http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/03/london-pr-rwanda-saudi-arabia
I am a Rwandan who lived in UK for some 14 years and recently returned to live in Rwanda, I read a story that really caught my attention in the Guardian dated Aug 3rd. It asked “Does this picture make you think of Rwanda?” It dealt with how nations try to alter their national image after a tragic event that defines it. In Rwanda that event was the Genocide of 1994, and if you google Rwanda then the same topics arise. As for the original question about a picture, three picture pop up on google:
one is of a crying child, the other of a disfigured woman holding a baby, and the last is of a man with machete scars criss-crossing his face.
For a country that has undoubtedly made massive strides in the last 16 years, in development, in justice and reconciliation, it is crucial that we change two things. Firstly we have to change how we view ourselves, and secondly we have to change how the world views us. So to call it “reputation laundering” is wrong, it is to equate it with money laundering where dirty money from criminal ventures is legitimised. That is to say a country with a negative perception has no right to change it.
Public relations is a science now, not an art like it used to be, this was proved by Tony Blair during his years in power. However, the dark arts of PR cannot sustain you forever, as we saw this with New Labour being kicked out. What Rwanda was trying to do in hiring Racepoint was to set a new image to begin afresh with, to reflect the changes that have gone on in Rwanda. 40% of Rwandans are under 18, meaning they have been born since the Genocide or were babies when it happened. And yet these young Rwandans find themselves hostage to their history. Women make 56% of parliamentarians, women make the majority of the workforce, women own more land than ever before.
The negative perceptions of Rwanda sometimes have benefits, whenever westerners arrive they are impress by the clean roads, polite police, the lack of open corruption, the role of women on building sites and they always say “It’s not as bad as they said.” What Rwanda suffers from mostly in the western media is the compound story, because Rwanda disappears from the world’s view for several years, then an avalanche of bad press comes. It would be like if one never heard of Britain in the media then all the negative headlines combine to make one story. “Corrupt politicians who cheat on their expenses to the tune of millions, a disenfranchised electorate where only 30% vote regularly, a political crisis where no party has a majority, a country where teenagers are shooting and stabbing each other on a regular basis.”
That could be the perception of Britain by someone who doesn’t follow news regularly.
In Rwanda, several stories are combined to create an impression of crisis and oppression. Hence one can predict the final few paragraphs of any story relating to Rwanda. The killing of a journalist is linked to deserting generals, is linked to the killing of a politician, is linked to the refusal to register some opposition parties, is linked to grenade attacks, is linked to banning newspapers, is linked to the Congo crisis. The world needs to be better informed about this issues that are all unique and need to be explained in their context and not lumped together.
The killing of Frank Rugambage was linked to an earlier case where he was accused of Genocide crimes and the brother of the alleged victim confessed to the crime, the motive was apparently revenge. The banned newspapers were not registered and hadn’t paid tax in years, besides they were really unprofessional. The general who was shot in South Africa was a victim of a robbery. The opposition parties do not fulfil the requirements under our constitution, which I admit is restrictive considering our history. Rwanda has the only constitution designed to prevent genocide first, then facilitate democracy secondly. All this is forgotten in the short little bulletins that attack Rwanda, no government that is so media conscious can openly gun down journalists or former generals abroad.
Rwanda is a victim of the shorter attention span of modern media consumers, who want a brief description of what happened without the context. The Telegraph in the UK did a hard-hitting piece where they touched on all the faults and strengths of modern Rwanda but at least gave a background and context. Rwanda cannot be separated from its recent historical context, only 16 years ago some 800,000 people were hacked to death, in the world of newsreels that is prehistoric, but in reality some of the wounds have literally not healed and some survivors are still receiving treatment for their injuries. There is no excuse to exclude context where the internet is involved, it does not cost you extra paper. If you remove the context then you are cheating your readers and giving a false picture. Here is the other side you never show of Rwanda.
