Rwanda : Emergence of a Tutsi Lumpenbourgeoisie
by Dr Jean-Bapstiste Mberabahizi
Secretary General and Spokesperson, United Democratic Forces (UDF-INKINGI)
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8479/mberahizi-rise-tutsi-lumpen-bourgeoisie
In his book Lumpen-Bourgeoisie and Lumpen-Development: Dependency, Class and Politics in Latin
America (1973) in which he analysed the essence of neocolonialism in Latin
America, André Gunder Frank described its upper class as a lumpenbourgeoisie, a
class that has little collective self-awareness or economic base and supports the colonial masters. Many current African societies and Rwanda in particular respond admirably to
this description. A close look into Rwanda’s Tutsi upper class essence that manifests in both its domestic and external policies shows that indeed this class lacks
self-awareness, has no internal economic base and indeed supports its Western neocolonial masters in spite of its window-dressing anti-West rhetoric.
This condition is new in Rwanda’s history in that unlike the previous Hutu petty bourgeois regimes that were mainly
bureaucratic, the current Rwandese Patriotic Front regime has unambiguously chosen
to tie its fate to that of the globalized capitalistic system that it serves in exchange of leftovers (its cut in the value added extracted from Rwanda) secondarily and handouts
("Official Development Aid" flows), primarily.
The current regime understands its role so-well that Paul Kagame’s Presidential Advisory
Council is made of Western CEOs while Tony Blair’s teams are the real masterminders of the Strategic Policy Unit in his office as well as in the Prime Minister’s Office, the ministry of finance and the Rwanda Revenue
Authority to name just a few places of power under their direct influence.
The so-called "economic miracle" praised by Western CEOs and their PR firms is in fact the external sign attesting to
a social transformation of a special nature, that of the former exiled Tutsi lumpenpetty bourgeois into a ferocious and greedy lumpenbourgeoisie whose survival depends both
economically and politically on the support of their Western masters. Thus, these lumpenbourgeois have no account to give to the Rwandan people. It is rather answerable to its
masters and is very sensitive to the extent that a cough in the White House or Downing Streat has instant repercussions on the whole establishment in Kigali. Instead of
reserving the old same reasons why certain Western powers have protected them so far (geostrategic interests), the purpose of this short paper is to explore through which
economic and financial mechanisms this support maintains the RPF system alive.
Unprecedented flows of "Official Development Aid"
From 1994 to 2002, the current Tutsi lumpenbourgeoisie made its primitive accumulation through occupation of assets
belonging to the ousted Hutu bureaucratic bourgeoisie, misappropriation of public assets through the so-called privatization process and tenderpreneurship, and lastly plunder of
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the two invasions and total or partial occupations of that country that took place first in 1996-97 and again in
1998-2002. A residual chain of plunder was maintained ever since and continues to be covered by Congolese Tutsi proxy militias, the CNDP between 2004 and 2009 and again the
so-called M23 since 2012. During this period, the primitive accumulation of capital was made possible by internal mechanisms since aid flows were then mainly channelled through
NGOs as part of humanitarian aid to a country emerging of conflict.
In 2003, "Official Development Aid" took over and litterally exploded pouring into the RPF elites’ hands billions of
dollars. The sources of "aid " indicate a radical shift of allegiance of the Rwandan bourgeoisie in its relationship with the West.
The UK appears for the first time in the sky of major Western « bilateral aid donors » becoming the first bilateral
European financial donor of Rwanda in 1994. Between 1962 and 1994, British total aid amounted to the ludicrus sum of 5 million USD (current) in 32 years ! In 1994, in the
aftermath of their capture of State power, the British cash flow to the RPF elites shoot up to 44.6 million USD (current). From 1994 to 2011, the UK literally showered the RPF
regime with an unprecedented 1.2 billion USD (current) of aid which had never been seen in Rwanda’s bilateral aid history.
For their part, the USA who had provided small amounts of aid to the country since 1962 (220 million USD in 31
years), they flooded the RPF elites with the huge sum of 1,4 billion USD (current) in just 18 years.
