{UAH} See, the South Africans bitching, but Rwandans aren't

http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/OpEd/comment/See--the-South-Africans-bitching--but-Rwandans-aren-t-/-/434750/2310010/-/ubjo28z/-/index.html

See, the South Africans bitching, but Rwandans aren't

Share Bookmark Print Rating

 

By Frederick Golooba-Mutebi

Posted  Saturday, May 10  2014 at  13:57

SHARE THIS STORY

0
inShare

A day after voting ended in South Africa's fifth democratic election since the collapse of apartheid, reports of a massive victory for the ruling African National Congress started coming in.

Nothing surprising there, after pre-election polling showed the ANC's support standing at just over 60 per cent of the vote.

Meanwhile, pundits were generally united on the prospects of the ANC failing to win a two-thirds majority, courtesy of a combination of gains by the mainly white Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters, the party founded by former ANC youth league chairman, Julius Malema.

All indications were that the highly populist and militant EFF was set to become the country's third largest party and the second largest black-led political organisation.

Listening to South Africans talk about their two-decade-old democracy and the ANC prior to the elections made me think of the Rwanda Patriotic Front, Rwanda's ruling party.

Although they are miles apart in terms of age and size, the two organisations are, to a certain degree, comparable:

To begin with, both ascended to power in 1994 and therefore have a 20-year record each, against which people in their respective countries judge them. Before examining their records in power, let's outline what else they have in common.

At the top of the two organisations are leaders who were once forced to live in exile and who, at the risk of life and limb, dedicated their youth to political struggle in pursuit of their citizenship rights.

Ideologically, both parties style themselves as pan-Africanist, reject racism and ethnic bigotry, and aspire to build their respective societies on the principles of equality of opportunity for all citizens. This general orientation establishes their credentials as progressive, pro-people movements.

Each inherited a society dislocated and enfeebled by conflict and state-promoted sectarianism with a difficult history stood in the way of reconciliation.

Neither had a ready-made manual from which to derive strategies for tackling state-inspired sectarianism that had lasted decades and become deeply entrenched. Internal ingenuity enabled each to find a homegrown formula for pursuing reconciliation without which little could be achieved.

One went for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the other a traditional conflict adjudication mechanism, the Gacaca courts, backed up by a National Unity and Reconciliation Commission. And each promised radical change in people's lives and in the organisation of politics, the latter premised on inclusion and the imperative to ensure a general sense of belonging among all social groups.

Twenty years on, however, popular narratives in both countries point to areas where, in important respects, the two movements have followed divergent paths.

For all the gains the ANC has made by way of building a country that belongs to all who live in it regardless of colour or creed, one is likely to hear more people dismiss its leadership today as not being up to the job of leading the country, than would have been the case say 10 years ago.

In a clearly hyperbolic description that nonetheless captures the sentiments of many South Africans, a newspaper columnist recently characterised the ANC leadership as "a collection of cronies, clowns and well-known crooks."

While in the early days only a small minority of racists would have predicted a future of corruption, nepotism and incompetence, today growing numbers of the formerly oppressed and marginalised decry what they claim is the degeneration of a once-cherished liberation movement.

With few exceptions, South Africans are generally better off, many wealthier than they would have dared imagine possible during the heyday of racial segregation. More children go to better-quality schools and more people have access to good housing and better healthcare.

The black middle class, and this includes so-called coloureds and Indians, has grown by leaps and bounds. Clearly, the ANC has presided over a country that in many ways, for the vast majority of people, is a much happier place to live than was the case before it came to power. And yet, day in and day out, one hears complaints about lack of services or poor service delivery.

During the run-up to the elections, such complaints were often followed by vows not to vote for it. Obviously, given early post-election indications that the party was headed for another landslide, such vows might have been mere expressions of anger and frustration, not of actual voting intentions. Even then, the point about disappointment with the ANC's perceived record was clear.

In Rwanda, despite stories of the RPF's dictatorship and intolerance of opposing groups, the government it leads has managed to maintain a strong record on anti-corruption, continues to insist on integrity in leadership; is highly effective at service delivery; and is relentless in its pursuit of improvement in the quality of life for all.

Twenty years on, one is more likely than not to hear Rwandans affirm their leaders' commitment to working for the common good, not individual interest.

Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: fgmutebi@yahoo.com

Ocen  Nekyon

Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed Lamb contesting the results.

Benjamin Franklin

--
UAH forum is devoted to matters of interest to Ugandans. Individuals are responsible for whatever they post on this forum.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or Abbey Semuwemba at: abbeysemuwemba@gmail.com.