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Friday, 30 July 2010
Ethnicity and Rwanda Politics
The role of ethnicity in Rwanda is something that is often misunderstood, it is often assumed that the laws ban any mention of ethnicity. This is false, people are free to have their personal identity but it only becomes an issue when it is used in a political context. In the home and social settings, people are free to associate and define themselves, it is only if you publically seek to divide or separate people that it becomes an issue. Politicians like Victoire Ingabire often say that people are denied their identity by the government, the government is in a precarious situation of balancing personal identity and social reconciliation.
There are two schools of thought on this, one is that we must acknowledge our differences then unite. The other, which the government follows, is that acknowledging differences will not lead to cohesion, that we should instead seek to emphasise what we have in common and forget our differences. What we have in common is a common language, a common history, a common culture, a love of the same country, and even on many levels a love of each other. No nation has ever been united by their differences. In fact, these differences are a short cut to power but also a shortcut to genocide.
People always try to point to the Burundi model, where strict quotas are set out for every tribal bloc. They say that Burundians are capable of talking about their tribal differences openly. One should also note that the two main sides live in separate areas, drink in separate bars, pray in separate churches, learn in separate schools and live separate lives. Rwanda has never been like that even in the worst times of genocide. There are places in Burundi where a Tutsi would be instantly killed just for going there, that is not the case in Rwanda where anyone is free to roam wherever they like.
In Burundi, there were some 300,000 victims on both sides in a 15 year war, that means some 20,000 died a year, but in Rwanda that was only 2 days of killings as 10,000 died a day. Rwanda and Burundi have many similarities but they should not be freely compared, yes they have the same ethnic composition and similar cultures but they are very different. The Burundi situation is what would have happened had the Arusha accords defined Rwanda, if strict ethnic quotas were enforced. One wonders where the million people of mixed-ethnicity would fit in, how can you play fractions and percentages with people’s lives?
Burundi has seen the fragmentation of people, first on tribal grounds, then inter-regional grounds and newer fault-lines are appearing. The Rwanda model is to do away with ethnicity, they managed to do this in Europe. When William the Conqueror ascended to the throne in 1066, he could not afford to have tribal division because they acted as powerbases, so he abolished them. After some uproar, the English were united and ironically under a French King. One day Rwandans will all appreciate the decision to abolish tribes.
There are two schools of thought on this, one is that we must acknowledge our differences then unite. The other, which the government follows, is that acknowledging differences will not lead to cohesion, that we should instead seek to emphasise what we have in common and forget our differences. What we have in common is a common language, a common history, a common culture, a love of the same country, and even on many levels a love of each other. No nation has ever been united by their differences. In fact, these differences are a short cut to power but also a shortcut to genocide.
People always try to point to the Burundi model, where strict quotas are set out for every tribal bloc. They say that Burundians are capable of talking about their tribal differences openly. One should also note that the two main sides live in separate areas, drink in separate bars, pray in separate churches, learn in separate schools and live separate lives. Rwanda has never been like that even in the worst times of genocide. There are places in Burundi where a Tutsi would be instantly killed just for going there, that is not the case in Rwanda where anyone is free to roam wherever they like.
In Burundi, there were some 300,000 victims on both sides in a 15 year war, that means some 20,000 died a year, but in Rwanda that was only 2 days of killings as 10,000 died a day. Rwanda and Burundi have many similarities but they should not be freely compared, yes they have the same ethnic composition and similar cultures but they are very different. The Burundi situation is what would have happened had the Arusha accords defined Rwanda, if strict ethnic quotas were enforced. One wonders where the million people of mixed-ethnicity would fit in, how can you play fractions and percentages with people’s lives?
