Category: Rubrique

Moments of rest and celebration were the focal point of Pope Francis’ Wednesday general audience, during which he spoke out against a profit-centered mentality and encouraged families to live life at a more human pace.

“Celebration is a precious gift from God. It’s a precious gift God has made for the human family. Let’s not ruin it,” the Pope said Aug. 12.

He spoke to pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI audience hall for his second general audience after taking a break for the month of July.

As part of his continued series of catecheses on the family, Francis announced he would shift focus to the different rhythms of family life, such as celebration, work and prayer.

Beginning with celebration, the Pope noted that it is God’s own invention, as can be seen in the biblical account of creation when God himself rested from his work on the seventh day.

God teaches us the importance “of dedicating time to contemplating and enjoying the fruits of our labors, not only in our employment or profession, but through every action by which we as men and women cooperate in God’s creative work,” he said.

Francis emphasized that to celebrate doesn’t mean “to escape or be overcome by laziness,” but rather involves returning our gaze to the fruits of our labor with both gratitude and benevolence.

Celebration, he said, “is above all a loving and grateful look at work well done,” and means taking time to pause and be with friends and loved ones. He added that celebration is a time to watch our children grow, to look at the home we have built, and think: “how beautiful!”

The Pope observed that it is also possible to celebrate in times of difficulty, even if it means celebrating “with a lump in the throat.”

Pope Francis turned to the workplace, explaining that – without interrupting our work – celebrations can “infiltrate” the environment when we honor events such as a birthday, a marriage, a new baby, a farewell or a welcome.

Such moments of familiarity put a brief stop to “the gear of the production machine: they do us good!” he said.

True moments of celebration make us take a break from the daily grind and remind us that we have been created in the image and likeness of God, who is not a slave of work, but the Lord of work, the Pope observed.

“We must never be slaves to work but rather its master,” he stressed, and lamented how millions of men, women and children are exploited and forced to work as slaves due to an obsession with economic profit.

This over-emphasis on gain and technical efficiency “attacks human rhythms of life and denies man the time for what’s really important,” he said, explaining that God wants to set us free from these vices.

“Life has human rhythms,” the Pope added. “Let us banish this idea of a celebration centered on consumption and on debauchery and let us regain its sacred value, seeing it as a privileged time in which we can encounter God and others.”

Francis pointed to Sundays as a particularly important time for rest, because “in them we find God.”

Going to Mass brings the grace of Jesus Christ to each of our celebrations, he said, since it is in the Eucharist that we encounter his presence, love and sacrifice. The Eucharistic celebration, he said, is Jesus’ way of being with us and forming us into a community.

“Everything is transfigured by his grace: work, family, the joys and trials of each day, even our sufferings and death.”

Pope Francis cautioned that the ideologies of profit and consumption want to “eat up” the celebration, and turn it into another way to make and spend money.

“But is this why we work? The greed of consuming, which leads to waste, it’s a bad virus which, among other things, in the end makes us more tired than before,” he said.

Francis concluded by praying that the family always be recognized as a privileged place where the gifts that come from our celebrations are understood, guided and sustained, particularly Sunday Mass.

”May the Lord allows us to live the time of rest, celebrations, the Sunday feast, with the eyes of faith, as a precious gift which illuminates family life,” he said.

Catholic News Agency

A few days ago, a group of young high school students organized a fundraising drive for Agaciro Development Fund.

These youngsters, mostly within their mid teens and high school students organized their colleagues and well wishers to fundraise for agaciro and ensure that once the history of this fund is written, their names appear in bold.

We all know that there have been numerous fundraisers for this cause. But what stands out striking is that the young generation—otherwise usually pre-occupied with ‘Hollywood’ gossip— finds the heart and soul to embrace this noble initiative and the values it brings along.

The key issue here is not what they were able to collect for this fund but rather the gesture. The fact that these youngsters find it within their responsibility to make a contribution is a score worth noting.

Yet this gesture should not be seen in isolation—it must be contextualized in the larger picture that will shape the future of this country.

Whereas most of Africa is awash with stories of the young generation engaged in all sorts of ill-mannered behaviors, including killing and maiming their own people and whereas the past regimes of Rwanda indoctrinated a culture of hatred and divisive politics among its youth, culminating in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, today’s Rwandan youth are a mirror of its present leadership.

Such simple but quite significant milestones should crowd our minds and shape the discussion, debate and eventually decision around 2017.

The fact that for the first time in the history of this country, the younger lads look to the future with hope and optimism and are willing to forego the social demands of a teenage life and contribute to such a noble initiative.

