Rwanda's government needs to start taking into consideration criticism coming from dissenting politicians and activists, writes Umuhoza [File: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images].
Since Rwanda gained its independence in 1962, the country has experienced successive regimes that have stayed in power by any means possible, refusing to implement good governance reforms. The repercussions have been massacres and human rights violations, culminating in the Tutsi's genocide of 1994.
After the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) took power in 1994, it held national consultations – referred to as Urugwiro Village meetings – to discuss how Rwanda could solve its issues of national unity, democracy, justice, economy and security. The outcomes of these consultations have been the guiding philosophies of the governance implemented by the RPF over the past two decades.
Nonetheless, the way Rwanda's governance and relationship with its neighbouring countries in the Great Lakes region have evolved over time is a concern. Today there are pressing issues that necessitate holding another intra-Rwandan dialogue between the Rwandan government and dissenting voices and civil society organisations operating in and outside the country to revamp its governance strategy so that long-term stability at home and in the Great Lakes region is guaranteed.
The consensus democracy that aimed to prevent further ethnic violence while accelerating development agreed on during the Urugwiro Village meetings has transformed over time into a political system that suppresses political dissent, restricts pluralism and curbs civil liberty in Rwanda.
In many instances the government has abused its power, collaborating with the judicial system to criminalise its critics under the silent watch of the legislature. These practices, along with widespread human rights abuses, point to the fact that the prospect for full democracy in Rwanda remains rather bleak today.
The mechanisms to promote unity and reconciliation among Rwandans adopted by the national consultation of 1999 were commendable. However, the lack of public and official remembrance of the victims of war crimes committed in Rwanda before, during, and after the genocide against the Tutsis are creating conflicting views among citizens today. This creates social grievances and weakens trust and cooperation among Rwandans.
The development programme put forward during the national consultation of 1999 that aimed to transform Rwanda into a middle-income state driven by building a knowledge-based economy by 2020, has also not delivered on many of its promises. Rwanda remains a low-income state in spite of the abundant financial support that the government has received from development partners. As a result, the goal of turning Rwanda into a middle-income country had to be postponed to 2035.
Over the 20 years since the Urugwiro Village meetings took place, the political scenery in Rwanda has transformed as well. It is no longer limited to the opposition affiliated with the ruling party, but also includes a diverse group of dissenting politicians and activists. Although critics are often marginalised by the government and their voices stifled, they are increasingly being heard across Rwanda and beyond.
The government needs to start taking into consideration the criticism that is coming out of these political quarters. After all, it is the lack of an inclusive political process that hindered good governance and led to conflict in Rwanda in the 1990s.
Some Rwandans have already taken to armed struggle, which has increasingly worried the government and exacerbated relations with Rwanda's neighbours. The United Nations has issued a number of reports alleging the Rwandan government is involved in the conflict in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where it is trying to stem insurgencies it perceives as threatening. Officials in Kigali have repeatedly denied these accusations.
Political tensions between Rwanda and Burundi and Uganda have also worsened in recent years over allegations that these two countries are supporting opposition figures who also want to topple the Rwandan leadership by force. This has led to the closure of borders, which has had a negative economic impact on the country.
To address all these challenges, a new intra-Rwandan dialogue is absolutely necessary today. Such a forum could come up with important reforms that can help improve governance. This would enable Rwanda to secure long-term stability and eventually contribute to conflict resolution in the Great Lakes region.
This dialogue would be aligned with the UN strategy for peace consolidation, conflict prevention and resolution in the Great Lakes region adopted in October 2020. The strategy affirms that effective and sustained dialogue among citizens is key to fostering trust, addressing underlying grievances and facilitating actions for peace, stability and prosperity.
Fortunately for Rwanda, a constant quest for solutions through dialogue is one of the fundamental principles in its constitution. In June 2021, we submitted to the Rwandan government a roadmap for a promising future, requesting the proposed dialogue to be organised before Rwanda's presidential election in 2024.
For more than a decade, the international community has tried to find a solution to the persistent instability in the Great Lakes region. I have always argued that without solving Rwanda's internal political problem, it will be impossible to bring about stability in that region.
It is therefore timely and appropriate that regional and international stakeholders support the realisation of the proposed intra-Rwandan dialogue for governance reforms in Rwanda and peace consolidation in the Great Lakes region.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
###
"Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate. Only Love Can Do That", Dr. Martin Luther King.
FDA Says It Now Needs 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Data
FDA Says It Now Needs 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Data
That timeline would take it until at least 2096, Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case, said in a blog post.
"If you find what you are reading difficult to believe—that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure," Siri said.
FDA Says It Now Needs 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Data
The Food and Drug Administration is asking a judge to give it 75 years to produce data concerning the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine, up 20 years from a previous request.
The agency, known as the FDA, told the court it can work faster than its previously proposed 500-pages-per-month-rate. But it also said there are over 59,000 more pages than mentioned in an earlier filing.
That discovery, and a desire to make sure it can work on other Freedom of Information Act requests at the same time, prompted the fresh request to the judge to allow production of roughly 12,000 pages by Jan. 31, 2022, and 500 pages per month thereafter.
That timeline would take it until at least 2096, Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case, said in a blog post.
"If you find what you are reading difficult to believe—that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure," Siri said.
The case was brought on behalf of the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, which said the FDA was not complying with its request for data in a timely manner.
The group includes Dr. Carole Browner, a research professor at the University of California, Los Angeles' David Geffen School of Medicine; Peter Doshi, an associate professor at the University of Maryland's School of Pharmacy, and Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health.
MOST READ
The group says that the data should be made public quickly because the FDA spent just 108 days reviewing it before granting emergency use authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The matter is more urgent because millions of Americans are being mandated to take the shot or face repercussions, such as a loss of access to businesses and termination.
The Pfizer jab is the only one that has been approved by drug regulators. Approvals mean products have met a higher threshold of safety and effectiveness than those given emergency clearance.
"The entire purpose of FOIA is government transparency. In multiple recent cases, in upholding the FOIA's requirement to 'make the records promptly available,' courts have required agencies, including the FDA, to produce 10,000 or more pages per month, and those cases did not involve a request nearly this important–i.e., the data underlying licensure of a liability-free product that the federal government requires nearly all Americans to receive," Siri said.
"As the present pandemic rages on, independent review of these documents by outside scientists is urgently needed to assist with addressing the shortcomings and issues with the response to the pandemic to date."
The FDA said its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research maintains the records sought by the plaintiff but only has 10 staff members, and two of them are new, leaving them slower in processing pages than the other workers.
Each line of each page must be reviewed to ensure proper redactions are applied, the filing says.
Additionally, a faster rate than that requested would divert "significant resources away from the processing of other FOIA requests that are also in litigation," and requests that came in before the request in question, the agency said, adding, "In sum, FDA's proposed processing schedule is fair to plaintiff."
Follow
Zachary Stieber covers U.S. news and stories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. He is based in Maryland.
###
"Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate. Only Love Can Do That", Dr. Martin Luther King.
Wait what? FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data | Reuters.
Reuters) - Freedom of Information Act requests are rarely speedy, but when a group of scientists asked the federal government to share the data it relied upon in licensing Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, the response went beyond typical bureaucratic foot-dragging.
As in 55 years beyond.
That's how long the Food & Drug Administration in court papers this week proposes it should be given to review and release the trove of vaccine-related documents responsive to the request. If a federal judge in Texas agrees, plaintiffs Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency can expect to see the full record in 2076.