Burundi has seen the fragmentation of people, first on tribal grounds, then inter-regional grounds and newer fault-lines are appearing. The Rwanda model is to do away with ethnicity, they managed to do this in Europe. When William the Conqueror ascended to the throne in 1066, he could not afford to have tribal division because they acted as powerbases, so he abolished them. After some uproar, the English were united and ironically under a French King. One day Rwandans will all appreciate the decision to abolish tribes.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Democracy needs economic development to flourish
Charles Onyango-Obbo wrote an in-depth series on Rwanda in the recent weeks, it was mostly correct and often complimentary but it said the Kagame thinks “Rwanda can live on bread alone.” In Rwanda, poverty and ignorance were the root causes of the Genocide which killed almost 1,000,000 people. We cannot have real democracy until we have economic development that is ingrained in our minds and is unstoppable in momentum. If we look at all the most stable democracies in the world, they are also the top economic powers. In Rwanda we have a saying “when you have nothing to share, you fight and call each other greedy.” As long as Rwandans are poor, we are open to manipulation by evil tribalist politicians.
Paul Kagame admires Julius Nyerere above other leaders, I saw the impact that Nyerere had when I recently visited Tanzania. His shadow looms large over the nation even 11 years after his death. He gave a deeply fragmented nation a common identity, he gave them a sense of collective cultural pride, and although his economic policies largely failed, he gave his people a sense of contentment. Kagame wants to replicate those aspects but with economic development as well because the population and demographic pressures of Rwanda make it more urgent. Nyerere, who resigned in 1985 still dominated Tanzanian politics even with the humble title of “Mwalimu” and was seen a man above politics and an arbiter or referee.
When people criticise Rwanda for not having a viable opposition, one must also ask why South Africa, Tanzania, Mozambique, and many other countries also have parties which take an overwhelming share of the vote. There are often similarities in that they had leaders who were ideologues, leaders who created a new national identity and ethos. Mandela in South Africa, Samora Machel in Mozambique, and Nyerere in Tanzania, all these men still dominate their national politics. Another factor is that they had movements that were “broad churches” and able to accommodate different wings and ideological backgrounds. The final factor is their movements were based on objectives above all else and ideology was a means to an end.
This explains the dominance of the ANC, RPF, Frelimo and CCM, one can claim it is due to political interference but one cannot deny the popularity of the party on the ground. The weakness of the opposition in Rwanda is due to their political inexperience, RPF has had to learn the hard way – how new policies have to be devised, revised and funding allocated. So when an opposition party promises free healthcare for all, without saying where the money will come from, it betrays political naivety. So the only shortcut left must be appeal to tribal sentiments, Victoire Ingabire has been doing this and want to nation to revert to the past by revising what happened in 1994. We cannot have a new identity and keep the old ones, that is the sacrifice we will have to make in exchange for economic development, one cannot wear two hats on one head.
Paul Kagame admires Julius Nyerere above other leaders, I saw the impact that Nyerere had when I recently visited Tanzania. His shadow looms large over the nation even 11 years after his death. He gave a deeply fragmented nation a common identity, he gave them a sense of collective cultural pride, and although his economic policies largely failed, he gave his people a sense of contentment. Kagame wants to replicate those aspects but with economic development as well because the population and demographic pressures of Rwanda make it more urgent. Nyerere, who resigned in 1985 still dominated Tanzanian politics even with the humble title of “Mwalimu” and was seen a man above politics and an arbiter or referee.
When people criticise Rwanda for not having a viable opposition, one must also ask why South Africa, Tanzania, Mozambique, and many other countries also have parties which take an overwhelming share of the vote. There are often similarities in that they had leaders who were ideologues, leaders who created a new national identity and ethos. Mandela in South Africa, Samora Machel in Mozambique, and Nyerere in Tanzania, all these men still dominate their national politics. Another factor is that they had movements that were “broad churches” and able to accommodate different wings and ideological backgrounds. The final factor is their movements were based on objectives above all else and ideology was a means to an end.
