Category: Rubrique

{{Fear among Burundians is growing since Wednesday after three cabinet ministers resigned coinciding with the escape of the former Vice president.}}

The three ministers that quit government belong to the UPRONA political party including; District Development Minister Jean-Claude Ndihokubwayo, Communications Minister Leocadie Nihaza and Trade Minister Victoire Ndikumana.

UPRONA had a vice-president in government, but he was sacked by President Pierre Nkurunziza on Saturday after he opposed the party change.

The fallout brings to test an increasingly delicate power-sharing agreement between Burundi’s majority Hutu and minority Tutsi communities that have been struggling to reconcile after decades of conflict.

According to local media reports, the UPRONA members’ resignations from government follow an attempt by the ruling party, the CNDD-FDD, to force out UPRONA party chairman Charles Nditije ahead of elections scheduled for 2015, and replace him with a sympathiser.

However, Presidential spokesman Willy Nyamitwe has dismissed the idea that the president and his party “had played any role in the UPRONA crisis” conceding only that there had been “crises and misunderstandings”.

{Against the backdrop of entrenched divisive and genocide ideology, repeated massacres, the persistent problems of refugees in the Diaspora, and the lack of avenues for peaceful political change, the Rwandese Alliance for National Unity (RANU) was formed in 1979 by some Rwandese in the Diaspora with the objective of mobilizing Rwandese people to resolve these problems. }

Almost a decade later, in 1987, RANU became the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), whose objectives were:

• To promote national unity and reconciliation;

• To establish genuine democracy;

• To provide security for all Rwandese;

• To build an integrated and self sustaining economy;

• To eradicate corruption in all forms

• To repatriate and resettle Rwandese refugees;

• To devise and implement policies that promote the social welfare of all Rwandese and;

• To pursue a foreign policy based on equality, peaceful co-existence and mutual benefit between Rwanda and other countries.

THE ARMED STRUGGLE

Most of the world had never heard of the RPF until 1st October 1990 the day the war of liberation began against the military dictatorship in Kigali.

Taking up arms was not an easy decision to make. War has always been the last option in the consideration of the RPF.

However, all efforts for peaceful and democratic change in had so far proved futile.

It had become apparent that only by taking up arms could anyone wishing to put an end to the dictatorship and the violation of fundamental rights hope to succeed.

The regime had amassed a huge coercive state machinery using violence to oppress the people.

The taking up of arms against the regime was therefore considered not just a right, but also a patriotic and national obligation.

When the war began, Rwandese peasants, workers, students and intellectuals, men and women from every region and “ethnic” or social group, responded to the call of the RPF to rid Rwanda of dictatorship.

With the beginning of the armed struggle, France, Belgium, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire) hurriedly dispatched troops to Rwanda to support the dictatorial regime.

{{
THE SEARCH FOR PEACE}}

As the war for liberation escalated, RPF still attempted to seek peaceful ways of resolving the conflict.

On 29th March 1991, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the RPF and the then Government of Rwanda signed the N’sele Ceasefire Agreement which provided for, among other things, cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of foreign troops, exchange of prisoners of war and finally, serious political negotiations to end the conflict.

Immediately after signing the agreement, the Government of Rwanda ridiculed and ignored the
Said agreement and the war intensified.

{{THE ARUSHA PEACE AGREEMENT}}

As the regime became more desperate, massacres of Tutsi’s in various parts of the country became widespread in a deliberate effort of ethnic cleansing.

The regime used violence to harass and silence the emerging internal political opposition.
Violence was also used to derail the peace process.

After a long period of negotiation that took place in Arusha, Tanzania, the Arusha Peace Agreement was signed on 4th August 1993.

The Arusha Peace Agreement was preceded by the signing of the agreement on a new ceasefire, as well as parties agreeing on the following principles:

That there was neither democracy nor the practice of the rule of law in Rwanda;

That a broad based government of national unity, including parties of different political persuasions was necessary to oversee the transition to democracy.

That the Rwandese army was not national in character and that it was necessary to set up a truly national army from among members of the two existing armies; and That Rwandese refugees have a legitimate inalienable right to return home.

The agreement was structured around five pillars:

• The establishment of the rule of law;

• Power Sharing

• Repatriation and resettlement of refugees and Internally displaced people

• The integration of armed forces; and Other miscellaneous provisions.