This act speaks volumes about legacy. And the key question here should be; how do we safeguard this legacy? A legacy that is beginning to shape the character and aspirations of the entire nation and a legacy that deserves to continue.

When we talk about continuity and stability, we should not be afraid. I read in one of the opinions on this paper about the ‘anxiety’ created in the run-up to 2017. This should not be the case because of the following.

First, the hurdles that Rwanda has overcome over the past 20 years are far more difficult and overwhelming than a mere decision we take for 2017. The basics are already in place and the drivers of this progress are well known. Therefore the discussion on 2017 should be the simplest of the hurdles we need to face.

Second, the discussion around 2017 should not be reduced to a mere third term. It should a debate on continuity of the values that are beginning to shape the character of this nation. It should be a debate on what Rwandans need—on whether they choose continuity as opposed to stagnation. On whether they choose stability as opposed to destruction.

But above all, the discussion must be on what Rwandans desire and not what others want for us. It must be hinged on what constitutes common good for Rwandans as opposed to borrowing templates that cannot serve our own situation.

When we drafted our constitution in 2003 we tailored it to meet our unique situation. We chose consensual politics as opposed to confrontational politics. We chose power sharing as opposed to winner takes all. We chose embracing our diversity as an asset as opposed to divisive politics.

Some smoky noise from detractors at that time, baptized these principles as ‘wishful dreams.’ However the fruits of this political genius are immeasurable today.

The same can be said on initiatives such as Gacaca, which, in some legal circles were dubbed as an abomination. But the results of this great innovation have silenced even the most vocal critics among the ‘learned’ fraternity.

What I’m trying to say is that we have learnt how to cut our coat according to our size. Therefore this same spirit and the self-determination to define and design what constitutes common good for us should be the same virtues that inform the discussion around 2017.

After all, if we claim to be democrats and believe that democracy is the will of the people, then so shall it be.

Analysis of term limits by Mr Fred Mufulukye that appeared in The New Times of 19/1/15 is an article of critical interest to our the change and continuity debate/homework that is yet to be completed. A pending home work for us Rwandans.

He ably put his ideas in a way that informs and fits into our homework. And although this article may be construed to be his opinion, nevertheless to date he speaks for, and on behalf of millions of Rwandans that have voiced similar views on the very issue in different fora so much so that, if we go by simple feed-back especially from majority rural forks, they have completed their home work.

It is no longer pending nor work in progress anymore. To them, and I dearly hold similar opinion, the best change with continuity and stability, (add certainty) for us as a people and country given our abnormal past context, fragile present and our uncertain future is no change at all. No change at all then brings about constitutional issues that we shall have to sort out.

Change is not an end in itself, nor a status quo just because others have done it so should we. Change should always be for better, if not why change anyway.

As Mr Mufulukye put it and this is in public know both within and internationally, President Paul Kagame has fundamentally transformed our country in all its whole so much so that, even the endemic critique (they will always be there, for wrong reasons for they don’t show alternatives to his ways of governing our country) accept that, his performance is unparalleled in our history as a country and indeed a miracle by all standards of measure of development.

From economy, to social cohesion/unity, political landscape to international relations, his performance has distinguished him among his peers, and given Rwanda an identity and an address we are proud of, and one which we needed immensely given our heinous past.

Timelines and Constitutional Issues:
The timelines of 2017 when his current term of office ends, has raised lots of anxiety among Rwandans and foreign stakeholders most of which are worried by the constitutional limits in place that will disrupt his exemplary performance.

Mr Mufulukye captured this well in his article, and in my opinion article 101 of our constitution of no change is complimented by article 193, on how amendment should be done. It is important to reflect that, a constitution is not stone cast nor a convent but rather set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.

It establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers. Such are defined by a people to suit their circumstances and amended to suit critical and fundamental situations that a country may face.

Concept.

The concept of a constitution (although dates back to 384 B.C by The Greek Philosopher Aristotle) was to be widely used in Europe in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries mainly owing to dictatorial excesses of European leaders at the time (constitutions were to limit excesses and abuse of office), and to enhance the evolution of their democracy given the crises and upheavals that the continent faced. All constitutions world over, are living documents that are amended as the circumstances demands.

People who voted it in the first place have the same and equal powers and rights to amend it. It is not a mythical document out there safeguarded by some absolute powers.

Absolute powers are a preserve of Rwandans, and cannot be dictated by other stakeholders of any sort or form, for we are the sole beneficiaries of the same as we are equally sole losers if we miss an opportunity to make an informed decision regarding the future of a country whose abnormal past and transformative present as well as the very uncertain future places the person of President Kagame too central to, and akin to new Rwanda to wish away.

