This journalist [1] wrote a great book [2] about the lack of press freedom in Rwanda, and western complicity in press crackdowns. He's an amazing guy--accepted a job at Goldman during college, then reneged on the job to fly one-way to Africa and become a freelance journalist. That's without any experience as a journalist!

[1] https://twitter.com/anjansun

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/11/bad-news-last-...

Gets worse than that actually. Much of this "prosperity" is driven by warlords stealing resources from places like Eastern Congo. And that's where everything Rwandan gets really nasty.

A guy named Laurent Nkunda once cleared an entire city of roughly 75 000 people. (Goma. Many of those were running so fast that children and the elderly were left behind. Which made for some pretty sad sights in the aftermath.)

I had a Swiss friend who was an observer (UN) in Congo and had to come stay with us in Houston to decompress before going back to her family in Lausanne. She had the misfortune of being assigned an inspection tour in the East. She toured the Congo Army lines... fine ... no major problems. As she approached the lines of Nkunda's forces she saw a wall built from dead bodies... and the wall was topped with the heads. Yeah... it only got worse from there.

Rwandans do some pretty nasty things around Africa to steal their wealth. But I suppose it's easy to overlook that stuff if you're making money. And to be fair... a LOT of people in Africa do these things. Of course, we don't usually do business with those people.

For an utterly different take on Nkunda,see here:http://exiledonline.com/nkunda-is-nkool/all/1

It is my opinion that it is a terrible statement on current affairs that this comment is ranked so high.

While all the things said here are true, they: a) happened more than 20 years ago in 1990 ( http://abt.cm/QNKiYt ) b) have little or no direct bearing to the issue at hand (Rwanda and its place in the current technology marketplace)

In my mind, a similar example might be reading something about say, for example the state of technology in Kenya and the top comment being about what happened there during the Mau Mau uprising. Yes, the correct would be factually accurate but that time does not represent the country today. And, most of all, WTF really? Stop with red herrings. The country is working like crazy to grow and develop and instead of "nice job getting from a where you were to b today", all you can offer is "yeah, but your dad and mom did terrible things 20 years ago".

Almost every nation in the world, developed or not, has parts of its history where its' peoples and governments did things - that they now deeply regret and would rather forget - as part of becoming the nations that they are today. It just happens that some, not all, African nations are going through those things in our lifetime.

We need to be fair in our positioning and evaluation of others especially if we perceive that they are making their way out of being on the low end of our assessment curve. No need to introduce extra huddles of history to the information we share especially if those hurdles are not contextually relevant.

Finally, the last sentence in that comment is worth some disassembly. - The first part: "Rwandans do some pretty nasty things around Africa to steal their wealth. But I suppose it's easy to overlook that stuff if you're making money. And to be fair... a LOT of people in Africa do these things. Of course, we don't usually do business with those people."

Please share some evidence around this. Else, STFU with opinions that hold no ground. And even if it were true, how is it different from, for example, the way western economies deal with African and Middle East nations that have natural resources they are looking for. Don't these economies do "do some pretty nasty things around Africa to steal their wealth" Should Africa make a decision along the lines of " Of course, we don't usually do business with those people."?

My two cents, definitely written while wearing my heart on my sleeve.

Saved a screenshot of your quote on img just in case it goes AWOL because don't want to end up sounding like a nutjob if if it does. Link to original quote here http://imgur.com/aYjzkUE

"...a) happened more than 20 years ago in 1990..."

Nice try. Goma was cleared in fighting during the Nord-Kivu clashes in 2008. (Nkunda's forces opposed Army of DRCongo and UN Peacemaker contingent of roughly 17000.) Additionally, the theft of Congolese resources is ongoing.

"...b) have little or no direct bearing to the issue at hand..."

That depends on how one thinks.

Finally, with respect to the duplicity of Western Nations. You will get no argument from me. That doesn't make African nations less duplicitous though. The white man is not the only force for evil on the globe. Evil comes in all shades and hues.

