’s, Mancini’s and Benitez’s, Kagame has dealt with the Kabila’s, Roth’s and ICC’s of this world) and both men’s management style has been studied by Harvard Business School students.

Because of their exemplary leadership and accomplishments, the idea of succession has given both men’s ‘fans’ heart palpitations. In fact one of my fellow columnists, Prof Manasseh Nshuti, has written twelve installments of his popular ‘Change with stability and continuity: A political homework’, a series that tackles the issue of what Rwandans should do post-2017 when President Kagame’s constitutional mandate comes to a close.  However, as Manchester United fans found out, one man couldn’t stay at the top indefinitely, no matter their wishes. But what made the bitter pill more palatable was the fact that, first of all, he’d left at the very top. Secondly, he’d left a structure that would ensure competitiveness for years to come. And thirdly, he’d handpicked a worthy successor in his opinion to ensure that the Manchester United brand of football would continue to live on.

Right now, talk of Kagame’s retirement is a bit premature. However, this doesn’t mean that anything should be taken for granted. A future post- Kagame must be faced head on (no matter when that is). Youth-based development should be continuously natured and our brand of political and economical ‘football’ must become second nature.  Change with stability and continuity is Sir Alex’s parting gift to Manchester United. How we ensure that is not just our leadership’s homework, but ours as well.

Journalism in Rwanda remains a balancing act

The imprisonment of editor Agnes Uwimana and reporter Saidat Mukakibibi leaves me in an uncomfortable position.

The Kigali High Court found Uwimana guilty of threatening state security by publishing material aimed at inciting public disorder and creating ethnic divisions – for that she was given a 17-year jail term. Mukakibibi, like Uwimana, was an employee of the Kinyarwanda-language newspaper Umurabyo (‘Lightening’). She was similarly charged but got seven years behind bars. Thankfully, the Supreme Court reduced their sentences to four and three years, respectively, on appeal.

As a practising journalist, I found the amount of jail time disproportionate to their actual ‘crimes’. As I wrote last year in reaction to the High Court’s verdict and sentence, men and women found guilty of participating in the 1994 genocide have been jailed for less time. So have armed robbers, hoodlums, rapists and corrupt officials who have stolen millions of francs from the national treasury.

I believed that such sentences could only be justified if, through their writing, the women (one of whom suffers from HIV) threatened the security of the entire Rwandan community. Obviously, they didn’t.

But it isn’t black and white. As a journalist, I was outraged that my colleagues in the field could be imprisoned. However, as a law-abiding citizen, I am uncomfortable with the notion of anyone being above the law – no matter who they were or what they did.

To understand the harshness of the laws – especially those pertaining to sectarianism and ethnic politics – one must look back two decades ago.

In the run-up to the genocide, in which more than a million people lost their lives, the media ratcheted up tensions. In 1990, Kangura (‘Wake up’), a particularly notorious paper, published the Hutu Ten Commandments. Among other things, they called Hutu men who marry Tutsi women “traitors”. Most chillingly, commandment eight called on the Hutu “to stop having mercy on the Tutsi”.

Then, in 1993, Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was established. The radio station quickly became popular with young people for its music. Yet those pop songs were aired in between diatribes against the peace talks that were taking place between the government and the Rwanda Patriotic Front rebels, who form the spine of the Rwandan government today. Referring to Tutsis as “cockroaches” and “tall trees that needed to be cut down”, RTLM journalists called for a “final war to exterminate the Tutsi”.

And this terrible history is the foundation for the media laws put in place after 1994. These laws were enacted by men and women who had stared into the abyss. And they didn’t like what they had seen.

Today, we, the Rwandan media, are at a crossroads. The government for the first time has enacted laws that guarantee freedom of information and self-regulation on the media’s part. Now it is time to figure out just how much leeway we have – especially when discussing issues that bring up the ghosts of 1994. We have to figure out a balance between our freedoms as journalists and our responsibility to our audience, one that is still extremely jittery and sensitive.

Divorce clause: The law cannot fix what is irreconcilably broken

Back when I was still a law school student I thought it hilariously unfortunate that an unhappy couple had to stay married for five years before they could get divorced. Why did I think it was hilarious? Because it boggled my mind that lawmakers could even attempt to get intervene in a failed marriage. In my estimation it was a recipe for disaster.