By the same token, such a context means that we cannot gamble with our destiny in the name of conformity and status quo, a luxury that can only enjoyed by countries with reasonably normal past, and a predictable future. The probability of changing a heroic President to untested character has always lead to total failure and turmoil with the attendant reversal of all achievements. We cannot afford this as a country and a people. Lots of examples of such failures abound in Africa, as is true in many other countries (including developed) that have changed exemplary leadership although none bear our context. Costs inherent to such decision are usually priceless for generations to come.

It is irrational to change exemplary leadership and more so in our context even in the name of constitutionalism, that becomes an end. We would the first country to do so, and perhaps the last. No country in our context or a close approximate of the same that has done so in known development literature.

I am passionate on context for without keeping it in mind we may settle for status quo with consequences we can never underwrite as a people and a country for generations to come. Y-generation should be told of our context whose outlook some may underrate or even take for granted with the danger that, ghosts of our past (active today as in the past) may take the show, and with high degree of certainty.

Faith Coated Ideologue.

When one factors in the faith coated genocide ideology against Tutsi which is actively supported by regional and international powers and actors, and especially in the face of recent flawed/cosmetic disarmament of FDLR, one questions the logic for change.

That USA amended her constitution in 1951 to allow President Roosevelt to run for four terms (this was a war period), ours is unique given the economic, social as well ideological wars that only President Kagame has ably fought (a number of which he has won), but many others known unknown are yet to be won. In fact diehard enemies of our country are open and categorical to the fact that, after President Kagame has left the office, they can let loose their demonic ghosts. Who can allow this to happen unless he is party, sympathetic or one of these enemies. God forbid.
To be continued…

Professor Nshuti Manasseh.
Economist and Financial Expert.
Email: nshutim@gmail.com

The decision on who should lead Rwanda even after 2017 should fall within the parameters of democracy. Democracy is the government of people, for the people and by the people. The choice should, therefore, be left in the hands and wishes of the Rwandan people.

It should also be recalled that the Rwandan constitution as revised to date was established and enacted based on the ideas of Rwandans. Based on the principles of democracy, Rwandans have constitutional rights to modify or review their constitution to match it with their current aspirations and wishes.

It is in this understanding that article 101 of the Rwanda Constitution can’t be seen as stumbling block to the wishes of Rwandans. It states that; “The President of the Republic is elected for a term of seven years renewable only once”. It further reads: “Under no circumstances shall a person hold the office of President of Republic for more than two terms”.

Paragraph 1 of article 193, provides that power to initiate amendment of the Constitution shall be vested concurrently in the President of the Republic upon the proposal of the Cabinet and each Chamber of Parliament upon a resolution passed by a two thirds (2/3) majority vote of its members. However, paragraph 3 of article 193 provides that, the constitutional amendment concerning the term of the President of the Republic, must be passed by referendum, after adoption by each Chamber of Parliament. The last paragraph provides that no amendment to this Article (193) shall be permitted, meaning it is only done through referendum.

Today, Rwandans have publicly demanded and requested H.E the President to accept their appeal and stand again. Their request depends on their constitutional rights to modify the presidential term limit.

Political term limits is a political choice

Depending on global political dynamics on term limits, some countries prefer setting term limits for their Heads of State and Government while others do not.

The United States placed a limit of two terms on its presidency by means of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1951 which was amended after President Roosevelt. In 1940, Roosevelt became the only president to be elected to a third term; his supporters cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. Prior to Roosevelt, few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms but did not win elections though they were not limited to serving more than one term.

In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term, but suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in office the following year. In 1947, the congress passed Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution setting a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States.

Since then, there have been repeated attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits each president to two terms. In 1985, when Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some senators introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment. There are other amendments that have been proposed, such as giving Congress the power to grant a dispensation to a current or former president by way of a supermajority vote in both houses.

In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister has no term limits. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch and remains in office so long as he/she can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which in practice equals being the leader of the party with the most number of seats. Examples of the UK prime ministers and their years in office:

– Margaret Thatcher, was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990

– Tony Blair was Prime Minister of the UK from 1997 to 2007. He was a Member of Parliament from 1983 to 2007 and Leader of the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. He resigned all these positions in June 2007.

– Gordon Brown was the UK Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party from 2007 until 2010

Singapore

The Prime Minister of Singapore is the head of the government of the Republic of Singapore. The President of Singapore appoints a Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament (MP) who, in his opinion, should command the confidence of a majority of MPs.

Lee Kuan Yew was the first Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990. He has been the longest-serving Prime Minister of Singapore. He is regarded as the Father of Singapore for his leadership capability to lead Singapore from third world country into a first world country. He led the PAP (People’s Action Party) into eight consecutive election victories.

