Why West wants term limits in Africa

In his New Year speech, Rwanda's President Paul Kagame announced he will seek re-election in 2017 and the West quickly responded that his move will undermine the country's achievements. But the people on the other hand think differently.

With him staying longer they believe the achievements will be consolidated and sustained. The West sharply criticizes African countries that change their constitutions to remove term limits, even when it is legally done.

Unrestricted terms result in longevity, which is the real problem for the West and not failing democracy as pointed out.
A leader who stays in power longer accumulates knowledge about Africa's issues, which in a way impacts on foreign policies of some of the Western countries. With such a president the West cannot easily manipulate a specific region or Africa at large. He or she becomes the person to contact regarding Africa and can reject some of their ideas.

Because the long stay in power makes African presidents outlive their Western counterparts, it elevates their stature too. Some worry that this gives Africans an edge over their presidents in understanding the continent's issues. In addition, they fear some leaders who stay longer cannot be bullied or cajoled to do the West's bidding.

The West is also afraid that African leaders who stay long could turn into regional power brokers directly competing with the West and in effect a threat to its interests. But of course there are countries that have term limits and the West is happy with but still fears they could begin listening more to their African colleagues who have stayed longer in power. So it is in the West's interest for all African countries to have term limits.

Elected for his second term in 2010, Kagame was due to step down next year in accordance with the constitutional term limits. But the Constitution was amended in December last year paving way for him to seek another term.

At the time of the amendment and during the entire process of lifting term limits, Kagame was silent on whether he would run for President in 2017 or not. His silence allowed the process to go on without his influence.

Several African countries have lifted term limits and some have tried without success.

But Rwanda's comes up as a case driven by the citizens and Kagame cannot be blamed for their decision. At the best this can be described not only as a democratically taken decision but a bottom-top one as well.

It first started as a debate in local communities. Probably it was inspired by the different attempts to remove term limits in Africa and also those that had succeeded like in Uganda where Parliament amended the Constitution to allow President Yoweri Museveni seek re-election on the basis of his track record.

The Rwandans spontaneously rose and petitioned Parliament to amend the Constitution to remove term limits using their powers to make a decision, which from a democracy point of view is justified. It is always the numbers that count in democracy so the about three million petitions before Parliament could not be ignored.

Parliament endorsed the petition to lift term limits. And in accordance with the Constitution it was thrown back to the people to decide in a referendum, which they did with an overwhelming 98% in favour and 1.9% against. With that done it was left to Kagame to accept or reject it. And he chose to do what the people want - to seek re-election next year to the chagrin of the West.

"You requested me to lead the country again after 2017. Given the importance and consideration you attach to this, I can only accept," he said in his New Year speech. "But I don't think that what we need is an eternal leader."

His decision has attracted criticism from the West. "With this decision, President Kagame ignores a historic opportunity to reinforce and solidify the democratic institutions the Rwandan people have for more than 20 years laboured so hard to establish," State Department spokesman John Kirby said.

Kagame who has been praised in the past for transforming and uniting a country that suffered genocide in 1994 is now being criticised for accepting to do what his people, through the ballot, (referendum) want him to do.

Because they are happy with his leadership, the people want him to stay in power. This must be seen as the people's choice and not his.

Looking at the chain of events from the petition, Parliament and referendum this can best be described as a democratic process. But Kagame's decision to accept his people's wish does not mean he automatically becomes President in 2017.

He has to be elected. So the people will decide.

Twitter: dmukholi1