African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS, Vol.11, #1 April 2018 ISSN 1554-3897 Why Kagame Should Not Seek Another Term By William R. Pruitt, J.D., Ph.D. Virginia Wesleyan University Abstract Recent constitutional changes in Rwanda cleared the way for President Paul Kagame to run for a third, fourth, and fifth term. Kagame expressed his interest in running for a third term in 2017 which he won in August. There is hopefully time to convince President Kagame that his current decision is not in the best interests of Rwanda, but merely self-interest. If Kagame stepped aside in 2017 he would have facilitated the country’s first peaceful transfer of power, respected the rule of law, and protected his own legacy. With his decision to seek a third term he risks international condemnation and loss of foreign aid. Keywords: Rwanda, Kagame, constitution, regime, rule of law Introduction In 2016 the Rwandan parliament and voters approved a constitutional amendment that would allow current president Paul Kagame to stay in power for another seventeen years. In a New Year’s address to the country, Kagame expressed his desire to seek a third term (BBC News 2016). His term as president was scheduled to end in 2017 after serving his constitutionally proscribed two terms. In his address to the people of Rwanda, Kagame said that the Rwandan people ‘requested me to lead the country again after 2017. Given the importance and consideration you attach to this, I can only accept’ (BBC News 2016). He continued by noting that ‘I don't think that what we need is an eternal leader’ (BBC News 2016). Whether Kagame means what he says about an eternal leader is unclear but perhaps he is open to persuasion not to run for another term. Should Kagame be looking for reasons to step down he need look no further than facilitating the country’s first peaceful transfer of power, respecting the rule of law, and protecting his own legacy. Paul Kagame’s rise to power in Rwanda is well documented. He was raised as a refugee in Uganda, trained in military fighting in Uganda and the United States, and led the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). After President Habyarimana’s death and genocidal killing began spreading throughout the country, the RPF entered Rwanda and is credited with ending the genocide (Twagiramungu 2015). After the genocide ended the RPF came into power in a devastated country—nearly one million were killed, two million refugees in neighbouring countries, one million internally displaced (Reyntjens 2004). In addition, the infrastructure of the country was annihilated, the criminal justice, health care, and education systems were demolished as well as crops and livestock (Reyntjens 2004). - 55 - Why Kagame Should Not Seek Another Term by Pruitt Kagame and the RPF were seen by many as the saviours of Rwanda when they defeated the Hutu extremists leading the genocide. Together, Kagame and the RPF became the ‘best hope for democratic and peaceful change’ (Twagiramungu 2015). The RPF entered government and took control from the previously Hutu- dominated regime. In an initial attempt to create a power sharing government between the Hutu and the Tutsi, Kagame took a position as vice-president and minister of defence (Twagiramungu 2015). The other major positions were filled by Hutus. As the country was rebuilt, the new government passed a constitution in 2003 to replace a transitional constitution put in place following the genocide (Iaccino 2015). Part of the new constitution included presidential term limits. The president could be elected for a term of seven years renewable only once (Government of Rwanda 2003). Article 101 states that ‘Under no circumstances shall a person hold the office of President of Republic for more than two terms’ (Government of Rwanda 2003, emphasis added). Kagame won his first term as president in 2003 following passage of the new constitution with 95 percent of the vote (Reyntjens 2004).i In 2010, Kagame was re-elected with 93 percent of the vote and 98 percent voter turnout (Reyntjens 2010). As Kagame’s constitutionally limited terms were about to expire, there had been much action allowing him a third (and fourth and fifth) term. It now seems that ‘no circumstances’ does not mean no circumstances. The process began with a petition to the parliament from an estimated 3.7 million Rwandans. While this number represents close to 70 percent of registered voters, it is less than one-third of the 12 million inhabitants of the country (Winsor 2015; Iaccino 2015). The New Times, a Rwandan newspaper, reported finding only ten people opposed to allowing Kagame a third term (Quartz Africa 2015). The most commonly cited reasons were the country’s economic development and Kagame’s role in ending the genocide (Iaccino 2015). The Democratic Green Party challenged the proposed changes in the Supreme Court asking the Court to block any proposed changes offered by the parliament (Winsor 2015; Aljazeera 2015a). Judge Immaculee Nyirinkwaya of the Supreme Court said that the court ‘found every reason to hear this case’ (Winsor 2015). However, when the case made its way to the court, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed it saying the case had no merit (Iaccino 2015). The court said that the ultimate decision on whether to allow Kagame a third term was for the people to decide. