Following the presidential and legislative elections in Rwanda, which resulted in a landslide victory for President Paul Kagame and his party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), questions have been raised regarding the credibility of the electoral process. In a detailed analysis published on African Arguments, Filip Reyntjens, Emeritus Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Antwerp, critically examines the legitimacy of these elections.
On July 15, 2024, President Kagame secured a staggering 99.18% of the vote, with voter turnout reported at an extraordinary 99.86%. Although voting is not mandatory in Rwanda, abstaining from the polls is often viewed as unpatriotic, with local authorities ensuring widespread participation. These numbers echo the pre-1990 single-party era elections, labeled as “risk-free elections” by Alain Rouquié in 1978. Despite constitutional amendments in 2015 allowing Kagame to extend his tenure, the democratic validity of these electoral processes is questionable, particularly when the two opposing candidates received only 0.50% and 0.32% of the vote, mirroring the results from 2017.
Historical reports from international observer missions, such as those by the European Union in 2003 and the Commonwealth in 2010, identified issues of intimidation, ballot stuffing, and lack of transparency in vote counting. While the 2017 elections lacked formal international observation, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs noted “notable shortcomings,” including “voting irregularities” and concerns about the integrity of vote-counting procedures. In the absence of independent observer reports for the 2024 elections, doubts remain about the freedom of choice for voters and the reliability of the vote-counting process.
Several concerning aspects of the electoral process have come to light. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people were coerced into attending Kagame’s rallies, with reports of individuals being awakened and transported long distances to campaign sites. This practice likely extended to election day, potentially explaining the near-universal voter turnout. Additionally, the voting method, which required voters to thumbprint next to candidates’ names, raises concerns about voter confidentiality, as thumbprints are typically used by illiterate individuals for signing documents, creating a perception that their votes were not secret. Even literate voters were likely aware of this implication. Furthermore, Kagame’s consistent results, ranging from 98.59% to 99.65% across five provincial constituencies, raise suspicions about the authenticity of the reported outcomes.
Discrepancies in the publication of parliamentary election results by the National Electoral Commission (NEC) further underscore allegations of electoral manipulation. A comparison of partial results released on July 17 with provisional results on July 18 revealed significant inconsistencies. While the RPF saw an increase in votes between the two counts, all other parties experienced substantial losses. This discrepancy, likely a result of the NEC’s vote attribution rather than actual counting, had significant consequences for several parties. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda (DGPR), the Party for Progress and Concord (PPC), and the Social Party Imberakuri (PS-Imberakuri) saw their vote percentages drop below the 5% threshold required for parliamentary representation between July 17 and 18. However, to maintain a facade of plurality, the NEC “rounded off” the results, granting two seats to each of these parties. The NEC’s Executive Secretary’s explanation that “4.5% or 4.6% does not mean falling short of the required 5%” highlights the regime’s disregard for electoral law.
Additional suspicious results emerged in the election of 24 women MPs from provincial constituencies. In each case, elected candidates received overwhelming majorities, leaving a significant gap between them and unsuccessful candidates. For example, in the Northern province, the elected candidates secured 79.35%, 79.33%, 74.04%, and 73.33% of the vote, while the fifth contender received just 5.01%. This pattern, observed nationwide, suggests that successful candidates were backed by the RPF, with voters instructed on whom to support. The presence of “special categories” (two youth and one disabled representative in addition to women) with no clear party affiliation serves to obscure the RPF’s dominance in parliament. In the past, these “special categories” MPs were later included on RPF lists, but not on those of other parties.
President Kagame’s statements over the years also reflect inconsistencies. In 1994, he claimed to have “no desire for a political career after the war,” and in 2010, he stated that failing to find a successor by the end of his second term would be a failure. In early 2023, he maintained a facade of nonchalance, expressing a willingness to heed the “people’s will” and stating that “a succession plan is currently under active discussion within the ruling party.” However, by September 2023, Kagame had shifted his stance, announcing his candidacy for re-election in an interview with Jeune Afrique, published in English in the party’s daily, The New Times: “I am pleased with the confidence that Rwandans have shown in me. I will always serve them whenever I can. Yes, I am indeed a candidate.” He reiterated that “it was not his choice to become president in the first place but the people requested and pressed him to assume office.” In reality, no one within the RPF would dare express presidential ambitions, and without a designated successor, replacing Kagame remains challenging and fraught with risk.
Although the NEC claimed that over 1,000 election observers were accredited, and the East African Community (EAC) deployed an observer mission, no reports were available at the time of writing. The National Commission for Human Rights, a governmental body, only addressed technical issues, while the EAC commended the “calm and peaceful environment” of the polls but remained silent on whether the elections were free and fair.
International observers were less impressed, with the Index on Censorship sarcastically referring to “The Kagame ‘landslide’ that would ’embarrass other dictators.'” Such critiques highlight ongoing concerns about Rwanda’s electoral processes under Kagame’s regime and underscore the need for transparent and fair elections that truly reflect the will of the people.
Therwandan