• Members of the ruling were particularly threatened by the power sharing arrangements.

• The Arusha Peace Agreement threatened the basis of their power and privilege, which they had so far enjoyed without serious challenge.

•

Given the fact that they had always relied on the army as the instrument of maintaining their grip on power at any cost, it is clear why they were very opposed to the idea of integration of the armed forces.

The Arusha Peace Agreement was signed on 4th August 1993 and was supposed to have been implemented within 37 days, beginning with the establishment of the institutions of the presidency, cabinet and the National Assembly.

A United Nations force was supposed to oversee this process.

RPF honored all its commitments when in December 1993 it sent 600 of its troops to Kigali, as well as members of the Executive designated to be members of the transitional government.

The regime on the other hand, was focused on the preparation for genocide.

The Arusha Peace Agreement was never implemented although its principal provisions now constitute the Fundamental Law of the Republic of Rwanda.

GENOCIDE

The Genocide of the Tutsi in 1994 was a carefully planned and executed exercise to annihilate

Rwanda’s Tutsi population and Hutus who did not agree with the prevailing extremist politics of the Habyarimana regime.

This genocide was by no means the first time attempt by the government of Rwanda to wipe out sections of the population they believed were opposed to their politics.

The first massacres of the Tutsi in Rwanda took place in 1959.

Thereafter, almost in a regular manner, killings of the Tutsi became a common practice.

Throughout the 1960s, the extremist government launched vicious attacks on Rwanda’s

Tutsi population, resulting in a mass exodus into neighboring Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Congo.

For the first time in Rwanda’s six century long history, a large portion of the people of Rwanda became stateless, and was denied the right to live in their motherland.

It was also first time in Rwanda’s history, that the Rwandan leadership preached a message of division, hate, and violence, resulting in repeated cycles of genocide.

Genocide re-occurred in 1973, 1979 and1990, after the launch of the
Struggle by the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) to liberate Rwanda, the government launched yet another cycle of genocide.

Between 1990 and 1994, the Bagogwe people of Northern Rwanda were targeted by the Habyarimana regime, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.

There were similar attacks orchestrated against people of Kibuye, Butare and elsewhere in Rwanda.

Between April and July 1994, over one million Rwandans were killed by the genocidal regime.

Many people were involved in the killings and those who planned and organized the genocide include the late President, Major General Juvenal Habyarimana, top government officials, including members of the so called Provisional Government, the Presidential Guard, the National Gendarmerie, the Rwanda Armed Forces (FAR), the MRND

CDR militia (Interahamwe), local officials, and many Hutu in the general population.

Preparation to carry out genocide by these groups involved the training of the militia, the arming of both the militia and some sections of the population, the establishment and widespread use of a hate radio called Radio television libre de mille collines (RTLM), and the distribution of lists of those targeted for elimination.

Repeatedly, these groups prevented the establishment of the Arusha Peace Accords.

When the genocide began in 1994, the United Nations had a peacekeeping force the United Nations

Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) in Rwanda of about 2500 troops and the first reaction of the United Nations, and indeed of other nations that had their own nationals in Rwanda, was to withdraw their troops and their nationals respectively.

Under the circumstances the RPF had to fight again in order to stop the genocide.

On July 4, 1994, the RPF defeated the genocidal forces, liberated Rwanda and formed the Government of National Unity (which served from 1994 to 2003 when a new democratically elected government was in place).

Among the highest priorities of the new post genocide government was to apprehend and bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide.

Thousands of suspects had been arrested and imprisoned.

The sheer bulk of genocide suspects and cases awaiting trial placed severe strain on
Rwanda’s criminal justice system which had been already crippled by poor infrastructure and the death of profession also during the genocide.

Rwanda’s prisons were heavily congested, and the cost of feeding and clothing prisoners was a drain on the economy.

The lack of an adequate number of prosecutors, judges, and lawyers to try cases exacerbated the already bad situation.

It would have taken over 200 years had Rwanda relied on the conventional court system to deliver justice.

The government took the decision to ease pressure on the criminal justice system by categorizing genocide suspects according to the crimes of which they are accused.