>The white man is not the only force for evil on the globe

No, but he does it really professionally, including having created most of the mess in Africa in the first place. Most of those "states" where designed by colonialists in artificial (i.e. what colonial power controls what as opposed based on historically and culturally developed ethnic formations), and were usually created to contain 2-3 competing fractions in a "divide and conquer" approach, with the colonial and post-colonial powers playing (and arming) both sides... Add their support to all kinds of dictators, scum and lackeys and the undermining of efforts to clean the slate, boost local control, etc, and the result is what we have today...

>he does it really professionally

I couldn't agree with you more. It is lost on most people that African boundaries and political realities are a fairly recent construct. The majority of African states as we know them today are no more than two generations old (c. 60 years). These boundaries are also, in many ways, an artificial creation that do not necessarily represent the pre-colonial and cultural realities of the numerous ethnic communities and interests that exist across Africa today. The legacy of this "divide and rule" approach cannot be over-stated and has been a driving force behind the continent's sad, sad state of affairs. Also, only a generation ago did the Cold War abate and with it, murderous proxy wars and political struggles in countries such as Angola, Mozambique, the DRC (and the wider Central Africa), Uganda, to name but a few. There are numerous explanations of and studies into the impact of colonization and the Cold War on ongoing conflicts and human rights abuses in Africa and, honestly, I am no domain expert. Regardless, here are two sources that should suffice: Did Africa have any significance in the Cold War? [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ju3e3/did_a... 'The Effects of the (End of the) Cold War on Central African Politics: How a Cold War turned into a very Hot One' [http://www.mo.be/en/article/effects-end-cold-war-central-afr...]. Of course, this does not free Africa's leadership from the responsibility of good governance, but it does add context to coldtea's argument.

Not mentioned in article:

- President has successfully used a referendum to grant himself third term powers, if next year's election goes his way (likely)

- Lots of surveillance (skype/whatsapp eavesdropping) by govt via telecom compliance

- President has lots of stock in telecoms

Paul Kagame's anti-corruption policies are impressive. You can really see how much society can change when funds flow to the proper channels.

I have traveled through ten sub-Saharan countries and Rwanda does stick out. While many countries, especially in East Africa, have terrible infrastructure, Rwanda is "civilized". Working traffic lights, street lights even on minor roads in towns, decent roads. It was the only country in East Africa where I was able to easily find a proper black middle class. I did ask locals why this is the case, and they all point to the anti-corruption initiative. It is true that much money comes from the UN post-genocide and from methane gas, but this money does make it's way to society.

That said, I have a far better time in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Zuma's South Africa. :) Corruption on that level is so blatant and destructive.

Serious q, I've never been in Africa: what is there to do in Zim to have a good time? Did you go on safari or somerhing similar, or are there off-the-beaten-track things to do (without knowing locals) that are relatively safe to do?

I could talk a lot about Africa. Loved it. Everything is off the beaten path, which is why I loved it. Outside of the known spots (Egypt and the northern countries, South Africa), there is no mass tourism. No bus loads of tourists that start taking pictures as soon as they step off.

Zim was unique. At that point, I already spent almost two months in East Africa (Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Malawi), and my entrance (into Harare) was an eye-opener. A saw white people. Not tourists or the occasional white person, but actual residents. Lots of them. They had nice cars and went into nice stores. Good luck finding stores in East Africa.

Technically, my first stop in Zim was the Chimanimani Mountains. Lovely day hike. But it was on the border with Mozambique (I only traveled through Moz) so it felt the same.

Harare was a nice enough capital. I was amazed that the national museum was actually selling the art it was showing. Amazing pieces for great prices. If I was not traveling for months (and I actually had a home), I would have purchased some art. Amazing sculptures. Zim had the best sculptures, Malawi the best wood cravers. Went to a jazz club, more first show in Africa.

I did not do any safaris in Zim (did them in Uganda, Tanzania and Namibia), but I went to a place called Antelope Park. I had mixed feelings about it.

