Making the case for the political center necessarily includes embracing ideas that both the right and the left would disavow. Sometimes, though, the center just doesn't seem to hold, and I find myself squarely on one side or the other. Even more interesting are those times when the spectrum is kind of undefined...where we see similar ideological agreements and disagreements on both sides, even while there exists a sort of pragmatic acceptance of a realism filled with cold, hard truths.
This is what we may be seeing today in Rwanda. You may recall that Rwanda suffered through a tragic and de-stabilizing genocide in 1994, with nearly a million killed (many of those in a way fitting the term slaughtered). President Kagame assumed power in this very ugly time, when it seemed that there was no authority to keep the wolves from each other's throats. This does (and should) remind us of Hobbes' characterization of man in the state of nature, a condition which exists when there is no over-arching public authority...where life, as Hobbes famously put it, and as exemplified in 1994 Rwanda, is 'poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short'.
Today, Rwanda appears to be an orderly nation, one of the safest and perhaps least corrupt in all of Africa. Paul Kagame is still at the helm, and yesterday was re-elected once again by a staggering majority. Now, I do not claim to be an expert in Rwandan political affairs, I simply wish to speculate here: Many see the Kagame regime as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a dictatorship with a progressive veneer, where opposition is suppressed, where political opponents are arrested or even killed. Perhaps they are right. But perhaps Hobbes, too, is right. Perhaps there are times, and conditions, when the leviathan becomes necessary. Perhaps the conditions necessary for a functioning democracy require a cold truth behind a progressive veneer. The veneer draws in aid, the leviathan ensures that the aid reaches its destination...in this case, anyway. As a result, outsiders take note but mostly sit on their hands (as long as it is quiet and people are fed, why shouldn't we?)
To many in the community, it is indeed food (literally) for thought. And while critics levy accusations of fraud and intimidation against the regime, in order to account for the nearly 100 percent turnout and 90+ percent of the vote going to Kagame, it may simply be that those living in the reality really do approve of the results. Perhaps they look to the real rather than the ideal, finding order a necessary component of at least a minimal amount of freedom. Freedom to operate an economy so that basic needs are met. Freedom to mingle, to shop, to date or to marry, freedom to build and maintain an infrastructure to keep living conditions somewhat sanitary and prevent/eliminate disease, freedom to walk the streets without resorting to the preemptive strikes of a kill-or-be-killed environment, freedom to live a life longer than you would expect to in a state of nature. A state of order, where life of man is NOT so poor, not so solitary, not so nasty, brutish, or short. This may be too easy a case to justify Hobbes logic...how would I argue this if the veneer was less progressive? How would you?
First off, provocative article. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on Rwanda, the state that sets Guinness records for Most Amount of Foreign Concern Lasting Shortest Amount of Time. Good to know that Congo hasn't eaten them all yet.
ReplyDeleteAs for the substance of the article, I would love to be all Utopian and talk of how democracy is a better way that will lead by shining example. Sadly, your typical Sub-Saharan Africa country just isn't at that phase yet.
Geopolitically, it's still closer to Revolutionary-era America: Internally fragile, externally threatened. In that kind of environment, you need more than advanced ideas. You need oodles of muscle and luck. Comparing Sub-Saharan African democracies to first world democracies is insulting to the hardships the Africans face.
Those hardships would be roving militias with enough firepower and tactical acumen to give the Army a run for it's money, non-existent borders and crushing poverty. A nation faced with that has to look to its security first. That isn't to advocate voting irregularities, but it is a good argument for an iron fist.
This is one of the reasons I'm a Joseph Kabila fan. He strikes a nice balance between values and brute force.
When it comes down to it, might does make right when founding a nation. There isn't a liberal democracy in the world that didn't reach its lofty station without piling up bodies.