{{“Category 1” suspects}}

the ’planners, organizers, instigators, supervisors and leaders’ of the genocide of which there were 2,133 would be tried in the conventional courts.

{{
Suspects in categories 2}}

Four who were perpetrators of various crimes during genocide would be tried in traditional community courts or Gacaca courts.

Gacaca is a traditional Rwandan conflict and disputes resolution procedure designed to be participatory and reconciliatory justice that has been modernized to deal with a
Backlog of genocide cases.

Inyangamugayo (persons of integrity) elected from the local community make up the jury of this traditional jurisdiction.

The Gacaca process would significantly speed up trials and sentencing and also have the advantage of involving the community in the trial and sentencing process hence contributing significantly to reconciliation.

This was in line with the new government’s policy to reconcile Rwandans after many
decades of division and hatred, while ensuring that justice was being done.

The government also made it a priority to rapidly develop the criminal justice system. Special training was provided to magistrates and judges, while courts around the country were renovated.

A national police force was created and charged with civil security matters and criminal investigations.

THE FALL OF THE GENOCIDAL REGIME

On 4th July 1994, the capital city of Rwanda, Kigali, fell to the forces of the Rwandese Patriotic
Army (RPA), the armed wing of the RPF. The members of the so called Provisional Government, the armed groups, and many people who were involved in genocide, fled mainly to the DRC and Tanzania.

Over three million refugees fled to Tanzania and the DRC.

On 19th July, 1994, the RPF established the Government of National Unity with four other political parties.

The Liberal Party (PL), the Social Democratic Party (PSD), the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), and the Republican Democratic Movement (MDR).

{{
Weeks later a 70}}

Member Transitional National Assembly was formed consisting of representatives of the RPF, the four other original parties plus three other smaller parties, namely, the Islamic Party (PDI), the Socialist Party (PSR), and the Democratic Union for Rwandese People (UDPR), as well as six representatives of the Rwandese patriotic front.

{Regional Governments met to discuss the end of conflicts in South Sudan, a three year old country that won its independence from North Sudan.}

South Sudan’s President, Salva Kiir has been urged by his counterparts to agree peace talks with his rival former vice president Riek Machar accused of planning to overthrow President Salva Kiir.

Meanwhile there were media reports about the Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni who warned Riek Machar showing that if the later continues with his military action against South Sudan, regional country will collaborate to defeat him.

Despite the warnings, Riek Machar’s army wing “White fighters” captured different cities from South Sudan’s forces and there were other reported information about someone unknown from outside who is supporting “White fighters”.

Since the outbreak of the conflicts, western countries and some African countries started to evacuate their citizens from South Sudan including Americans Citizens who were first informed about the escalation of conflicts in South Sudan.

{{Now, Will Salva Kiir release political detainees?}}

The Obama administration has urged the South Sudan government to release allies of Riek Machar.

A State Department spokeswoman said at a press briefing Monday that the US does not view the detainees as alleged coup plotters but as “political detainees” who should be freed to take part in peace talks underway in Ethiopia.

“We do believe that to be meaningful and productive, senior SPLM members currently detained in Juba need to be present for discussions on political issues which are happening in Addis,” said spokeswoman Marie Harf.

“To help move these talks forward, we urge the government of South Sudan to uphold its commitments and release political detainees immediately,” Ms Harf added.

That stance puts Washington at odds with Juba, which relies heavily on US political and economic support. And by calling for the release of the imprisoned Machar allies, the US has put its weight behind a key demand of the rebels battling Kiir’s forces.

A South Sudan government spokesman had said in Addis on Sunday that the detainees would not be released.

““There is no way we can be asked to release people who are arrested and charged,” Information Minister Michael Makuei told reporters. Freeing the detainees would set a “bad precedent,” he declared.

{I have been looking around and found that everything that surrounds me exists because of politics, thus no need to go deeper without affirming first that youth must join politics rather than seeing elders exercising politics on them although these elders are the ones who are there to assist in guidance so to become mature politicians. }

We all agree that any society needs fresh ideas to move ahead as well as develop it.

Rwanda is an example of a society where youth are starting to be represented in political arena and optimistically that will bring changes in that arena for example by building a society which is corruption free as the country also targets zero corruption cases.

By definition as Wikipedia tells us Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state

From Greek: politikos, meaning “of, for, or relating to citizens”) is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level.