The great Zim ruins were interesting because it is the oldest manmade structure in sub-Saharan Africa. Nothing else of its kind on the entire southern half of Africa.

Took an overnight train from Bulawayo to Vic Falls. Slow. Decripit. Beer was $1 (cheaper than a supermarket) and we finished their entire stock. Plus our liquor. They called ahead to get more at another stop and we finished that as well. Fun fun times.

Victoria Falls of course was amazing.

I highly suggest going to Africa for vacation. I dream about going back. Was more of a fan of Southern Africa over East Africa.

Overall I felt safe in Zimbabwe. Better than Cape Town and forget about Jo'burg.

Great, thanks.

If you are still reading these comments, why Zimbabwe in particular? Nothing wrong with the country, but most landlocked countries do not attractive to much attention.

>Paul Kagame's anti-corruption policies are impressive

Indeed, you will find very few that would argue with that. Also, there are clear economic and social benefits to little/no corruption. However, Rwanda's good fortune in fighting corruption in a sea of systemically corrupt countries (the neighboring DRC and Burundi are notoriously corrupt, but that still pales in comparison to Kenya, a country that hosts numerous Rwandan nationals) stems almost purely from the political will of one man- Paul Kagame. Without the political authority and moral mandate that he wields, these anti-corruption policies would be no more effective than they are in countries across East Africa (Somalia, South Sudan, Burundi, DRC, Uganda, and Kenya are among SSA's most corrupt countries, and all are within 3-hour flights from Kigali; this shared geography also means that East African countries have shared political, social, and economic fortunes/identity. For instance, numerous Rwandan citizens see Kenya/Uganda as a second home. For example, my childhood pastor was Rwandan and so were many of those that I went to primary school with. I say this to emphasize the fact that Rwanda is not uniquely tooled to fight corruption, just uniquely ruled).

>find a proper black middle class

I doubt Rwanda is the only EA country with a proper middle class. I also doubt that any such middle case would (entirely) owe its very existence to anti-corruption policies. A far, far larger percentage of Kenyans fall within the ADB's classification of middle income than their Rwandan counterparts. Kenya is a significant (if not the most significant) source of foreign direct investment to Rwanda. In addition, Kenya also has the highest per capita car ownership anywhere in this part of the world. I am really not trashing Rwanda, just saying that when put in perspective, the country still has a long way to go.

You did not mention the genocide or the country's attempts to recover from it. Perhaps there is something to be said of the matter. Over 100,000 people lost their lives in 100 days at the hands of neighbors, students/teachers, relatives, etc. The shock of the genocide is something that,as a Kenyan, I can relate to. Not too long ago (2008-09), over 1,000 people lost their lives to post-election violence. In the aftermath, a coalition government was formed, a new and superlatively progressive constitution promulgated, land reform enacted, and former adversaries became formidable political partners. A lot has yet to change, but the impact of those clashes can still be felt to this day. Rwanda rebounded by centralizing power in an evidently aggressive and autocratic political leadership: 'contrarians' were exiled and speech constrained/censored. For instance, it is anathema to explore the role that Kagame's Rwanda Patriotic Front played in the '94 genocide. The revisionism of the present government has become an important concern, but only for those outside the country's borders (or reach). This response is somewhat comparable to China's efforts at enforcing a sanctioned narrative around the Tiananmen protests and killings and is not a sustainable path to enduring peace. Surprisingly, this is something that I am seeing more of in Kenya, where two of the chief adversaries in the post-election violence are now political incumbents. That said, Rwanda has made an impressive social and economic recovery from the unimaginable tragedy that it suffered two decades ago. Regardless, it is far from becoming the sought of tech hub that CNN and others would like us to believe.

I must mention that I did not go to Kenya or other neighboring countries. I started my trip in Uganda and worked my way down.

The difference between Rwanda and Uganda/Tanzania as an outsider is immense. The roads are in good condition and there are no speed bumps because the drivers are not reckless. Bodaboda drivers will give you helmets! (granted, they probably are so old that offer no protection). Little trash on the streets. Uganda/Tanzania are filthy filthy countries.