This explains the dominance of the ANC, RPF, Frelimo and CCM, one can claim it is due to political interference but one cannot deny the popularity of the party on the ground. The weakness of the opposition in Rwanda is due to their political inexperience, RPF has had to learn the hard way – how new policies have to be devised, revised and funding allocated. So when an opposition party promises free healthcare for all, without saying where the money will come from, it betrays political naivety. So the only shortcut left must be appeal to tribal sentiments, Victoire Ingabire has been doing this and want to nation to revert to the past by revising what happened in 1994. We cannot have a new identity and keep the old ones, that is the sacrifice we will have to make in exchange for economic development, one cannot wear two hats on one head.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Sometimes Rwanda can never win
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t
There is a saying in public relations “there is no such thing a bad publicity.” Indeed, any negative story can be used to elicit good publicity or at least publicity. The opposite is true as well, in the world of national publicity, any good story can be used to generate negative publicity. A recent example is the study by transparency international that claimed Rwanda had the lowest corruption rate in East Africa, while Uganda, Kenya and Burundi rated at over 30% prevalence we had only 3-6% prevalence. It claimed the rate was negligible, good story I thought, but think again.
The BBC claimed that this was a sign of political oppression in Rwanda, if prosecuting corrupt officials is political oppression then I am all for it. It is like Africans have to conform to certain negative stereotypes and any attempt to depart from this is painful for some foreign journalists. How can Africans move past this stereotyping? We need to stop conforming to what is expected from us. A border guard is expected to solicit bribes, a tax inspector is also expected to take kickbacks, so how can you change that?
It requires both the carrot and a very big stick, government servants in East Africa apart from Rwanda are rarely paid on time, their salaries barely rise in line with inflation and few can blame them for being resourceful in how they are paid. Another aspect is developing a target oriented culture, few civil servants know what targets they are working towards so they work towards their own goals of self-enrichment. The final is the most important, to use the big stick – the threat of prosecution must always be there. Even though Rwanda has a limited skills base, it is not afraid to prosecute government officials without fear or favour.
The fight against corruption is a constant ongoing war, like how you have to take a bath every day. The scourge of corruption is constantly there and will never go away, we need to always review the processes, checks and balances to stop the evolution of corruption. Officials are always devising ever more clever ways to steal public funds, such as interfering with the tendering systems or even withholding large sums of money to skim the interest. The more complex the checks and balances, the cleverer the corruption scam.
The fragmented nature of tribal politics facilitates corruption, in some countries the pie has to be divided according to tribal quota. Burundi is now the most corrupt country in Africa, let alone East Africa. The pie has to be divided to a strict quota, 84% for Hutu, 15% for Tutsi and 1% for Twa. If you fail to fulfil that quota then you are in danger of being corrupt, so you have the curious situation where a corrupt Hutu is looking for a Tutsi to share 15% of their ill-gotten gain. This is the Africa that the BBC knows and loves, because if a correspondent cannot bribe an official then it means the world is turned on its head.
There is a saying in public relations “there is no such thing a bad publicity.” Indeed, any negative story can be used to elicit good publicity or at least publicity. The opposite is true as well, in the world of national publicity, any good story can be used to generate negative publicity. A recent example is the study by transparency international that claimed Rwanda had the lowest corruption rate in East Africa, while Uganda, Kenya and Burundi rated at over 30% prevalence we had only 3-6% prevalence. It claimed the rate was negligible, good story I thought, but think again.
The BBC claimed that this was a sign of political oppression in Rwanda, if prosecuting corrupt officials is political oppression then I am all for it. It is like Africans have to conform to certain negative stereotypes and any attempt to depart from this is painful for some foreign journalists. How can Africans move past this stereotyping? We need to stop conforming to what is expected from us. A border guard is expected to solicit bribes, a tax inspector is also expected to take kickbacks, so how can you change that?
It requires both the carrot and a very big stick, government servants in East Africa apart from Rwanda are rarely paid on time, their salaries barely rise in line with inflation and few can blame them for being resourceful in how they are paid. Another aspect is developing a target oriented culture, few civil servants know what targets they are working towards so they work towards their own goals of self-enrichment. The final is the most important, to use the big stick – the threat of prosecution must always be there. Even though Rwanda has a limited skills base, it is not afraid to prosecute government officials without fear or favour.