The United Nations Development Programme through its ENHANCING YOUTH
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION throughout the ELECTORAL CYCLE reveals that Young people between the ages of 15 and 25 constitute a fifth of the world’s population. While they are often involved in informal, politically relevant processes, such as activism or civic engagement, they are not formally represented in national political institutions such as parliaments and many of them do not participate in elections. This can impact on the quality of democratic governance.

The inclusion of youth in formal politics is important, as the 2011/2012 Arab States popular
Uprisings and various Occupy movements have demonstrated. In countries in transition, fresh ideas and new leadership can help to overcome authoritarian practices. Where youth-led protests have forced authoritarian regimes from power, significant frustration is likely to arise if youth are not included in new formal decision-making. This can destabilize democratization and accelerate conflict dynamics.

The international community has recognized the importance of youth participating in political systems, including through several international conventions and UN resolutions.

In line with these commitments, UNDP views youth as a positive force for transformative social change, and aims to help enhance youth political participation.

A basic principle is that support for the political participation of young people should extend across the electoral cycle. Capacity development for young candidates, for example, has proven to be more effective as a continuous effort than as a one-off event three months before an election.

Young people who participate actively in their community from early on are more likely to become engaged citizens and voters.

Another core principle is that youth political participation needs to be meaningful and effective, going beyond token gestures. Capacity development is an integral measure, and while building
No one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather, both are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from birth.

“A society that cuts itself off from its youth severs its lifeline; it is condemned to bleed to death.”
— Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the United Nations

Quoting the New United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, “Youth should be given a chance to take an active part in the decision-making at local, national and global levels.”

A youth-friendly legal framework is crucial in enabling youth political participation. In one-third of countries, laws stipulate an eligibility age to run for parliament at 25 years or higher, creating a gap between the legal age of majority and/or voting age, on the one hand, and the age at which an individual can serve in elected office.

Since national governments and parliaments can review the legal framework, they can consider:
1. Aligning the minimum voting age and the minimum age of eligibility to run for office;
2. Introducing youth and women’s quotas in electoral laws; and
3. Identifying and addressing context-specific legal barriers to youth participation, such as to facilitate the registration of youth-led organizations.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) and political parties could:

1. Review and discuss the legal framework for youth participation;
2. Consider proposals for a youth-friendly legal framework; and
3. Campaign for changes.
Example 1: In Turkey, several youth organizations and local youth councils have successfully campaigned for lowering the eligibility age for Parliament from 30 to 25 years.

{Students of Rwandan universities Volunteers Organization (RVO) have proposed that the Rwandan Constitution should be revised to put in the clause of unlimited mandates of the President of the Republic instead of two terms. However Political parties differ from this position.}

Students proposed this during a session held on December, 31, 2013 in the premises of the ULK.

The meeting was attended by delegates from different universities in the country who issued a specific recommendation that the 2003 Constitution should be revised to allow the President of the Republic to seek unlimited mandates.

They also proposed that citizen should not wait for the end of current seven year term to vote for their leaders noting that it should be reduce to five as it was before.

“We, the youth are the hope of the country. We have analyzed and concluded that the 7-year term by the President of the Republic, it is too long. We find that the Constitution should be revised on this article and ad reference to the number of terms should be removed to allow citizens enjoy the benefits of their president. We find that the provision of two terms of 7 years each is problem. This clause is a handicap when President works well. He cannot leave when people still need him. The country would lose an enlightened leader “, said Jean Bosco Mutangana, National Coordinator of RVO student at ULK.

As we open the new year of 2014, amidst a clamor by African presidents that they should never be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, world’s newest country South Sudan is burning in the fire of negative ethnicity as if drawn into it by an irresistible death wish.

Though many people have warned against dangers of negative ethnicity, many African countries continue to ignore the monster.

Consequently many have exploded as has South Sudan now and those which have not, instead of guarding against a similar eventuality, they laugh at the victim, as wood in the drying rack laughs at the wood in the fire.

As is typical of victims of negative ethnicity everywhere, in South Sudan, the Nuers are blaming Dinkas for their problems and Dinkas are blaming the Nuers for disturbing their turn to eat.

