Jan 26, 2009

How Long Will Rwanda Maintain It’s Glow for Western Philanthropists?

by Tim Ogden

In the years since the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has increasingly attracted a different kind of attention: It’s now as famous for its approach to philanthropy and development as for anything else. President Paul Kagame, particularly, has been lionized for creating a business-friendly investment environment, for cracking down on corruption and improving delivery of education and health services. The Rwandan administration has been supported in no small part by Western philanthropists. Among the best-known initiatives is the wildly successful effort to transform Rwanda’s coffee industry from low-quality commodity producers to luxury bean processors. There are many others. Rwanda is frequently referred to in philanthropic circles as one of the few bright rays of hope on the continent. More than a dozen Western philanthropists have regaled me with tales of Kagame’s charisma and intelligence, saying something along the lines of, “This guy just gets it.”

The remarkable transformation of Rwanda in the face of the devastating genocide has perhaps caused many outside of Africa to turn a blind eye to the other side of Rwanda’s history. While it has been receiving more attention lately, many philanthropists are unaware of, or ignore, Rwanda’s central role in starting and supporting the decade long war in Congo that has led to the deaths of an estimated 5.4 million people. An early December report from the UN detailed evidence of Rwanda’s long-standing material support of Gen. Laurent Nkunda, the leader of a Congolese militia that has been among the worst perpetrators of atrocities in eastern Congo. (Nkunda was arrested last weekend with Rwanda’s cooperation—but only after Congo agreed to let Rwanda send troops over the border). Elections last fall in Rwanda were absent the overt corruption, fraud and violence of so many African countries, but no one familiar with the political situation in Rwanda would call it an open and liberal democracy. Opposition parties are all but banned. Rwandans have that tell-tale caution and slowed speech pattern that is the unmistakable sign, in conversations about politics, of people that know that criticizing the government in public is to be avoided. A noted expert in East African politics (who asked to remain anonymous so he would continue to be free to travel to Rwanda—an indictment in itself) recently said, “Kagame is no democrat, and anyone who thinks he is, is dreaming. Kagame is worse than Museveni, worse than Zenawi [the democratically elected, but now nearly dictatorial, leaders of Uganda and Ethiopia, respectively- eds].”

So what should philanthropists make of a country and administration that seems to be doing all the right things from an economic standpoint but not in the political arena? Does Rwanda deserve the glowing reputation that it has?

Certainly, you have to consider the context. Genocide can fairly be said to change everything. Has there ever been a post-genocide country that moved immediately to a liberal democracy with full freedoms? Rwanda’s actions in Congo have been driven not only by political and economic goals but by the real threat that continues to be posed by the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide, which are still based over the border. It would be difficult as well to paint Rwanda in a negative light in terms of the post-genocide progress in Cambodia or Bosnia.

Perhaps the best analog for Rwanda is Singapore. While Singapore did not suffer a genocide, after its 1965 independence from Malaysia, the country was utterly devastated. A charismatic leader took control and formed an authoritarian democracy that continues to rule nearly 40 years later—and of course, he oversaw the country’s transformation into one of Asia’s most prosperous. Before criticizing Kagame and his authoritarian tendencies one has to have a credible alternative approach. The same political scientist who criticized Kagame’s non-democratic leanings also noted that at a recent summit of African experts, the crowd audibly groaned when someone pointed out that there were elections scheduled in more than 10 African countries in 2009—they were anticipating outcomes similar to what has been seen in Nigeria, Kenya and Zimbabwe.

So perhaps, the question should be how long does an authoritarian government, regardless of context, deserve philanthropic support? And is it possible to give it while still maintaining a realistic perspective about the country and its leaders?