The fight against corruption is a constant ongoing war, like how you have to take a bath every day. The scourge of corruption is constantly there and will never go away, we need to always review the processes, checks and balances to stop the evolution of corruption. Officials are always devising ever more clever ways to steal public funds, such as interfering with the tendering systems or even withholding large sums of money to skim the interest. The more complex the checks and balances, the cleverer the corruption scam.
The fragmented nature of tribal politics facilitates corruption, in some countries the pie has to be divided according to tribal quota. Burundi is now the most corrupt country in Africa, let alone East Africa. The pie has to be divided to a strict quota, 84% for Hutu, 15% for Tutsi and 1% for Twa. If you fail to fulfil that quota then you are in danger of being corrupt, so you have the curious situation where a corrupt Hutu is looking for a Tutsi to share 15% of their ill-gotten gain. This is the Africa that the BBC knows and loves, because if a correspondent cannot bribe an official then it means the world is turned on its head.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Massive crowds underline RPF popularity
During this week, RPF Party Candidate, President Paul Kagame held rallies in 9 districts that include Gasabo, Rulindo, Gakenke, Musanze, Burera, Nyabihu, Rubavu, Ngororero and Muhanga. At every location there have been record crowds to greet President Kagame, in one rally in Musanze there were over 120,000 people to hear his every word. This must say something about the popularity of RPF and Kagame, firstly it says that he is more popular in rural areas than was otherwise thought, secondly his message and achievements are chiming with ordinary Rwandans.
In Rwanda it is sometimes hard to gage the public mood, we do not do public opinion polls, so many areas are inaccessible and off the radar of the media. So the enthusiasm shown by crowds in many rural areas is more than was expected. The RPF has many development strategies aimed at poor rural voters, agricultural, health and education policies have been most helpful in providing a better quality of life than they are used to. One must remember the history of Rwanda, in how previous governments hardly did anything constructive in their lives. However the RPF does not judge itself by these low standards and is giving the people more than they hoped for.
The is no doubt the RPF has unrivalled popularity among all Rwandans, it is not unusual considering what has happened since 1994. The RPF assumed power around the same time the ANC took power in South Africa, like the ANC they have enjoyed the benefits of being a liberating force and a party of development. The fact that the ANC is credited with ending apartheid and introducing black empowerment policies means it is hard for any rival parties to match it for popularity and they win as much as 80% in an open inclusive democratic system.
The RPF under Paul Kagame is credited with ending the Genocide, it also pacified and unified a fractured country, and finally it has delivered in terms of economic and social development. It is for that reason that it enjoys an overwhelming level of support in all regions of the country. It has activists in every village, town and district of Rwanda and can represent people from areas that few other parties can reach. The other parties do not have the human, financial and ideological resources to create a national program of development, nor do they have the list of achievements that the RPF has.
As an incumbent, Paul Kagame is judged on his achievements and not wishes and promises. The people who showed up were not forced to attend, it was their personal choice to do so. If the RPF had not benefitted them, then they would have stayed away. The RPF campaign has benefited from merging technology with old-fashioned campaigning, a hi-tech campaign van has brought the marvels of multi-media to the deepest outlying regions of Rwanda. This has allowed for bigger and bigger rallies and even two rallies a day. However, the large crowds are beyond the expectations of even the most optimistic RPF strategists.
Friday, 23 July 2010
Kagame dismisses Spanish publicity stunt
During a recent visit to Spain, Paul Kagame found himself an unwilling victim of a publicity stunt. A special protest had been arranged by an activist group with close links to the Catholic Church. They were dressed in masks with red ink on their hands to symbolise blood and guilt. The group accused the RPF of being responsible for the killing of two Spanish priest during the Genocide against the Tutsi.
“This thing in Spain is an old problem, the indictments in Spain and France have existed for 10 years, if you look at the indictments they start by indicting the RPF and in extension they indict Uganda because they say it was created in Uganda and they think its main purpose was to come from Uganda and kill all Hutus.”