But why did South Sudanese not learn their lesson from Rwanda or Kenya’s post election violence? Why are they not able to discern the guile and false promises of negative ethnicity when it comes to them as a saviour? Is it because they do not understand the dragon or how it works? The worst thing is when Africans and foreign friends live in the denial that negative ethnicity is the ideology that is burning South Sudan and most of Africa. A disease denied cannot be treated.

Negative ethnicity is neither ethnicity nor positive ethnicity that rightly celebrates our ethnic roots and ethnic diversity. Negative ethnicity is hate of others from other communities that we more popularly call tribalism.

Negative ethnicity that we fatally embrace is related to anti-Semitism and racism but Europeans, Americans and South Africans spend more time fighting their evil ideologies than Africans spend fighting theirs.

When ethnic elites are not at each other’s throat, they will look within their community for clans and tribesmen in other regions to fight. Negative ethnicity was a tool of colonial conquest that British ruling minorities used to divide and rule their colonial subject majorities in Africa and Asia. In Sudan, the Arabic North Sudan used negative ethnicity to divide Africans in the South.

After independence, African elites did not eradicate but perpetuated negative ethnicity as a tool of scrambling for power and resources. But this scramble was bound to come to a head as it has now. Much as Africans tried to free themselves from the comb-web of negative ethnicity, they have failed because capitalism, the system of unbridled greed and the Machiavellian principle of “the end justifies the means” has converted most African leaders into demagogues of negative ethnicity to attain or retain power.

Everywhere negative ethnicity operates against nationalism, idealism and multi-ethnic nation. As Samora Machel mourned that the tribe had killed the nation of Mozambique, in Kenya, patriots also mourn that the tribe has killed the nation.

The modus operandi of negative ethnicity is division, war and balkanisation of the nation. Right now, unless the Nuer military forces are quickly defeated by the Dinka military forces or a political solution to the problems is quickly found, South Sudan might balkanise into a Nuer South Sudan and a Dinka South Sudan.

In Africa, wars of negative ethnicity have killed more people than those killed by any other ideology. Thanks to negative ethnicity, Africa has witnessed ethnic civil wars, massacres and genocides in DR Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Mali, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and now South Sudan.

In Somalia, clanism – a mutation of negative ethnicity – has destroyed the whole country. In most of Africa, negative ethnicity has become the ideology of politics, religion, government, counties, emotions, love etc.

We even think with negative ethnicity, not minds. In Rwanda they call negative ethnicity the ideology of genocide. Its theatres of operation include churches, institutions of learning, political parties, government ministries, public and private companies, media, police and army.

As the ideology of devolution, in Kenya and South Sudan, negative ethnicity has turned counties into ethnic enclaves wherein citizens are people from majority communities and foreigners are those from minority communities. With the country split between citizens and foreigners, jobs and business contracts will go to citizens and crumbs to foreigners.

Surprisingly, negative ethnicity has strength because it comes to communities, never as an enemy, but as an ally, friend and saviour from ethnic enemies. Where negative ethnicity engenders ethnic discrimination, its beneficiaries always stand by it. Negative ethnicity has given Africa its worst leaders.

Rather than pick the best leadership, it dictates election of the best soldiers of the tribe rather than the best servants of the nation. And though masses of ordinary people are the worst victims of negative ethnicity, due to their poverty of ideas, they are its greatest propagators.

Instead of seeing themselves as poor workers and farmers, they see themselves as communities and enemies of other communities. In Kenya, instead of working for ethnic equality, negative ethnicity glorifies tyranny of ethnic numbers.

Unfortunately, this legitimisation of ethnic domination makes nonsense of national unity – ‘we are one’. Ethnic minorities and majorities cannot be one. Under President Kibaki, tyranny of ethnic numbers grew by leaps and bounds. It won an election and now forms a government of two communities.

In seemingly stable African countries, ethnic elites reconcile by sharing resources and use the divided ethnic masses to reach top of the food chain. In ethnically-divided African countries, individuals cannot advocate political accommodation of other communities without being labelled traitors, just like moderate Hutus in Rwanda during the 1984 genocide.

To eradicate negative ethnicity, South Sudan needs a leader like President Nyerere of Tanzania. And as she learns she cannot survive divided by negative ethnicity, African countries that have not exploded yet must learn from her and Rwanda. {{the-star.co.ke }}