Imagine this scenario; a couple marries too young and then grows apart. Or they get married because the girl is pregnant, an event colloquially known as the ‘Kigali Proposal’.  Later on, they find that raising a child together isn’t a good enough reason to stay in a marriage that isn’t working. So, instead of wasting any more time they want to amicably go their separate ways. But they find that they have to stay ‘married’ for another five years.

Unfortunately, our laws intervene in even such mutual, and private, matters. I believe that this refusal to let a marriage ‘die gracefully’ is borne out of two things; our culture as Rwandans and the advent of Christianity (more especially Catholicism).  Culturally and religiously speaking, the very idea of divorce was abhorrent to Rwandans.

Historically, a man who sent his wife back to her parents (known as ‘Gusenda’ in Kinyarwanda) because he was unable to ‘Kwihangana’ (to persevere) lost face. He was seen as a failure. So, in a society where losing face was sometimes worse than death, divorce was not a step taken lightly.

When Rwanda become colonised and evangelised, divorce became even more taboo. In Matthew Chapter 19 Verse 9, Jesus says, and I quote, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” So, when married couples vowed to stay married “til death do us part” the entire community fully expected them to fulfill those vows come hell or high water.

I sincerely understand the points of view of those who support the idea of a waiting period. I can’t think of any married couples that enter into the marriage contract thinking theirs is the marriage that wont stand the test of time. However, the fact is, some simply don’t.  And while I can understand the larger family getting involved and attempting to repair the relationship, why in the world is the State getting involved? Is it not simply overreaching and putting its nose in matters that don’t affect it?

Yes it regulates the marriage age. Yes it regulates the marriage process (the wedding banns and what not). But that doesn’t mean that it has the right to refuse divorce, especially when it is by mutual consent. To continue doing so is an imposition on personal freedoms.

Parliamentarians are butting their noses into business that doesnt concern them

The State should not have the right to tell me when I can or cannot divorce. It’s simply preposterous. I am honestly shocked that our Members of Parliament are simply thinking about reducing the ‘waiting period’ from five to two. I urge them to stop living in a fantasy world where if they don’t allow a couple to divorce, they will magically fall in love again and live happily ever after. That way of thinking should be left to Hollywood romantic-comedy scriptwriters than hardnosed legislators.

I know that the ‘marriage-at-all cost brigade’ will bash me for my views. But I stand by them. I believe that we need laws that protect personal freedoms and treat us like adults. Currently, our legislators are not giving us the respect that we deserve. We are being infantilised by a State that is guilty is over-reaching.  I urge our MPs to take us forward. Help create a nation that is more liberal, not less.

 

Cut our young leaders some slack people, don’t expect miracles

Arthur, Former Chairman of Media High Council and new Orinfor head, with Minister of State in charge of Cabinet Affairs Protais Musoni (Photo: Timothy Kisambira)

Last week I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Arthur Asiimwe, fellow columnist, former colleague, close personal friend (and in-law to boot) was given the task to reinvigorate Orinfor, the national broadcast service, as its new managing director.  I wish him the very best of luck because he will need it. Cleaning up the mess in Orinfor will be more difficult than cleaning the mythical Augean Stables.

His task isn’t only removing all the deadwood in Radio Rwanda, Rwanda Television and the Printer, he must also improve programming. All this without being able to carry out a cull in the institution simply because firing staff is notoriously difficult. He will need the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Haile Gebrasalassie, the patience of a saint and the Wisdom of Solomon. All this at the tender age of 32.

Rwanda is a really interesting nation. I’ve lived in a few countries in the world, but I cannot think of one that has so many young people holding the levers of power. It doesn’t matter the institution, you will find 20 and 30-somethings running things. We have Advisors to Ministers who are just 28. Imagine, 28 years of age. That’s incredible.

 

A case of too much too soon? President Kagame attended the Agaciro Fund event organised by Umurinzi Young Professionals- Kigali, 5 October 2012

And while these youngsters have Ivy League educations, they usually have less than five years working experience in any position. As anyone will tell you, there is a huge disparity between the actual workplace and the university classroom.