NB: Referring to the above international experiences on political term limits, Heads of State and governments are mandated to serve depending on wishes of the people, either directly or indirectly (through MPs).

Underlying concerns of Rwandans to change President Kagame

President Paul Kagame is the first President Rwandans have had who is not involved in any political divisive agenda. He is widely admired for ably leading a very complicated liberation struggle, stopping the Genocide against the Tutsi, rebuilding the nation, building national unity and dealing with the consequences of the Genocide.

President Kagame has transformed the country in just less than 20 years. His vision for Rwanda, his dream, focus, resilience to the core principles of the liberation struggle, all have put him above the rest. Leaders like him are very rare and come once in hundreds of years.

His personality and leadership traits have helped unite Rwandans, created hope, trust and confidence in the Rwandan community.

The majority of Rwandan community have anxiety, fear and uncertainty of what may happen after 2017. The positive impact created by President Kagame’s vision and leadership in Rwanda makes the majority of Rwandans hesitant to change him and makes them uncertain about the future of Rwanda in another person’s command.

– Peace and Security. Rwanda is a secure country and has become an icon of peace and security in Africa and beyond. In view of our recent history where everyone has been affected in one way or another, Rwandans recognise President Kagame as their source of security, comfort and the father of Rwanda.

There is a concern as to whether there is someone prepared and ready to take up President Kagame’s responsibility and manage Rwanda’s political spectrum, regional and international dynamics.

Everybody appreciates President Kagame efforts and determination to build effective and efficient institutions and systems for both the government and RPF.

After the transition period (2003), just a period of 11 years, though there are commendable efforts to appreciate, our institutions are still young and need to be guided, nurtured, energised and modified along their development course.

Looking at countries that have been stable and developed for over 200 years, like USA, they still face some challenges leading to modifications of their policies, laws and strengthening the existing institutions.

It has also been noticed that institutions alone are not enough to sustain development and unity of a nation. There are examples of countries where change of performing leaders has turned their development curve. Example can be seen in Africa and beyond.

– Geopolitics and hostile international environment. Rwanda being positioned in the Great Lakes region continues to be affected by insecurity and hostilities of some countries some of which are fueled by hostile environment and geopolitical interests. President Kagame has been bold and indomitable on the international and region pressure, which has put Rwanda on international scene and restored Rwanda’s pride and image. Some hostile countries and politicians see him as a stumbling block to their agenda on Rwanda and Africa.

– Rwandans are still puzzled by whether President Kagame will accept their wish to continue after 2017. He has in different meetings kept a strong position not to change the term limit for him to continue despite overwhelming justifications. However, Rwandans have hope that his love and commitment to serve them, his nature to take up challenging responsibilities as long as they are in the interest of Rwandans (ref. 1990 when he abandoned his studies in USA to join and lead the RPF struggle that had almost failed), will make him accept their plea and lead them even after 2017.

– Some people have raised concerns about President Kagame’s legacy if he accepted to lead Rwanda after 2017. Legacy should not be confused and limited to political term limit, instead it is a totality of delivering a country from one point to another.

Taking an example of Singapore’s PM, Lee Kuan Yew who is regarded as the Father of Singapore. His legacy is unquestionable after leading Singapore from the 3rd to the 1st world, without looking at the term limit.

Likewise, President Kagame is on the right course, taking Rwanda from 3rd to the 1st world. His legacy should be judged on his delivery to the Rwandans than other forms.

Do Rwandans have a constitutional right to amend the presidential term limit?

Article 101 of Rwanda Constitution provides the Presidential term limit while article 193 provides the possibility of its amendment.

Basing on the fact that amendment of article 101 is permitted by the constitution, it should be clearly understood that any amendments follow set procedure.

In Rwanda, the plea for amendment of presidential term limit has been engineered and consistently demanded by the grassroots population in different fora, unlike other countries where attraction of power remains a strong motivating factor for many leaders. What is unique for Rwanda, the President has always not welcomed the demands to amend the constitution. However, Rwandans have continued demanding and questioning:

– Why was article 193 provided if Rwandans’ demand to amend the constitution is not given attention?

– Aren’t we not compromising democracy if wishes of the Rwandan people to amend their constitution are not given importance?

– When shall this article be relevant in Rwandan history and in which conditions if today’s Rwandan demands are not listened to?

Way forward for Rwanda

Basing on the fact that there is no universally accepted political term limit direction, different countries take their political term limit choices depending on their political situations and change whenever they deem it necessary.

It is up to the Rwandans to analyse and decide what would be their best choice. It would be wise and be left for Rwandans to decide, considering Rwanda unique context and how they have confronted it under the leadership of President Kagame: Genocide and its consequences, fragile society, too much of regional and international hostile environment, growing economy, international recognition, investment and doing business climate, social cohesion etc.