He dismissed the stunt as unproductive and said that the activists had a very limited understanding of the situation. Kagame has recently criticised “self-appointed foreign critics and human rights activists who make it their business to speak on behalf of Rwandans.” He has also challenged the right of judges with what is called universal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes not committed on their soil. “This universal jurisdiction only works one way, so how is it universal?” Two judges from France and Spain respectively have indicted senior members of the RPF en masse, on charges relating to the downing of the plane carrying then president Habyarimana.
He further dismissed the validity of the charges, saying they were too broad and made no distinction between individual members of an organisation.
“It is called a terrorist criminal group (RPF). They blame RPF for the death of two Spaniards who died in Rwanda plus some in Congo, it was investigated, the French police investigated this, and found it was due to the insurgency. On the other deaths there was no conclusion.”
It has since emerged that Zapatero was pressured into withdrawing from the UN summit on the millennium development goals (MDG’S) summit, where Kagame and Zapatero were both co-chairing the summit. He was facing a tense vote the following week and a minority party with close links to the Catholic Church was threatening to torpedo his bill. Spain is going through the shocks of recent economic downturn, the government is going to have to implement serious austerity measures aimed at saving the nation from economic collapse.
Kagame dismissed the relevance of the so-called snub, and said it would not deter him from working towards millennium development goals and representing Africa and Rwanda at global events.
“When I went to Spain it was not on bilateral business or a state visit, he is not a superior co-chair to me, MDG’s have nothing to do with affairs of state.”
The absence of Mr. Zapatero meant that Kagame was the sole chair of the meeting. President Kagame is one of the most high-profile African leaders on the global stage, he routinely meets with heads of state and other influential people to devise new methods of development. Rwanda was named as one of the few countries that is on schedule to meet the targets outlined in the MDG’s and hence Kagame was asked to co-chair the latest meeting.
“This thing in Spain is an old problem, the indictments in Spain and France have existed for 10 years, if you look at the indictments they start by indicting the RPF and in extension they indict Uganda because they say it was created in Uganda and they think its main purpose was to come from Uganda and kill all Hutus.”
He dismissed the stunt as unproductive and said that the activists had a very limited understanding of the situation. Kagame has recently criticised “self-appointed foreign critics and human rights activists who make it their business to speak on behalf of Rwandans.” He has also challenged the right of judges with what is called universal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes not committed on their soil. “This universal jurisdiction only works one way, so how is it universal?” Two judges from France and Spain respectively have indicted senior members of the RPF en masse, on charges relating to the downing of the plane carrying then president Habyarimana.
He further dismissed the validity of the charges, saying they were too broad and made no distinction between individual members of an organisation.
“It is called a terrorist criminal group (RPF). They blame RPF for the death of two Spaniards who died in Rwanda plus some in Congo, it was investigated, the French police investigated this, and found it was due to the insurgency. On the other deaths there was no conclusion.”
It has since emerged that Zapatero was pressured into withdrawing from the UN summit on the millennium development goals (MDG’S) summit, where Kagame and Zapatero were both co-chairing the summit. He was facing a tense vote the following week and a minority party with close links to the Catholic Church was threatening to torpedo his bill. Spain is going through the shocks of recent economic downturn, the government is going to have to implement serious austerity measures aimed at saving the nation from economic collapse.
Kagame dismissed the relevance of the so-called snub, and said it would not deter him from working towards millennium development goals and representing Africa and Rwanda at global events.
“When I went to Spain it was not on bilateral business or a state visit, he is not a superior co-chair to me, MDG’s have nothing to do with affairs of state.”
The absence of Mr. Zapatero meant that Kagame was the sole chair of the meeting. President Kagame is one of the most high-profile African leaders on the global stage, he routinely meets with heads of state and other influential people to devise new methods of development. Rwanda was named as one of the few countries that is on schedule to meet the targets outlined in the MDG’s and hence Kagame was asked to co-chair the latest meeting.