I’ve worked in the media industry for the last decade on and off. What I’ve noticed is that, because of the low skills base, people who should be cub reporters (or mere staff writers and journalists) are put in positions of authority in the newsrooms merely because they are proficient in either French or English and have more than rudimentary skills in communication. So, instead of learning the tools of the trade they become leaders. The situation is like the idiom, ‘in the land of the blind the one-eyed person is king’. Lets not forget however, that despite their ‘royalty’, they are still one-eyed.

One of the biggest problems that I’ve had in the career I’ve chosen is the lack of ‘Inararibonye’ (mentors); men and women who I want to emulate and can learn a lot from. Not just about work but about life as well.  All this makes me wonder, where are these experienced hands? Where are the professionals who have worked in institutions for decades, garnering years of institutional knowledge, willing to pass on all their knowledge? I don’t know. Perhaps they have all retired.

 

An artistic impression of the proposed Orinfor HQ’s.

While I don’t want to live in a country where the vast majority of the leadership is almost senile, it is my belief that many prospective ‘Young Turks’ end up not living up to expectation simply because they end up biting off more than they can chew. Not because they were unqualified or unintelligent but because they weren’t ready. Instead of making them head honchos, perhaps it would’ve been wiser to groom them slowly and let them grow into their positions. Trust me, it sometimes gets overwhelming for us young folk.

I have a theory that perhaps explains all this. The Liberation War was fought and won by men and women in their 30’s.  So the logic is, if these ‘youngsters’ could do it, why can’t the next generation? Those who subscribe to this theory must understand that, first of all, these young people were actually battle-hardened and therefore, experienced. Secondly, they had many mentors who shared with them their life lessons. The lessons that they learnt from Inararibonye are still being applied today as they govern the country.

I’m not saying that we cannot do the job. I’m not saying that we are frightened of carrying the mantle. All I’m saying is that you cannot expect miracles from us. Understand that we shall make mistakes; not because we are incompetent but simply because we are learning on the job.

Want to realize Vision 2020? Then start eating at your desk!

Kigali City as envisaged in the Vision 2020 development plan

About a month ago, I found myself in a conference room at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning building listening to a presentation on the second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS 2).  I discovered that Rwanda’s leadership refused to rest on its laurels. I learnt that despite the fact that one million Rwandans had said “urabeho” to poverty, enjoying growth rates of above 8%, there was even more goals needed to accomplish.

According to Mr. Godfrey Kabera, the Ministry’s Director of Policy Evaluation and Research, key targets of the EDPRS 2 is an average growth rate of 11.5% per year, poverty reduction to below 30% and the creation of 200,00 new jobs a year among others. All this in between 2013- 2018. While a growth rate of 11.5% per year is extremely high, it isn’t impossible. Just think about it, how hard was it get to 8% growth a year? Now, we need to ask ourselves, how can we squeeze an extra four percent?

The only way that this will become possible is if we individualize our country’s development goals. We need to make them our own. And, if we are honest with ourselves, we know where we can improve our individual output. For example, if you enter the vast majority of public and private institutions at around two in the afternoon, you will be met with closed doors and empty offices. Why? Because the staff members have disappeared to enjoy a two-hour lunch break.

I had an interesting conversation with a senior manager in a government department. I asked him what he thought about the average workers

The famous Afrika Bite lunch buffet

lunchtime routine of either driving home or walking to a nearby restaurant to enjoy a leisurely meal. “How much output was his institution losing, I asked. “Probably millions”, he answered. We then discussed whether it would be possible to change the lunch culture to make it normal for workers to either eat a packed lunch at their desks or in the communal cafeteria.  We agreed that it would need a sea change in the way we tackled work. Leisurely three-course lunches with a siesta thrown in would have to be replaced with sandwiches at the workstation. Other workers around the world do it, why can’t we?  You can say that it would increase output by minuscule proportions, but every little thing counts. Remember, we are talking about a ‘mere’ addition 4%.

They say that ‘time is money’. Well, if this is so, we are losing billions because of people’s tardiness.  About two months ago, I needed to get

Eat at work people!

something notarized and so I travelled to the notary offices at The High Court premises. First of all, I was shocked to learn that the notary only worked after two in the afternoon. It was plastered proudly on her door (perhaps that is policy). However, what really got my goat was the fact that when her office hours begun, she was nowhere to be found. This, despite the fact that there were about fifty people patiently waiting for her.

