What the Philippines can learn from Rwanda

How has Rwanda managed to overtake many developing nations in the global race for competitiveness and transparency?
 

This country is landlocked, under-endowed, and war-ravaged. Rwanda is a nation of 10.5 million people that has faced a number of challenges, not the least of which was ethnic strife that led to genocide 20 years ago. 
 

The case of Rwanda demonstrates many similar traits to that of the Northeast Asian developmental states. The Rwanda Patriotic Front-led government has faced external threats from the opposition-in-exile and from a potentially hostile ethnic majority at home, just as the South Korean and Taiwanese states did from North Korea and from mainland China. 
 

Yet, it in spite of all the challenges, it has managed to regain stability and even posted sustained economic growth averaging 7.4 per cent per annum, which has led to improved social well-being over the past decade. 
 

As an indication of its progress, Rwanda has successfully undertaken significant reforms in its regulatory environment. 

 

Just consider the following:

 

-The World Bank in 2014 has ranked Rwanda the second best country in Africa to do business, after Mauritius, and before South Africa and Botswana. 

 

-It only takes two days to set up a business. This is the ninth shortest time in the world. 

 

-The country is ranked 49th (with a score of 53/100) in Transparency International’s “Corruption Perception Index,” placing it in the same class as Malaysia and South Korea.

 

So how has a country that suffered many years of war, and as much corruption as any other impoverished nation in the past, managed to turn things around?

 

The short answer is: they did it through an accommodative political settlement, and the help of both conventional and unorthodox institutions and economic strategies.

 

A troubled past

 

Rwanda has had a long history of ethnic violence between its two main, rival tribes. 

 

From pre-colonial times up to 1959, the pastoral Tutsis were the ascendant political class over the agricultural Hutus. Ethnic differences were exaggerated under colonial rule. Leading up to independence in 1962, Belgian colonists transferred their support to the Hutu elites. This led to mass killings of Tutsis, many of whom fled the country.

 

Two Hutu regimes ruled the country from 1961 to 1994. Having a single-party dominate politics for most of this period did not prevent the nation from succumbing to decentralised rent-seeking and clientelist behaviour. 

 

A group known as Akazu was at the apex of this system. It was related to, but not controlled by, the administration. 

 

Tutsis sought to regain control of the country through the Rwanda Patriotic Army. This culminated in the genocide of 1994 by the retreating Hutus. After consolidating their hold on the country, the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) established a government of national unity incorporating moderate Hutus, one of whom led the country as its president.

 
A reformist regime

 

Although a certain amount of political repression – in the guise of preventing a return of “ethnic ideology” – has occurred, the coalition governments, comprised of all legal parties in parliament being proportionately represented in cabinet (the ruling RPF holds no more than fifty per cent of the portfolios), has succeeded in keeping the nation stable. 

 

This inclusiveness, along with its program of restorative justice known as “Gacaca,” has fostered reconciliation and allowed the country to experience improvements in social and human development not previously seen.

 

The intrusion of government in everyday life at times borders on social engineering, as they've sought to follow the Singaporean model in both economic and social policy implementation. 

 

President Paul Kagame (elected in 2003 and then again in 2010) has been labelled the global elite’s favorite strongman for improvements to public service delivery – particularly in the fields of health and education.

 

Departmental line agencies have been managed through an institution of performance contracts known as “Imihigo” which Tim Kelsall describes as “modern performance agreements supported by a significant component of moral pressure and neo-traditional gloss.” This combination of formal scientific management and homegrown practices has permeated on down to the grassroots by roping in both local officials and civil servants.

 

On the economic front, Rwanda has applied a hybrid approach to investment promotion. In one hand, it has adopted policies and institutional arrangements considered “best practice” by the World Bank’s “Doing Business” surveys.

Responsibility for managing this has been assigned to the Rwanda Development Board (RDB). But this works in parallel with a more activist approach in industrial policy with the RPF’s holding company, Tri-Star Investments, getting involved in joint ventures and start-up companies.

 

 

 

Demonstrable economic effects

RPF's holding company has initiated many successful ventures with demonstrable effects for the rest of the economy. Telecoms are one example. When Tri-Star sold part of its stake in Rwandatel in 2007, it got back five to 10 times its initial investment in the company. 

 

Because profits from Tri-Star that are not ploughed back into its businesses revert back to the RPF, the party is financially independent. It uses this to fund its political campaigns without having to resort to political donors. 

 

Kelsall explains what this does:

 

“The RPF’s financial solvency obviates the need for party officials to engage in election-related corruption, which in turn allows the party to take a very tough line on corruption among its leading supporters and in the bureaucracy.”

