Image via WikipediaYou both raise good points. But I can't help but wonder if the opposition is any better? And I would say that any American president causes much more damage geopolitically than any African president could do in 100 years. "Our" oligarchy is no better than Kagame's "dictatorship."--in fact "we" helped create Kagame (which is not to deny that President Kagame is a brilliant strategist playing the US for his own interest--POWER.)
Also, some of my African comrades suggest that at least "benevolent dictatorship" can lead to stability. Some of them praise Jerry Rawlings (double coup leader and former President of Ghana) for his ruthlessness--basically executing political rivals for the sake of political stability. Kagame's alleged crimes are far worse than Rawlings's, and I am highly critical of Kagame, but I am raising a few critical questions.
Two questions I raised were subsequently highlighted in recent news from Rwanda:
#1. If Kagame is bad, and I think he his, is the opposition any better? We might have an answer. A grenade exploded not long after Kagame was declared the winner. 7-20 civilians, including children were reported injured. One woman reportedly lost an eye. If it is proven that the attack was carried out by dissidents, then its pretty clear that some members of the opposition are willing to kill civilians in their pursuit of power.
#2. Is Kagame a "benevolent dictator"? At least one Rwandan thinks so: "Yes, Kagame is a dictator, but I like him."
No comments:
Post a Comment