President Kagame has displayed unique leadership potentials and character in dealing and managing Rwanda’s challenges, and changing this active and effective leader to venture into the world of the unknown just for the sake of change would be considered suicidal, irrational and unreasonable.

The author is the director general of territorial administration and good governance at the Ministry of Local Government – Rwanda.

fred.rwanda@gmail.com

On Tuesday, September 30, the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security launched this semester’s ministerial roundtable series with a discussion with Louise Mushikiwabo, the Rwandan Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Minister. Minister Mushikiwabo candidly discussed the current status of Rwanda domestically and within the international sphere, and portrayed a nation actively working to improve the lives of its people and become a middle-income nation by 2020.

In 1994, Rwanda was the site of horrific violence, rape, and mass killing. In 100 days, one million Rwandans or 10 percent of the total population were murdered. The overwhelming majority of those killed were ethnically Tutsi, in addition to moderate Hutu as well as members of the minority Twa group. The ethnic cleansing campaigns and the state-sponsored atrocities of 1994 are recent scars in Rwanda’s history. However, in the years following the conflict, Rwanda has made significant advances, both domestically and internationally. According to Mushikiwabo, there is no place for destructive or divisive politics in post-genocide Rwanda.

Minister Mushikiwabo highlighted the fact that Rwanda has “opened up” since the early 1990s, a significant change for a nation that previously made it difficult both for people to enter the country and for Rwandan citizens to leave the country. She noted Rwanda’s engagement within both Anglophone East Africa and Francophone Central Africa as key parts of the policy for strategic openness that is integrated throughout President Paul Kagame’s administration. She cited numerous improvements in Rwanda’s economy and the need to embrace technology and prioritize energy, whether through the mining potential within the nation or the methane gas available in Lake Kivu. Minister Mushikiwabo highlighted the role of the private sector in growing the economy and creating employment opportunities – including for the most downtrodden – by referencing the fashion company Kate Spade, which supplies goods from Rwandan women. According to Minister Mushikiwabo, foreign direct investment as well as welcoming foreign workers will help Rwandan business to develop and compete in the international marketplace.

Minister Mushikiwabo described a nation that has changed dramatically since the violence of 1994. The single-most important factor in the nation’s post-genocide rebuilding – economically and politically – has been the inclusion, participation and leadership of women. She stated, “I am amazed by how much women have transformed Rwanda.” Following the 1994 conflict, the Rwandan constitution required 30 percent of Parliamentary seats to be held by women. Today, women hold 64 percent of the seats in Parliament. They are also being appointed to powerful roles traditionally reserved for men, increasing the presence of women throughout the government. Women in positions of power bring in the voices and perspectives of women into policy. As Minister Mushikiwabo put it, “when women are in positions of leadership, they look out for women.” The government budgets for gender-specific programming to meet the needs of women throughout the country.

The government is working to end the gendered division within Rwandan culture both at the policy and practical levels. Women are fully engaged in society at all levels and increasingly have access to the tools needed to actively and effectively participate. The government created different programs for women to receive training that helps augment their positive impact on society. The programs link women to others doing similar work within the country, within the region, or internationally. In turn, it is evident that much of Rwanda’s progress can be credited to the inclusion of women in the decision-making process. Rwanda’s progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, for example, can be specifically linked to the inclusion of women into the policy work. As Minister Mushikiwabo pointed out, the MDGs focus largely on issues that are intrinsically linked to the daily activities of women, particularly regarding reducing poverty and increasing access to education. If women are given access to economic opportunities, they are able to support their families. If girls receive education, they will have the opportunity to support themselves. Women are the primary caretakers of children and with access to both resources and education, they will ensure their children receive vaccinations. Women, therefore, play an integral part of Rwanda’s success in the post-conflict period.

Genocide is a political crime in its worst and widest form. In Rwanda, where exclusion was the norm, inclusion is now the national motto. For Rwanda to succeed, Minister Mushikiwabo believes, the people need to stay away from the idea of exclusion, including the exclusion of women. Men are voting for women and women are being appointed to roles that were previously reserved for men. The inclusion of women hasn’t created resentment within the population, but rather Minister Mushikiwabo states the women are doing well, so people are able to accept women’s increased presence in politics. Women’s inclusion in the political structure has clearly had a positive impact thus far on Rwanda’s success since 1994.

About the Author: Rukmani Bhatia is the 2014-2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton Research Fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. She received her M.A. in German and European Studies from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, and a B.A. in International Relations from Wellesley College.

(more…)