Ntganda's surrender: Let's not forget a few things....

My twitter feed is alive with speculation and opinion on Ntganda's pre-arrest/surrender in Kigali on Monday. I have been using twitter less and less as the rumour mill and reality are regularly divorced, making following those with claimed expertise on the conflict in DRC, politics in Rwanda, etc, etc hard to stomach, and even harder to interpret. Your number of followers or regularity of your tweets does not equate with accuracy or influence, people! My own take on Ntganda's surrender to the Americans in Kigali is to remind everyone that Rwanda is a master of grand strategy. Do not discount the notion that Kagame and other senior RDF officers knew well before we did what was going on. At the same time, don't overlook that Kagame is regularly and loudly critical of the ICC, calling it a form of neo-colonialism. (And he has a point there - ICC justice is pretty flawed for all kinds of reasons). Don't reify leadership and other state actors. Yes, it is important and useful to consider the motivations and interests of Kagame and Nkunda and Kabila and Museveni and so and so on. But so are local actors, local dynamics and local interests. Don't forget to drill down behind the headline, behind what you think you know. And don't forget that Kagame and his RPF as masters of grand strategy, whether military or public relations. Remember when Rudasingwa, Gahima, Karegeya and Nyamwasa defected/exiled and started their Rwandan National Congress Party? Same kind of speculation, and we learned little new expect that Rwandans elite political class remains disconnected from local realities. Only certain types of people matter in Rwanda, and the RNC has reinforced this in adopting a platform and rhetoric that is basically Arusha Accords redux. Indeed, Gahima just published a book that could have really illuminated and opened up discussion and debate on RPF crimes before, during and after the genocide (and more). But he didn't take the route, and Ntganda probably won't either. Don't overlook that legal standards of evidence and full disclosure for purposes of national reconciliation and individual healing are vastly difference. Even if Ntaganda sings, how much will we really learn? Remember Major General Rose Kabuye's arrest in Europe in December 2008? Kigali feigned outrage, forcing protests about the illegality and injustice of her arrest in Kigali (who is truly allowed to protest, with English signage in Rwanda?). Then we learned that Kagame and company, thanks to the rules of French legal procedure that they learned of the scope and nature of the charges against Kagame himself, and other senior members of the RPF? Kabuye was scapegoated, and so could be Ntaganda. All I am saying is that there is a broader trend of RPF manipulation and control embedded in Ntaganda's surrender. Don't forget that. And don't fail to pleasantly surprised if everything I just said turns out to be wrong. Maybe Ntaganda will share what he knows as part of a plea bargain and we will finally have enough to begin the indictment process for members of the RPF.

On the Opposition and Insults

One of the pitfalls of keeping a blog, and a research-centred Facebook page means that all kinds of people feel compelled to comment on my thoughts on politics in Rwanda. I welcome all kinds of viewpoints from all kinds of people, even though some folks are prone to personal attacks, and other non-substantive remarks that don't actually help me think through my evidence and subsequent arguments. Quite the opposite, in fact. Personal attacks leaving me scratching my head in puzzlement because, thanks to and because of technology, I have never met face-to-face with most of my detractors (or my allies, for that matter). How can someone launch a personal attack on someone they have never met? At the same time, when I make such binary statements like, "my detractors" and "my allies", it leads a lot of people to conclude that I am firmly in one camp or another when the reality is that I keep a blog and an open Facebook profile so that I can learn about what people who care about peace and justice in Rwanda think, whether they are Rwandan or not, and whether I agree with their viewpoints or not.

I think its absurd that a non-Rwandan cannot comment on Rwandan society for a number of reasons, not least of which is that in an interconnected and globalised world, we all have a stake in a peaceful Rwanda that sees no more genocide or similar political violence and one that is committed to socio-economic equality. For me, Rwanda's ever increasing gini co-efficient is a direct threat to peace in the country and the region more broadly. In addition, critique is part and parcel of any democratic country, and since Rwanda claims to be a consolidated democracy after two Presidential election (2003 and 2010), then how am I misbehaving? Indeed, I would suggest that by my own standards, Rwanda gets off pretty easy -- you should hear me critique the policies and programmes of my own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper!

All this commentary on insults and opinion to segue into the real purpose of this posting. I have had some very interesting email conversations with individuals (mostly Rwandans, some Congolese and a few foreign academics) about the article I co-authored that compares the rhetorical leadership styles of Habyarimana and Kagame. Unfortunately, the Rwandans I am engaging with are outraged. Those loyal to Kagame are offended that I dare compare him to Habyarimana, and those who long for a return to the days of Habyarimana are offended that I compare the Father of their nation to the likes of Kagame. So I am inadvertently in the middle of a debate I never expected. I want to say to anyone who is interested that I welcome these discussions but will not react at all to personal attacks or similar diatribes. If you want to talk about our methodology, our analysis, our tools of interpretation, or correct this mistake or that, I can't wait to talk to you. If you want to tell me that I am a flaming idiot, and that I should be burned at the stake, then don't be stunned when I don't get back to you.

Now, lest you think that this article has only attracted negative attention, I want to share that I learned something meaningful that is food for thought for Rwanda scholars in particular and GLR scholars more broadly. It seems that the current political opposition (Ingabire, Habineza, and so on) is a threat to Kagame because urban and/or educated Tutsi who were in the country during the genocide and survived it are largely supportive of their politics. Thus, the main constituency that the RPF claims to the international community (and commentators like Kinzer in his recent Guardian article) represent do not actually support its government. So this is a direct threat to the broad-based and grassroots legitimacy that Kagame claims his government holds among Rwandans. This is also an interesting development in the context of Rwandan history. When there are divisions within the ruling elite (in this case not only between RPF elites as evidenced by the recent allegations of treason against former insiders Nyamwasa, Karegeya, Rudasingwa and Gahima but between the RPF and its presumed core consitutency), the odds for politically motivated violence are increased. And this is the point that my co-author and I wanted to make -- Kagame is replicating, perhaps even unconsciously, the power structures that made genocide an option for threaten Hutu elites. And it is here where my research is located, to revealing the power structures that exclude a portion of the population, and the implications of socio-political exclusion.