On August 4, Rwanda held presidential elections, which
returned incumbent president Paul Kagame with a 98.63 per cent victory. The
other candidates in the race were Dr Frank Habineza and Mr Philipe Mpayimana.
This is the background of Rwanda's elections.
President Kagame was constitutionally barred from contesting
in this election, but a constitutional amendment was procured for the
benefaction of his candidature. The particulars of the procurement of this
constitutional amendment are that over 99 per cent of the population demanded
that Kagame be enabled to seek re-election (or to be precise, to continue
ruling Rwanda).
They petitioned parliament demanding for a constitutional
amendment. Parliament was overwhelmed by petitions from over 99 per cent of the
population. Since the voice of the people is the voice of God, parliament had
no choice but to initiate a process that led to a constitutional amendment. A
referendum held to validate the constitutional amendment returned 99 per cent
of the voters as supporting the said constitutional amendment. Why then do our
experts say president Kagame's 99 per cent victory was eye-brow rising?
The people who 'forced' Kagame to continue ruling them are
the same people who voted in the referendum to 'legalise' their 'force'. And
these are the same people who voted in the presidential elections to actualise
their 'force'. Consistency!
Rwandans don't do things in half measures. In fact, experts
on Rwanda say Kagame has not even reached the level of electoral victory
enjoyed by former president Gregoire Kayibanda and military ruler Maj Gen
Juvenale Habyarimana. Which is why my request to know the percentage of the
spoilt or invalid votes was understandably dismissed by a Kagame aide thus:
Must there be spoilt or invalid votes?
Kenyans went to the polls on August 8. But as is the wont in
these things, it is one thing for one to vote and quite another for one's vote
to count (or be counted). As opposed to Rwanda, the number of spoilt votes in
the Kenyan poll is annoyingly high that it may take a bronze medal.
In spite of all else, the most important thing in the last
three Kenyan elections is that a two-party system has been established. The
significance of an established two-party system is that it offers the country
the best chance for power to change hands from one political group to another.
Kenya's 'two-party system' is not a de jure, but a de facto
situation where political parties have formed grand coalitions that effectively
control more than 80 per cent of the votes (or parliamentary seats).
In Rwanda, all political parties (except one) supported
Kagame's candidature. Some parties offered to support Kagame even before RPF
(his party) declared him as their candidate. That's not a grand coalition, but
a grand co-option.
The length of the term of office for which Kagame was
re-elected on August 4 is seven years (ending in 2024). After 2024,
presidential terms of office will be reduced to five years each.
And after 2024, one can only be a president of Rwanda for
only two terms of office.
So, the new term of office (for which Kagame was elected is
like a personal gift to him. However, he is eligible to run for office in 2024
and 2029.
I have heard some whispers that president Kagame has said
this will be his last term. I have nothing to comment on those whispers because
leaving power at that level is a personal matter and calls for depth of
character.
In the first place, there will be no constitutional
requirement to stop him to seek re-election in the next two elections (2024 and
2029).
No comments:
Post a Comment