Kagame Stories Part 2

Jack: I think if I write his name, he might get in trouble. We had an hour on the plane and spoke the whole time. Here is what I took away. The trouble with how things run is not that there is corruption (people keep saying there is no corruption but Jack disagrees. I think there is no bribery...but there is fear...) There is a lot of bureacracy (said Jesse). Everything needs a form and a permit and permit and a form at another window in another office (again, this sounds like Israel). Jack said that if you do not fall in line with your bosses beliefs, then suddenly you cannot get the permits you need, suddenly, you lose your job. Jack is doing work with the government...

On the surface it looks good but underneath it the underlying tensions are still there. There is also a new fight not just between Hutus and Tutsis, but between the Anglos and the French. There are three categories of society. Anglo Tutsi, French Tutsi, and Hutu. Anglo Tutsis are mostly the refugees from Congo and Uganda (English dominated countries) since the genocide/war in 1959 who are now returning to their home. They have all the political connections since Kagame built his army from outside of Rwanda in Uganda. French Tutsis are the ones who lived in Rwanda and survived the genocide in 1994. Hutus are the former oppressors who are now the oppressed. They make up the bulk of the population and mostly live in rural areas.

Social Hierarchy: Anglo Tutsi, French Tutsi, Hutu.

Access to social benefits: Same.

Tutsis are getting the reparations and Hutus are being punished by being denied access. Anglo Tutsis are being favored by being granted easier access to positions of power and dominance within the government.

An example, English becoming the new second national language favors the Anglo Tutsis since they already know it. It next benefits the French Tutsis since they are in cities where the initiative will be most active and they have been given the greatest access to education and educational benefits. This change least favors the Hutus since they are mostly in rural areas and working as farmers. Their educational access is most limited.

Shifting to a knowledge-base economy has the same leave-behind-the Hutus effect because French Tutsis are unskilled and will be learning new skills in knowledge/tech based areas whereas Hutus are farmers. Their labor will be valued ever less and less by society and their access to the education or social programs to learn these new skills is most limited.

As they say, payback is a bitch. And I wonder, how will another uprising not brew up when the oppressed are now oppressing the oppressors? How long will that continue and is there a plan to loosen the controls? If all of the limitations are for the greater good of society (v. punishing the Hutus...) then they make sense. Kagame is bring financial security to the economy and safety to the people as a whole. Culture is beginning to bubble up which seems to represent to me that people's basic needs are being met slowly but surely (Hey, no one is really very creative when you do not know where your next meal is coming from.) Good things are happening.

But, there will be a tipping point when the playing field has been leveled. Will the reigns come off then? Will society then be set to equal in the policies too?

I asked Jack if, other than avoiding the language of Hutu and Tutsi, anything was being done to make social reparations between the two groups. No, he said, none that he knew of...but it was a good question. He apologized for only telling me the down side. Really, things are so much better, he said. Really they are...

A lesson in economics (Something for general justice consideration) (Mike Friedman, we need to talk about this one later in the whole, how on earth do we save the world conversation....)

Introducing a new technology disfavors the most disadvantaged, says one economic theory. (According to Jack). If I go to a community of farmers who grow a mono crop of coffee (a shade plant) which is an investment crop (it yields produce and funds 2x a year), and introduce to them a new technology: If they also grow bananas, research shows, they will maintain the same coffee yield while adding banana yield which is a cash crop (you can sell bananas everyday.) thus increasing your income and your stability. This seems like a great idea which will serve everyone well, especially the poor. However, there is a risk involved. You have to make an additional financial investment on the banana start up costs. The richest and middle income farmers can afford this risk and this initial investment.

Then, there are more bananas, the poorest see it working, the richer are getting more income, the price of bananas is falling and THEN the poorest begin to participate. By the time their crops come to market, banana prices are so low that the poor end up losing money on the investment and are worse off than before.

Ok, I asked, why not remove the risk and donate the start up materials for the banana crop?

Jack: Here is a story. The Clinton foundation wanted to help the Rwandan farming community to rebuild after the genocide which ravaged everything. They donated two years worth of fertilizer. This destroyed all the fertilizer producers for two years. And now, as the time is running out on the two years, people do not want to BUY fertilizer because they think they can just keep getting it for free.

What Jack suggested was a voucher system which would bouoy the most poor while maintaining the income and industry of the fertilizer growers.

I am sure there is more here...but it has been many days I am moving on for now. I would love your comments...

R