The EU was not left behind. Whilst the European Union had handed to the previous Hutu elites 470 millions USD
(current) in 31 years, the new Tutsi elites were drowned into a sea of dollars with the total bilateral aid amounting to 1.13 billion USD (current) in just 18 years. To this, we
have to add the flows of multilateral aid from the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank. Just to give the reader an idea, suffice it to know that for the FY
2010/2011 and FY 2011/2012, the RPF regime received from the two Bretton Woods institutions respectively 975 millions USD and 1.2 billion USD.
Unlike under the previous regime where aid was generally project-based, the current elites could access it as General
Budget Support or Sector Budget Support which gave them the flexibility they needed to capture it for themselves through self-centered budgetary and fiscal policies. This
dependency to aid exposes the true character of the present regime and shows its narrative depicting aid as toxic and advocating for investments and trade is exceedingly void
and demagogic.
Longing for foreign direct investments
Figures from the World Bank also inform us that the total net flows of foreign investment between 1994 and 2011 was
just 500 million USD (current), which represents an average of 27.8 million USD per annum, slightly less than net personal remittances (31 million USD). Suffice it to recall
that Net official development assistance and official aid received (constant 2010 US$) during the same period reached the astronomic sum of 12.5 billion USD, aid from BRICS
excluded. All the noise being made by the RPF regime is meant to conceal the bitter reality that the ruling elites depend more on handouts from the West than cuts from the
meager foreign direct investment endlessly blown at the face of starters and other uninformed audiences.
Thriving on aid and selling lies
During the last Rwanda Day UK 2013, the RPF Uganda born mouthpiece Andrew
Mwenda appearing on a panel on Rwanda’s so-called economic miracle stated bluntly that Rwanda was "the
most equitable country in the World" . Paul Kagame himself later tried to force down his audience’s throat that his regime managed to "lift one million people from poverty". The
series of lies went on and on. The objective of that campaign is to make the public believe that the growth registered in terms of GDP benefits to all Rwandans and is equitably
shared. Nothing could be further from the truth. For Rwanda is among the most unequal societies in the World.
The Gini index is the most commonly used to measure inequality in a given population. According to the World Bank,
the Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption of expenditure among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly
equal distribution. Hence, a Gindi index of 0 represents a perfect equality while 100 implies a perfect inequality. Rwanda’s Gini index was 50.8 in 2011 and was the highest of
the East African Community. It stands at 33.3, 47.7, 37 and 44 for Burundi (2006), Kenya (2005), Tanzania (2006) and Uganda (2009) respectively.
In 2010, the US and the UK who are the main providers of aid to post-genocide Rwanda’s elites had a Gini index of 38
and 34 (after-tax) respectively. Sweden’s, Norway’s or even Belgium’s or Switzerland indexes were respectively 25, 25.6 and 33 in 2011 and stood at 30.4 for the EU in 2009. The
10% richest hold 43,2% of the National income.
There were close to 300,000 Rwandans earning a salary both in the public and the private sector in 2002 according the
RPF government (Politique Nationale de l’Emploi, 2007) out of an active population of
4,500,000 individuals aged between 15 and 65 years. The rest (92%) were self-employed, mostly in rural areas (87,6%). For those who know the reality behind these figures, at
least 50% of these Rwandans are either landless or poor peasants working less than 15 hours a week. The truth is they are unemployed.
The upper-class of the public servant entertains various connections with the private sector. Sometimes, so-called
private companies are owned by the ruling party in a way that the separation between private and State ownership is hard to figure out. It’s worth mentioning that 80% of
Rwanda’s current businesses were created after 1994 (IFC, Enterprise Survey, Rwanda Country Profile, 2011). They were launched by Tutsi returnees who form the core of the
upper-strata of the ruling party. It seems like the only thing they share is that common background, though. These factors combined block or prevent the emergence of a real
national bourgeoisie, a wide national petty bourgeoisie and obviously complicate the formation of a vigorous and organized proletariat.
A class that lacks self-awareness
The main psychological characteristic of the ruling Tutsi bourgeoisie is a mix of ethnic supremacism and the mindset
of a community besieged and constantly under threat. Beyond this, there is no real class awareness because an individual easily passes overnight from the wealthiest condition to
the poorest, depending on his/her allegiance to the reigning autocrat. Their sense of belonging to a class is non-existent. Their fate is determined by the will of the ruling
autocrat by whom passes the external financial support they collectively thrive on. These elites are conscious that what they possess can vanish in a wink without prior notice.
