With the National Dialogue, Kagame has dumbfounded his critics and enemies

On December 20 and 21, the government of Rwanda held the 8th Annual National Dialogue.

Known in the local lingo as Inama y’Igihugu y’umushyikirano, the gathering is an obligation enshrined in the 2003 Constitution.

Besides power sharing designed to end yesterday’s politics of exclusion, the dialogue is one of those features of Rwanda’s governance that make it truly unique in the Great Lakes region.

It is also one of the key features of Rwanda that baffle outsiders, and to which commentators, especially those with interest in issues of political space and inclusivity, pay little, if any, attention.

One has to know the country more than superficially to understand why a political organisation as powerful as the Rwanda Patriotic Front, having seized power by force of arms, would go on to spearhead the creation of a political system in which it would be obliged by law to work with other parties that, given their relatively minor status, it could have chosen to exclude.

The Dialogue brings together different categories of people, among them the president and his Cabinet, members of both chambers of parliament, local government leaders, members of the Rwanda Diaspora, representatives of the private sector, diplomats representing different countries in Rwanda and representing Rwanda in other countries, religious leaders, and members of the military and police.

In general terms, it seeks to discuss issues of national interest and of concern to the different groups and individuals with a stake in the country’s affairs.

More specifically, it aims at taking stock of where the country is with regard to the implementation of decisions and priority programmes and activities identified and agreed collectively during the previous year’s meeting.

Rwandans and other interested parties in and outside the country, who are not able to attend the meeting at the parliamentary buildings where it takes place, can follow proceedings live via radio and television broadcasts, and on the Internet. Not only that.

They can participate in the discussions via toll-free telephone lines and send in their views on subjects of interest via SMS and e-mail.

In many ways, this meeting poses questions for critics whose preoccupations rotate around issues of political space and inclusivity, and freedom of expression.

There is no country in this region and possibly in the world, where citizens are given the opportunity to engage in conversation with their leaders and to vet their performance on this scale.

On the first day alone, 70,000 people followed proceedings via the Internet. On the second day the number rose to 100000.

Others sent in thousands of SMS messages or called in as the more than 1,000 people in the room followed attentively.

Complaints came from those concerned about unemployment and others alleging corruption and nepotism in local government, poor performance in hospitals and health units, and influence peddling by different categories of leaders.

Occasionally, specific leaders, ministries, organisations, or local authorities, would be named in connection with this or that failure or wrongdoing and then called upon to explain.

As a mechanism for holding leaders to account, the dialogue is an important case study for public administration specialists.

This year it had a very special aspect to it. It attracted dozens of diaspora Rwandans, some of whom were, until recently, vocal critics and opponents of the Kagame regime.

A good number had responded to calls to return home and see for themselves how Rwanda works, calls President Kagame had made while on recent visits to Belgium where he addressed hundreds of his compatriots from across the European Union, and to Congo Brazzaville where he challenged those living there as refugees to stop subjecting themselves to the indignity of being stateless.

Other government officials had visited Zambia, Malawi and other countries on similar missions.

The impact of all this became evident from the statements many made at the close of the dialogue through which one could trace a common thread: They pledged to be the government’s “unpaid ambassadors” wherever they live, and undertook to oppose whoever may want to use them to undermine or destabilise the country.

It seemed as if Kagame had just swept the carpet from under the feet of his opponents and critics.

Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Social Research, Makerere University