 

Apart from Tri-Star, the government has also orchestrated the formation of other funds: the Horizon Group which belongs to the army (which undertakes socio-economic projects to produce productive enterprises); and the Rwanda Investment Group, a consortium led by domestic and diasporic elite. 

 

The purpose of the second group is to raise capital other than through foreign borrowings, to invest in high impact projects of strategic national importance. Without such an interventionist approach, much of the agricultural and industrial transformations currently underway in different sectors of the economy simply would not progress.

 

Many threats have kept the ruling RPF focused on improving social and economic well-being for its citizens to maintain its legitimacy and hold on power. The regime has exercised a capacity for long-range vision and forward planning contained in its “Vision 2020 roadmap”, free from the influence of rent-seeking, private interests. It has ruthlessly pursued its policies at times through heavy-handed regulations and strict enforcement of its rules. 

 

The low crime, low corruption, low red-tape environment this has fostered was not enough. The RPF has used its clout to address market failures and encourage the adoption of productivity-enhancing new technology. 

 

Through its holding company and other private-led investment groups that it has brought into being, jobs have been found for talented managers and skilled workers that might have otherwise gone overseas.

 

The Rwandan experience demonstrates the capacity of poor nations to bring about a system of governance that is relatively competent and free from corruption within a short span of time using home-grown institutions, resources and talent. The extremely harsh and disadvantageous position it faced did not become a hindrance, but rather provided greater incentive for it to go down the road it has followed. 

 

Surely, any emerging economy seeking to do the same should take heed the lessons from Rwanda.

 

Lessons for the Philippines?

 

The Philippines may have already attained middle income country status – a milestone that Rwanda is still aiming to achieve by 2020 – but there are certain elements in Rwanda’s development experience that it can learn from. 

 

Financially autonomous political parties: We have seen how  gaining financial solvency allowed the RPF to govern without fear or favour. This enabled it to take a long-term view in planning and executing its economic development strategy. It enabled it to rule with moral ascendancy and punish erring, corrupt officials, putting an end to the patrimonial, rent-seeking behaviour of its bureaucratic and business elite.

 

Inclusive, participatory governance: We have already seen how the RPF has shared power with other political parties. The proportion of cabinet appointments follows the same proportion of parties represented in the parliament. In the 2013 elections, an unprecedented 64 per cent of seats were won by women. This is the highest level of female participation in political office anywhere in the world. With this level of representation, laws that uphold women’s rights and promote women’s health and well-being are being enacted.

 

Homegrown solutions: Although a certain amount of repression of the press and political opposition has taken place, in the guise of preventing ethnic tensions from flaring up once again, such suppression, it can be argued, would have taken place anyway, given conditions prevailing in Rwanda. Rather than relying on foreign models of governance and economic development, Rwanda has charted its own path. It uses institutions like Gacaca and Imihigo to bring about restorative justice and better governance.

 

Robust government role: In promoting economic development, Rwanda didn’t follow the Washington Consensus that simply limits the role of government to creating a level playing field. It followed the example of East Asia, which meant addressing structural issues in its economy through interventionist, industrial policy aimed at catalyzing investment in productive sectors in agriculture, industry, and services to raise the standard of living of those residing at the base of the socio-economic pyramid. Ironically, this has emboldened the private sector to take risks, too, and invest in the future of the country.

 

Political succession: Many commentators are wondering whether President Kagame intends to step down at the end of his second term in 2017. A third term is constitutionally prohibited. As early as 2012, the ruling party held a conference to tackle the issue of political succession at Kagame’s request. At this early stage, the RPF has begun to look for ways to bring about an orderly succession, but one that does not put in jeopardy the advances made already. It is seeking ways to institutionalise mechanisms for bringing this about.

 

It would not be right to recommend that the same set of policies be adopted in the Philippines. The message here is that countries need to chart their own developmental path based on the conditions they face. 

 

The universal prescriptions of the Washington Consensus are becoming less influential, as the balance of economic power shifts to the East. While that may be true, certain key principles can be gleaned from the success of other countries.

 

Considering the way the RPF developed its Vision 2020, opened up participation of women, included its political opponents in a cabinet that advises the president, and managed the bureaucracy through formal and informal contracts, what changes could the ruling Liberal Party make that would improve the way it governs under President Aquino? 

 

More importantly, how could it ensure that any positive changes it makes will continue beyond 2016 when he steps down? — KDM, GMA News

 

---

Doy Santos holds an MS in Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University and is an economic policy analyst based in Adelaide, South Australia. He blogs on The Cusp and tweets as @thecusponline. This essay originally appeared on the ProPinoy site on January 14. We are re-posting it here with permission.