Because of this characteristic, they tend to see the whole society through the lenses of their own fate, negate the existence of class stratification and class contradictions in
the Rwandan society and feel comfortable in their ideological confusion. This ideological vacuum was filled by evangelical preachers that mushroomed since 1994.
As a consequence, even though they are linked to the global ruling capitalist classes in the West, their discourse
can barely discern the exact nature of their link to them. This blurred vision leads them to behaving like the lumpen proletariat in many ways. Having all to lose in case of
change of guard on the part of their masters, they dont hesitate to blackmail them whenever they feel « betrayed » by their masters. This happened recently when Paul Kagame’s
Rwanda was threatened of sanctions and possible indictment by the ICC for his destabilizing activities in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and when the cash tap
was turned off for some time.
To conclude, Rwandans’ internal enemy is clearly a thuggish Tutsi supramacist social class whose economic base is « official aid ». Andre Gunder Frank and Samir Amin have
everyone in their own way exposed the essence of such a class and how its links to multinationals and their serving governments in the center of capitalism consolidate
dictatorship and develop underdevelopment in its periphery, namely in Latine America or Africa. Rwanda’s ruling class is a case-study in this regard. To uproot this particular
lumpenbourgeoisie, we need to comprehend its essence and organize the Rwandan masses and lead their struggle for national liberation and a new social order, based on a
non-ethnic and non sexist democracy, a people-centered and internally generated economic growth and a shared prosperity.
For more on UDF-Inkingi:
www.fdu-rwanda.com/en/principes-de-base/programme-politique/
Read more: http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8479/mberahizi-rise-tutsi-lumpen-bourgeoisie#ixzz2V42czlaf
Lobbying claims: Two peers suspended, one resigns
BBC, 2 June
2013 Last updated
at 18:11 GMT
Three peers have been accused of agreeing to carry out Parliamentary work for payment.
Undercover
Sunday Times reporters filmed the men appearing to offer to help a fake
solar energy company.
Ulster Unionist Lord Laird and Labour's Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Cunningham deny wrongdoing.
The two Labour peers have been suspended from the party and Lord Laird has resigned the party whip pending an investigation.
In a separate investigation by the BBC's Panorama programme in conjunction with the Daily Telegraph, Lord Laird was also secretly filmed discussing a retainer to ask
parliamentary questions.
The House of Lords code of conduct says peers must not act as paid advocates and "must not seek to profit from membership of the House by accepting or agreeing to accept payment
for providing parliamentary advice or services".
Lord Laird is alleged to have told reporters posing as lobbyists for a fake company representing business interests in Fiji that he would be interested in accepting a retainer
of £2,000 a month.
He told the Panorama undercover team that he would help start an All Party Parliamentary Group for Fiji. He indicated that he would use the promise of a trip to Fiji as a
"bribe" in order to get people to join the group.
Lord Laird said: "I'll deny having said this, but it's a bribe. The sort of thing I can say to these guys. 'Look, you put that question down now. I thought you were interested
in Fiji. Would you like to come down to it, y'know? I believe it's quite nice.' But that's why I can say that."
Lord Laird was filmed telling the Panorama undercover team that he would help start an All Party Parliamentary Group, or APPG, for Fiji
In a similar but separate investigation by the Sunday Times, Lord Laird told undercover reporters that, working together, peers could ask parliamentary questions for each
other's clients, put down amendments in debates or write to ministers.
But later, in a statement to the BBC, Lord Laird said he had been "the subject of a scam" by journalists.
"This has led to allegations that I have broken the rules of the House of Lords," he said.
Continue reading the main story
Lord Laird: In quotes
In discussions with Panorama's undercover team, Lord Laird explained how he could get other people to raise questions in the House of Lords.
"If I take this on, obviously there is, I would be doing that for monetary reward.
"I don't want to be having to unveil that because it weakens the position. But if I asked a question, I'd have to declare an interest. Now that doesn't stop me. Can still do
that, that's fine. But you want more than me.
"You don't want it sounding as if the only bloody person in Parliament who raises any bloody thing about Fiji is the guy they pay."