I briefly mentioned that genocide and only because of the context of economics. Rwanda derives a fair amount of money from the UN and other international grants post-genocide. I met a fair amount of volunteers because of these programs. I found that the current government has down a decent amount to recognize the genocide. There are memorials at most mass burial cites. The genocide museum is very well done. It is not the Rwanda genocide museum, but simply a genocide museum. It covers all the genocides in recent history. Ultimately, there was little to do in Rwanda (a 4 hour nature hike was $50!), so I left after 6-7 days. Spent most of it relaxing by Lake Kivu.

> Uganda/Tanzania are filthy filthy countries.

I have grown up in Dar es salaam, Tanzania and have travelled a lot in the East African countries and I am quite surprised by that statement.

I am guessing it had more to do with the areas you went to/lived in. There are definitely filthy places and slum areas but there is also the good parts of town with good roads in Dar / Arusha and other cities. In that sense, even San Francisco and other cities that I have lived in in the US have filthy areas. Of course, it's more pronounced in these African countries but I wouldn't associate these countries with filthiness.

If it's the villages and small towns you were referring to, I think these are more or less similar in the way they are all across the area.

On a side note, I have recently been visiting Kenya more often (my dad works in Nairobi) and I would recommend anyone planning a trip to this side of the continent to consider Kenya + Tanzania trip(Masai mara + Serengeti, Ngorongoro). Especially if you're a nature and wildlife lover. It will change your life.

Cleanliness had a different meaning over there. Everyone's house and place of business was very clean. Spotless. However, they would simply sweep up everything and put it out on the street. As long as it was not in there house, it was fine. Bizarre. Food wrappers everywhere. Empty bags of 100ml alcohol (Konyagi, etc) everywhere. I traveled by public means and the view of the roads did not leave of good impression. Do not get me wrong, I still had an amazing time. Even gorgeous Zanzibar had piles of garbage if you did not stay at a resort.

I spent very little time in Dar. It basically was the gateway to Zanzibar. Because of its reputation for crime and not wanting to be in cities but in nature, we only spent two nights there. As a music lover, I really wanted to visit places such as the ones described here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/travel/where-tanzania-taps... I was there at the wrong time (Sunday nights) and the venues were far from my hotel. Would have loved to go if I knew someone.

I had better safaris elsewhere, but Ngorongoro itself is magical.

>they would simply sweep up everything and put it out on the street

Yes, this has been my experience. It is simply hilarious.

>Konyagi

Yeah, ain't that a sight. By "bags" you surely meant plastic bottles, no?

Bags, definitely bags: http://i.imgur.com/W1hL4Tx.jpg

I only saw them in East Africa. The streets were littered with them. Very cheap and poor tasting. Basically ethanol and flavoring. Konyagi & juice. Disgusting, but I wish I was back on the beaches of Zanibar having a few.

I remember the very first time that I saw those bags. Some young guys fished a bag each out of their pockets, squeezed whatever was in them right into their mouths, and let this horrendous cry for help (at least that is how I saw it; that stuff surely 'looked' bitter). I have had the chance to taste that stuff and I must say, poor tasting indeed.

>The difference between Rwanda and Uganda/Tanzania

I have had little opportunity to travel to other countries myself, but I imagine that infrastructure quality is something that sticks out almost immediately. If you do come to Kenya (Nairobi in particular), the 20 km journey from the airport to the city center peels away a lot about the country: the notoriously in-your-face drivers, the defiantly corrupt traffic police officers, and the unforgettably poignant stenches (along certain stretches of the road) to say nothing of the potholes.

