The victory of Rwanda’s interim president Paul Kagame in Tuesday’s election is significant despite the alleged obstruction of opposition politicians during the hustings. Whether or not these and any other electoral malpractice are proven by outside observers, the overwhelming vote for President Kagame seems to represent a genuine groundswell of support.
Kagame led the Tutsi rebels who drove out a genocidal Hutu government after massacres nine years ago in which at least 800,000 people were butchered.
What is significant, however, is that President Kagame’s support came from both the Hutu and Tutsi communities, because during the savagery of 1994, moderate Hutus who protested the murder of Tutsis also became victims. The victory of this Tutsi politician therefore represents the moderate sentiments of a Rwandan population determined that the horrors of the recent past shall not return. As interim president, Kagame had behaved fairly toward his people, including the Hutus. Militiamen have been arrested and tried by UN courts, but there has been a strong sense that recrimination and revenge are not the way forward. Kagame has now promised increased democratization, in which all Rwandans will be able to manage their affairs as a single, cohesive community without ethnic divide. Kagame’s achievement is that it has come about largely through the efforts of the Rwandans themselves. There has been minimal outside interference in the healing process, though economically there has been consistent support.
Iraqis too are riven with rivalries. But here the Americans have imposed upon themselves the duty first to bring security to the country, then to stabilize the economy and finally to hold elections. It must be wondered if even the nine years that it took the Rwandans to reach the ballot boxes, will in the present climate, be enough for a truly democratic vote in Iraq.
The majority of Iraqis wants to see a final end to the dark shadow of Saddam and the Baath Party. But they now recognize that the presence of the occupying coalition forces is adding fuel to the fire of resistance. Until or unless Saddam himself is captured or killed and a major part of the resistance crushed, Washington will be unable to move to tackle the political and economic stability of the country. The danger however is that the coalition will become so fixated upon first crushing resistance that it will not spot the moment when the Iraqis are strong enough to do something to help themselves.
If Rwandans can bring themselves from such trauma to the relatively free and fair election of a president from a minority community, then surely the Iraqis, given a chance by the coalition, could manage it too when the time comes.
