Africa Thirty Years Later
Africa Thirty Years Later
Thirty years ago this month, Africa lived through two momentous events that should be remembered: the massacre in Rwanda and the election of Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa.
The massacre in Rwanda had at its roots the legacy of the decisions by colonial powers to create African states out of their territories rather than along tribal lines. Rwanda, composed on both Hutus and Tutsis, was given its independence by a Belgium convinced that the minority Tutsis were better than Hutus, and created institutions that left the Tutsis in control of government. In 1959, the Hutus rebelled and over 150,000 Tutsis fled to neighboring Burundi.
When Rwandan President Habyarimana was assassinated on April 6, 1994, Tutsis were accused, and Hutus reacted by massacring almost onemillion Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Tutsi Rwanda Patriotic Front under the command of now President Paul Kagame then invaded Rwanda from its base in Uganda and took over the country.
Since 2000, President Kagame has provided Rwanda with an autocratic but forward-looking government. His administration has created a technological hub for Africa, a peaceful country where economic growth is a reality, education and health services are reportedly excellent, and its cities are clean and modern.
According to the World Bank Rwandan Economic Unit, Rwanda has successfully controlled inflation, managed growing trade deficits, and ensured fiscal prudence showcasing a resilient financial sector.Despite the depreciation of the Rwandan franc, fiscal responsibility has been maintained, with prudent strategies in place. The banking sector has also remained stable and profitable, contributing to economic resilience.
Rwanda appears to be a model for other African states in that well managed investments in education, technology, and health can produce dividends. While authoritarian, the government provides security in a country where thirty years ago hundreds of thousands were viciously hacked to death, and blood ran in the streets.
Kagame’s government has given Rwandans a dignified and safe life.
Now to South Africa.
In April 1994, I had the privilege of accompanying then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Christine Stewart to South Africa as spokesperson for her and the Canadian Observer Mission to the Elections.
It was the first time that all South Africans were allowed to vote for their government free of apartheid restrictions. I recall accompanying our ambassador’s black driver to vote. He came out of the booth with tears in his eyes, saying that for the first time in his life, he felt like a human being in his own country.
The outcome of this free and fair election was known in advance – the anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela was sure to win.
A democrat in every sense of the word, his dream was not revenge against the former white ruling class, but, rather, the creation of a “rainbow state”in which all would be free and equal, and their rights respected.
He saw this as the only way forward towards a peaceful South Africa. His aim was to avoid the violence and bloodshed that other African countries had suffered after independence.
Mandela governed as a wise and fair President, respected and admired at home and abroad, while wishing for South Africa to prosper in peace and in freedom.
He incorporated whites into his government, welcomed business into a dialogue that remains active until this day, and pursued a well thought out foreign policy.
Unfortunately, his successors have not been cut from the same cloth.
A series of mediocre presidents has allowed corruption to run rampant, violent crime to reach stratospheric levels, and infrastructure to deteriorate to the point where there are daily rolling blackouts and Johannesburg residents must line up for water.
As part of an international poll published earlier this year the American consultancy Edelman, South Africans said they trusted business more than government, the media, or NGOs. Indeed, the gap of 40 percentage points between trust expressed in business (62%) and in government (20%) was larger than in any of the other 27 countries polled.
Under these circumstances, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) is expected to win elections later this year.
However, a senior business executive quoted in the Economist observed that “You can put solar panels on your roof, live in a gated estate, have private security, and own a holiday home. But if 90% of the population are suffering, how is that sustainable?”
These two major events viewed thirty years laterillustrate two different outcomes – one positive, the other lamentable.
Both Kagame and Mandela have had their visionsof where their respective countries should go. While Mandela stands as a giant among leaders, his vision has unfortunately failed.
And while Kagame can be viewed as undemocratic, his vision of a prosperous and peaceful Rwanda prevails.
Which model of leadership is better?
Time will tell.
Thanks Eduardo. I would agree with most of this, but while Rwanda's progress has been impressive in many areas, Kagame's regime is notorious for its abuses against journalists. And Amnesty points out many other human rights issues in the country: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/east-africa-the-horn-and-great-lakes/rwanda/report-rwanda/
On South Africa, I was shocked when I visited Jo'burg last year at the lack of progress and especially at the corruption scandal in the energy sector that has led to daily lengthy power cuts (including traffic signals!)
Mandela probably should have done more to institute managed land reform (NOT in the Mugabe way in Zimbabwe) but his successors, for all their rhetoric, certainly seem to have taken the country backwards in recent decades.
Great comparison Eduardo. I remember these events so well. Democracy doesn't seem to have turned out so well for much of South Africa, despite the fanfare and hope. Whereas the despair that existed in Rwanda is a model of success 30 years later in spite of some abuses. Both histories are so painful. Great read!