>Little trash on the streets. Uganda/Tanzania are filthy filthy countries

I have heard people express the same sentiment about Rwanda and frankly, yet I cannot bring myself to picture it. You see, there is a lot of filth in Nairobi, so much so that the government spends millions (of shillings) trying to re-educate people. But things used to be a lot, lot worse. Up until 15 years ago, Nairobi's central business district was unimaginably littered, men urinated when and as they liked/pleased, street urchins filled the back alleys (with both their excrement and presence), and nobody seemed to care. A lot of these things still happen to this day. But it is in the 'suburbs' that things are really out of hand. Recently, Madonna shared a picture that, in essence, summarizes the state of Kenya's 'suburbia' [https://www.instagram.com/p/BHZ6gW6h-95/?taken-by=madonna]. That picture is not an outlier, and I can personally confirm that this is the case in many places, including places that I frequent regularly. Kenya too has many such filthy places. This is not an elitist view, just the sad truth.

>genocide museum

I do not know how I would react in such a place. I abhor violence and would probably come away from the experience deeply traumatized. It is a complete shock that humanity is capable of such heinous crimes. What is even more shocking is that these sort of crimes never stop: every human generation has lived through similar genocidal events: Genocides in history [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history]; Genocide of indigenous peoples [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples... Category:Lists of massacres by country [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_massacres_by... List of events named massacres [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres].

>Ultimately, there was little to do in Rwanda

Aha, the hype is busted! Just kidding. Planning to take a trip later this or next year so I am going to have to find something to do, won't I.

PS: Any key take-aways: spots, activities, food?

Tourist activities were expensive. The gorilla viewing was $750, much higher than in Uganda or the DRC (the section of the DRC with the gorillas is definitely not recommended going to). In Kigali, locations regarding the genocide are a must see (museum, UN base). Not that Rwanda was boring, but I just enjoyed other countries better. Lake Kivu was nice, but Lake Malawi was incredible. Malawi is in undiscovered gem.

>Malawi is in undiscovered gem

I have heard similar things said about the country. During the 2010 Football/Soccer World Cup held in South Africa, a number of Kenyans (and expatriates) took several road-trips and came back with news of just how cool some of those places were. Malawi was always mentioned as this 'virgin' and exotic hinterland- and this coming from fellow Africans. But $750 for Gorilla viewing is maybe a little pricey. Here in Kenya, the Giraffe Manor charges upwards of $500/12-hour stay for the boarding experience and the intimate interaction with on-site Rothchild giraffes [1]. Of course, these prices are way beyond what the average Kenyan [2; 3] could afford and I suspect the $750 asking price for gorilla tours in Rwanda is equally limiting for residents there. Although prices are usually lower for natives/residents/citizens compared to tourists, most of the former rarely get to enjoy their own natural heritage and history (parks, historical sites, etc.). For instance, park entry fees at the famous Kenyan Maasai Mara National Reserve is $10 for citizens and $70 for non-residents. Add that to a $4 charge for vehicles and $100 for campsite reservation [4], the logic of going for such a trip quickly crumbles. Furthermore, this is in a country where the average hourly income (for those that are employed) is about a dollar. That said, the novelty of seeing animals in the wild can be lost to people that live near these parks: where is the point of paying to see an elephant when they routinely savage your farms and drink your alcohol [5; 6]. [1] http://www.thesafaricollection.com/properties/giraffe-manor/ [2] Here is a fairly accurate picture of what it costs to live in Nairobi: http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country... [3] Here is an equally accurate estimate of minimum wages across Kenya: http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/kenya [4] http://www.maasaimara.com/entries/park-fees-2 *USD 1= Kshs. 100 [5] http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Sh18-4m-released-for-animal-att... [6] http://www.livescience.com/24678-is-every-single-elephant-a-...

Yeah, and the Rwandan government was likely a customer of Hacking Team. Many documents in the Hacking Team email leak mention Rwanda:

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=Rwanda&exact_phrase=&any...

True, a silent dictatorship and freedom of speech is not allowed

Did brief search about said referendum. Saw that 98% of voters approve it.

Sounds like ballot stuffing.

Disclosure: East African Here.

> Saw that 98% of voters approve it.

That is true. And it wasn't ballot staffing.