"I wish to make it clear that I did not agree to act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the House nor did I accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for
providing parliamentary advice or services."
He said that, although he had not broken any rules, he had referred himself "to the appropriate authorities".
The Ulster Unionist Party later announced that Lord Laird had resigned the party whip, pending the outcome of an investigation by Westminster authorities.
Mike Nesbitt, head of the UUP, said: "Any sensible, right-minded person watching that video clip would form an opinion and that is not the opinion I would want for the Ulster
Unionist Party."
'Value for money'
The second peer, Lord Cunningham - a minister under Tony Blair - offered to write to Prime Minister David Cameron to push the solar energy company's supposed agenda.
He also offered to ask parliamentary questions and said he could "get other people to ask questions as well".
He was offered a monthly payment of £10,000, to which he replied: "Make that... £12,000 a month. I think we could do a deal on that."
He told undercover reporters he offered "value for money" because he could introduce them to senior members of all three of the main political parties.
"Knocking on doors, introductions and getting to see people, including if necessary the ministers - this is part of the package," he said.
In a statement sent to the Sunday Times, Lord Cunningham denied breaking any rules.
He said: "I deny any agreement to operate in breach of the House of Lords code of conduct and, in fact, recall that I made it clear that I would only operate within the rules."
He said his reference to "a fanciful £12,000 a month payment" was made to test his suspicion that he had been talking to journalists.
Lord (Brian) Mackenzie, a former chief superintendent for Durham police and president of the Police Superintendents Association, said he could arrange parties for paying clients
- including on the terrace of the House of Lords - after being asked if this was possible.
Lord Brian MacKenzie of Framwellgate: ''I have not broken any of the rules''
"There is a rule that you shouldn't host a reception in parliament where you have a pecuniary interest. I thought that's bloody nonsense. Nonetheless... how would you get round
that?
"I just say to a colleague who has nothing to do with it, 'would you host a function for me?'" he said.
But Lord Mackenzie told the BBC he was "quite happy" that he had not broken the rules.
He said the undercover reporters may well have offered him "so many thousands a month", but no figure was agreed on.
"In the event, when I went back to my office I checked the codes of conduct and I decided that it was getting a bit near the mark and I decided to decline the offer," he added.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Alan SoadyPolitical reporter, BBC News
The rules over lobbying have long been seen by some around Westminster as having grey areas or loopholes.
David Cameron has previously warned that it risked blowing up into a scandal.
The specific allegations against each individual will be investigated and they all deny wrongdoing. But whether or not any rules have been broken in this case, it thrusts the
whole issue of lobbying back into the spotlight.
It seems likely it will act as a warning shot to Parliament and may well lead to the rules being tightened.
He said so long as a peer's outside interests were properly declared and registered, it would be "nonsense" to prohibit them from asking questions and raising issues.
They brought specialist knowledge and expertise to the House of Lords, he said.
The Sunday Times said all three peers had told their undercover reporters at the time that they would declare any payment in the House of Lords register - but then they
discussed ways to get around declaration of interest rules by asking colleagues to table questions and host events.
Labour said in a statement released after the peers' suspension: "The Labour Party expects the highest standards of its representatives and believes that they have a duty to be
transparent and accountable at all times."
The party has called for urgent cross-party talks on the stalled introduction of a register.
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the latest claims made his toes curl "out of utter embarrassment".
People would be "utterly sickened" with actions showing there was one system for those who govern and another for those being governed, he added.
Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander expressed anger that the good name of the endeavour of politics was "once again being smeared by what appears to be conduct that
literally cannot be defended".
Peter Facey, director of campaign group Unlock Democracy, said peers were paid a tax-free allowance of £300 a day, plus travel expenses to sit in the House of Lords - the
equivalent of a £60,000 annual salary if they attended every time the House sat.
On Saturday, Panorama released footage - secretly filmed as part of the same investigation - of MP Patrick Mercer appearing to offer a Commons security pass to a fake Fijian
firm that paid him £4,000 to ask parliamentary questions. He had resigned the Tory whip the previous day.
Mr Mercer said he had taken the money for consultancy work outside Parliament.
Panorama will be shown on BBC One at 21:00 BST on Thursday.