Recently, I followed closely what is being said in the media and various political declarations on the presidential term in the preparation of the 2017 elections in Rwanda. Through these, I have observed certain ignorance whether real or deliberate on the content of the concept of political term, allowing misinterpretation of Articles 101 and 193 of the Rwandan Constitution by some political actors and their allies.
According to them, article 101 is irrevocable and article 193 is only about the length of the presidential term and not the number of terms. Such arguments can lead the audience into confusion, which would favor some political opportunist interests. This opinion piece seeks to shed light on the scientific content of the concept of political term in the light of political science.
According to Maurice Duverger, the political term is essentially a prerogative given to citizens to confer power to one of them to exercise on their behalf and for their fundamental and strategic interests for a specified period of time and such times they consider it. The notion of political term refers to both the period and length to exercise power and the frequency or number of times the invested person may be authorized to exercise power. This translates into a social contract in traditional societies and in a constitutional text in modern societies. For example we do say that the President of a country is elected for a five year term (length of the term), renewable once or several times (times of the term). Therefore, the notion of length and frequency are inseparable when it comes to political term or specifically to the presidential term.
Regarding the case of Rwanda, the legislator respected this practice. The article 101 of the Constitution stipulates that the President of the Republic is elected for a term of seven years renewable only once. This is clear that the notion of political term is considered both into the duration (seven years) and the number of times (twice) that the elected President may be permitted to preside over the country. When paragraph 2 of Article 101 stipulates that no person may serve more than two presidential terms, it reinforces the notion of the number of times within the concept of political term. However, Article 193 of the Constitution speaks of the procedure for the amendment of the presidential term, which procedure requires a decision of citizens through referendum.
Contrary to interpretations of some political actors and their allies, when Article 193 states that “if the amendment concerns the term of the President of the Republic …. It must be passed by referendum after adoption by each chamber of parliament”; this article does not specify that the revision concerns the length of the term of office of the President of the Republic ie the period of seven years. As the notion of political term evokes both the length and number of terms, it is the primary sovereign, ie the people to choose whether they want to make the amendment concerning the length (the period of seven years), or rather the number of times to exercise the term (ie consecutive two terms), or both.
In my humble opinion, the voices of citizens that express themselves across the country and the substantial number of petitions to parliament opt for the opening of the number of times a President of the Republic may exercise the power conferred by the population. This is not in contradiction with the scientific content of the concept of political term and thus of Article 101 and 193 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. Finally, let me say that it would be respectable for political actors and their allies who oppose the revision of Article 101 to bow down to the will of the citizens that will be reflected by the results of the polls during the referendum as provided for by the Rwandan constitution. After all the will of the people will prevail.
Pierre Damien Habumuremyi, PhD in Political Science.
Leave a Reply