The Rwandese Love their President, he is largely responsible for the recovering Rwanda from its 1994 Genocide.

All Rwandanse I personally know want him to remain president for as long as he can.

For what it is worth, it is not unheard of long term leaders in western countries. It was not uncommon during the great leaps of improvement. You may want to look up Erlander or Kekkonen who each served for 30+ years in Sweden and Finland.

Yeah, to be honest aside from the US I can't think of any developed countries that set limits on how many terms a political leader can stay in office. Part of me thinks it could be a good thing to adopt more broadly, though two terms seems a little too restrictive IMO.

I have to say that the idea of an arbitrary limit on terms seems like a bad hack to fix a dysfunctional democracy. It's at least as likely, if not more so, to eliminate a good leader and clear the way for one of several bad leaders to get in. In a working democracy, people would not put up with a bad leader for more than the remainder of a term, after they show their true colours. In a highly functional democracy, a visionary leader should be able to initiate multi-generation projects and see them through to completion.

Is this a scheme to prevent the members of a two party system from coalescing into a single party?

Yes, it's a safety valve to guard against dysfunctional democracies. It's a compromise, and yes you will limit the service of both good and bad leaders, but that doesn't make the compromise any less valid. Many people fear change, and don't like to admit they made a mistake, and base a lot of their vote on personality rather than achievement, and as a result of these factors people can keep voting for someone even if they do a poor or mediocre job.

I personally believe the best form of democracy would be something along the lines of a liquid democracy, coupled with a constitution that protected the rights of everyone (to ensure those with minority viewpoints would always be entitled to a base level of respect). If you're interested in finding out about liquid democracy, this video provides a good introduction:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8

Why do you assume that there's at most one good leader?

The problem that I was referring to above, is that a good leader might be able to rule for 40 years, if there were no term limits. Leaders who are worthy of that privilege / burden are so rare though, that if you eliminate on just because of an arbitrary limit, then they will likely be replaced by some worse than them. Bad rulers are unlikely to win a third term in the first place, assuming that the electoral system is working.

Because I'm an incorrigible optimist? No but seriously, do you have any anecdotes regarding an election where a difficult choice had to be made between multiple good (from the perspective of a large majority) candidates? Because I don't (Canadian, in my 30s).

The parent comment by yxhuvud mentioned Kekkonen in Finland. He was the president for about 25 years in the '60s and '70s.

That concentration of power was so traumatic to the political system that, for the next 20 years, a long sequence of steps were taken to prevent it from happening again. Presidential terms were limited to a maximum of two, and the constitution was eventually rewritten in a direction that removed the presidential powers that Kekkonen used (and abused) to override parliament.

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I basically said that I thought having a maximum length of service was a good idea, but I didn't think two terms was the right target. Perhaps three terms would be a better target. The reason I think three terms is better is that you want the leader to have to face up to their own mistakes. It strikes me that with one or two terms there's still a tendency to blame your predecessors for the state of the country rather than accepting responsibility for the cock ups.

Developed countries almost all have some form of term limits:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limit...

In a lot of the cases listed there, the term limits mean that a new election must be held every X years, but not that the party/prime minister/president cannot be reelected. So it's not quite the same as in the US.

Err, no. If you browse around Europe (and elsewhere) you'll see a lot things along the lines of no more than two consecutive terms.

Depends on your definition of leader. For example, in Germany the President can only serve 2 terms, but the Chancellor has no such limit, and the Chancellor appears to have a much greater role in day-to-day politics. Many people in Europe are familiar with Angela Merkel. Same recognition for Joachim Gauck? Not so much. His role appears to be more of a figurehead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Gauck

Mexico does (not sure what you count as developed countries :). I think most non-parliamentarian democracies do.

It might look like it, but the referendum would have gone the same way if not. Kagame's administration saw with it the largest drop in child mortality in recorded history (source: private conversation), rapid development, stability, expanded rights and political visibility of women.. and, as far as I've heard no one knows who would run the country as stably if it weren't Kagame.