Sure you can say that she finally appeared and did her job but I wonder, how many man hours did she make those 50-plus people waste? One, three, four? If each person lost about five hundred francs sitting there doing nothing productive then collectively they, and the country, lost 25,000 worth of output (which I believe is a very low estimation). And that is in a single office.

I’m not so arrogant that I think that better time management will take us to the Promised Land, but unless we radically improve it, we will struggle a lot more than we really need to.

 

The Boston bombings are revealing a lot of hypocrisy

Boston Marathon Bombing. Less than 5 dead

I was watching the news on Monday night when a breathless journalist, telling us that there were two explosions close to the finish line of the Boston Marathon, interrupted regular programming. At the time of writing this, I heard that there were three innocents dead and more than 150 injured.

It’s a tragic event for sure.  But I noted two things that I felt I should talk about.

First of all, I noted just how sober minded the journalists, who reported the event, were. Before it was confirmed, none of them, no matter their media affiliation, termed the explosions a ‘bombing’. They avoided the word ‘terrorism’ and they were very mindful of the tone of their language. They refused to speculate on the causes of the two blasts until they got official confirmation. Only after Vice President Biden released a statement saying the blasts were caused by bombs, did CNN call it a ‘bombing’.

The media understood that pronouncements could either exacerbate the situation, sowing hysteria, or lessen the tension in Boston and the rest of the country. They choose the former and good for them. Now only if these very same western journalists had been so ethical in, for instance, Kenya during the run up to the presidential election, I wouldn’t have an issue. But they weren’t. Instead of sober analysis and responsible reporting, they made an already jittery populace even more nervous. It got so bad that Kenyans took to Twitter to denounce CNN’s reporting.  In fact, it was left to Kenyan journalists to remain professional. Funny enough, these responsible journalists were judged by their western peers for being politically influenced.

It would seem that there are different rules being applied here. But I’m not surprised and neither should anyone else; after all, don’t we all know that ‘west is Best…and to hell with all the rest?

The second thing I noticed was just how vocal local social media enthusiasts were following the bombings. It seemed as if every Rwandan on social media sent ‘prayers’ to the victims. And why not? We are a global community and what happens to Bostonians affects us all. However, I must ask this question. When a grenade attack occurred near Kimironko market on March 26, killing one person and injured about eight, I did not get the same sense of global community. Honestly, forget ‘global’, there was barely a peep from Kigalians.

A woman near the site of the car bomb, in Mogadishu. More than 50 dead

This made me wonder. Have we been so brainwashed and blasé that we only react when the tragedy occurs in certain places? Places that don’t ‘deserve’ tragedy? Just this weekend 50 civilians were killed in an attack on a courthouse in Mogadishu by Al-Shabaab. Lets be honest here, how many of you posted links on their Facebook and Twitter denouncing the attack and standing with the people of Somalia?

This situation reminds me of George Orwell’s classic, Animal Farm. In a famous passage of the book, Napoleon  the head honcho, writes on the barnyard door, ‘all animals (read humans) are created equal but some animals are more equal than others’.

In other news, Rwanda refused to allow the UN Security Council to insert language in a statement praising the International Criminal Court (ICC). That shouldn’t have been surprising to anyone considering the fact that it refused to sign the Rome Statue establishing it. However, the Associated Press’s James Spielmann writes that: ‘Rwanda is angry that the ICC has indicted Bosco Ntaganda and Laurent Nkunda, M23 rebels in eastern Congo, who are reported to be backed by Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

He then continues, ‘ Analysts have speculated that Kagame may not want to see Ntaganda testify at The Hague court because of his knowledge of military deals and illicit mineral extractions between Congo and Rwanda’.

Forget that Nkunda isn’t even indicted by the ICC. Did the reporter do even a bit of research? If he had he would’ve known that Rwanda cooperated with the US and the ICC to fly Ntaganda to The Hague. Secondly, Ntaganda was indicted for what he allegedly did in Ituri under the command of Thomas Lubanga. The same Lubanga who was found guilty by the ICC. Was Rwanda even mentioned in the first trial? No. What makes anyone think that it will be involved in this second trial? This is just lazy journalism.