Thursday, 22 July 2010
A New Rwanda in Name and Face
I was given a schedule of campaign rallies and was shocked by my ignorance, it said there would be rallies in Musanze, Rubavu, Muhanga, Huye, Karongi, Rusizi. I wondered why they were missing out major cities like Ruhengeri, Gisenyi, Gitarama, Butare, Kibuye and Cyangugu? But all those places are the same, there is a Shakespeare quote “what is in a name? For a rose called by any name would still smell a sweet.” A lot is in a name in Rwanda, people defined their identity by where they came from. To be from the Gisenyi-Ruhengeri area during the time of Habyarimana was to almost be royalty.
During that time even when people were the same nationality or even tribe or clan, the name of your area was more important. These names became power-bases, they became divisive and something had to be done. A decision was taken to change their names, most are ancient pre-colonial names that have a deeper meaning than we know. It is similar to what India did with Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkat, and so on. After some initial reluctance the world has come to accept these new names. It is important to rebrand our cities and regions, it is a way of redefining our national identity and wiping bad memories.
There is a joke that if the FDLR ever had the guts to invade Rwanda, they would get lost and run back to Congo, the place names would just confuse them. It is crucial that the new Rwanda, which has a new face, also has new names. Around 40% of our population has been born since 1994, they do not know the words “Hutu” and “Tutsi” like their parents did, nor words like “Mukiga” or “Munyanduga” or “Mushii” which were equally divisive. They live in Musanze not Ruhengeri, they live in Rubavu not Gisenyi. Therefore they are “Banyarubavu” and not “Banyagisenyi”. This is not semantics but a major shift in identity, it is a breaking of the shackles of division and internal hatred.
Most of these cities and towns are small enough to change names but Kigali will always be Kigali, at least for a short term. Sometimes it takes a while for the outside world to catch up, hence my shock when my air-ticket read “London Heathrow to Gregoire Kayibanda airport, Kigali.” I was rightfully horrified and argued with the travel agent that it is called Kanombe Airport, but the computer said Kayibanda so she ignored me. So now we have a chance to break with the past, to set a new path to proceed along. We need to define where we come from, and not the mispronounced names given by Belgian administrators. Rwandans have a deep history, our pre-colonial history dates back some 2,000 years since Twa pygmies settled these mountain forests. Now let’s look to our future
During that time even when people were the same nationality or even tribe or clan, the name of your area was more important. These names became power-bases, they became divisive and something had to be done. A decision was taken to change their names, most are ancient pre-colonial names that have a deeper meaning than we know. It is similar to what India did with Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkat, and so on. After some initial reluctance the world has come to accept these new names. It is important to rebrand our cities and regions, it is a way of redefining our national identity and wiping bad memories.
There is a joke that if the FDLR ever had the guts to invade Rwanda, they would get lost and run back to Congo, the place names would just confuse them. It is crucial that the new Rwanda, which has a new face, also has new names. Around 40% of our population has been born since 1994, they do not know the words “Hutu” and “Tutsi” like their parents did, nor words like “Mukiga” or “Munyanduga” or “Mushii” which were equally divisive. They live in Musanze not Ruhengeri, they live in Rubavu not Gisenyi. Therefore they are “Banyarubavu” and not “Banyagisenyi”. This is not semantics but a major shift in identity, it is a breaking of the shackles of division and internal hatred.
Most of these cities and towns are small enough to change names but Kigali will always be Kigali, at least for a short term. Sometimes it takes a while for the outside world to catch up, hence my shock when my air-ticket read “London Heathrow to Gregoire Kayibanda airport, Kigali.” I was rightfully horrified and argued with the travel agent that it is called Kanombe Airport, but the computer said Kayibanda so she ignored me. So now we have a chance to break with the past, to set a new path to proceed along. We need to define where we come from, and not the mispronounced names given by Belgian administrators. Rwandans have a deep history, our pre-colonial history dates back some 2,000 years since Twa pygmies settled these mountain forests. Now let’s look to our future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)