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Parliament acted quickly to amend Article 101 to benefit Kagame. Parliament’s lower house offered Article 172 to amend Article 101. Article 172 was supported by all members present for the vote (Reuters 2015b).ii The Senate unanimously approved the amendment too (Aljazeera 2015b). The amended constitution would reduce the presidential term from seven to five years and maintain a two term limit (Aljazeera 2015b). However, there is - 56 - African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS, Vol.11, #1 April 2018 ISSN 1554-3897 an exception made solely for Paul Kagame. He would be permitted to run for a third term of seven years, and then he would be allowed to run for two terms of five years each allowing Kagame to remain in power for another seventeen years. A referendum on the constitutional amendment went to the public on December 18, 2015 (Gaffey 2015). The amendment passed and opened the door for Kagame to run for a third (and fourth and fifth) term as president. While amending the constitution made the third term run legal, it violated the spirit of the constitution and Kagame’s own promises. Peaceful transfer of power In 2017, Kagame faced an historic first for the country of Rwanda. If he agreed to step aside and allow a new president to be elected and inaugurated, Kagame would have facilitated the first peaceful transfer of power in Rwanda.iii Rwanda gained independence from Belgium in 1962 following considerable bloodshed whereby the majority Hutus took control of the government from the minority Tutsi who had been in power (Guichaoua 2015). Gregoire Kayibanda became the first president of an independent Rwanda. Kayibanda’s presidency was dominated by a one-party regime based on ethnicity (Cantrell 2012). Anti-Tutsi massacres occurred under Kayibanda’s regime in 1964 and 1966-7 (Cantrell 2012; Guichaoua 2015). Kayibanda’s rule was marked by increasing isolation for the country and exclusion of the Tutsis (Cantrell 2012). His poor performance as leader and administrator ultimately led to a bloody coup d’état. General Juvénal Habyarimana overthrew Kayibanda and took power from the civilian government (Cantrell 2012). Habyarimana executed the entire cabinet and Kayibanda was exiled to house arrest and died of heart failure a few years later (Kambanda 2015; Cantrell 2012). Habyarimana’s regime did not fare much better than Kayibanda’s. He too mandated a one-party state system and supported a constitution which consolidated power into his hands (Guichaoua 2015). He faced an attempted coup in 1980 and repressed any dissidents that appeared (Guichaoua 2015). Habyarimana’s demise began in 1990 when Paul Kagame and the RPF began invasions into Rwanda from Uganda. These incursions initiated a civil war that culminated in the 1994 genocide, which Kagame is credited with ending (Guichaoua 2015). The transfer of power following the genocide was anything but peaceful. A transitional government entered power in 1994 headed by Pasteur Bizimungu (Reyntjens 2004). By 2003, when the new constitution was ratified, Bizimungu had resigned and was charged with divisionism which prevented him from running for the presidency (Reyntjens 2004). The election of Paul Kagame in 2003 with a resounding 95 percent of the vote may at first seem like a peaceful transfer of power. However, Human Rights Watch alleged the election was flawed with several irregularities (Reyntjens 2004). Allegations of illegal arrests, disappearances, and intimidation of both voters and - 57 - Why Kagame Should Not Seek Another Term by Pruitt politicians marred the victory (Reyntjens 2004). As Kagame’s two terms neared an end, he had the capability to facilitate the first peaceful transfer of power in Rwanda. This should have been a true victory for Kagame and his presidency if he willingly stepped aside. The peaceful transfer of power is seen as a hallmark of democracy and free government. Kagame need only look at his neighbours to see what happens when a country’s leader attempts to overstay his constitutional limits. In Burundi, President Pierre Nkurunziza decided to run for a third term in violation of his term limits (Reuters 2015b). While many in the public felt Nkurunziza’s decision violated the peace deal that ended a civil war in that country, the nation’s court ruled he could run again lending some credibility to the decision (Reuters 2015b).