JOINT GOVERANCE ASSESSMENT UNDERWAY

C O N F I D E N T I A L KIGALI 000204

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/03/2018
TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM PHUM RW
SUBJECT: JOINT GOVERANCE ASSESSMENT UNDERWAY

Classified By: Ambassador Michael R. Arietti, reason 1.4 (B/D)


1. (C) Summary. A team of independent researchers has
completed a first draft of a Joint Governance Assessment
(JGA),an effort directly jointly by the Government of Rwanda
and development partners (and funded by the World Bank). The
Assessment analyzed three areas of concern, Ruling Justly,
Government Effectiveness, and Investment Climate/Corporate
Governance. Extensive indicators are planned for each area
of concern. The draft raised many sensitive questions
regarding political rights, civil liberties, national
reconciliation, and the business climate in Rwanda. In
general, Government of Rwanda (GOR) officials agreed that the
report raised appropriate issues relevant to assessing the
state of governance in Rwanda. While questioning how the
report assessed certain factors in Rwanda's history and
current conditions, the GOR emphasized the need to focus the
report on the way forward. It did not object to the goal of
setting clear indicators against which to judge Rwanda's
performance. The GOR and its development partners will now
provide further comments to the report drafters, with the
goal of reaching a final text by the end of April. End
summary.


2. (U) On March 14, a team of largely British researchers
from the Policy Practice presented a first draft of a Rwanda
Joint Governance Assessment (JGA) to assembled senior Rwandan
officials and donor representatives. The team has been in
Rwanda for the past seven weeks, under the joint direction of
the GOR and donor governments, with a steering committee
headed by the World Bank Representative Victoria Kwakwa and
Local Government Minister Protais Musoni. The assessment
document noted that, while several donor governments require
explicit linkages between disbursement levels and measurable
improvements in governance indicators (the Millennium
Challenge Corporation and the European Commission
specifically mentioned),these efforts were frequently
"duplicative and uncoordinated." The JGA would, the authors
hoped, "bring about a more harmonized approach based on a
common set of indicators and benchmarks." While not
replacing individual donor assessments, it would "improve
coordination" through an "agreed monitoring framework."


3. (C) In opening comments, donor representatives found the
draft to be balanced, appropriate, and a positive
contribution to Rwanda's governance needs. Rwandan officials
responded that they too found the report balanced and a good
draft to work from, but also raised a series of objections to
many of the more pointed assessments found in the draft
document, and to various factual explications of Rwanda's
history and society. Officials (including Finance Minister
James Musoni, Protais Musoni, Ombudsman Tito Rutaremara, and
Great Lakes Envoy Ambassador Richard Sezibera) objected, for
example, to the characterization of Rwanda's pre-colonial
history as one marked by "centralized political authority and
feudal-like relations." They found fault with a statement
that "recent history" had created various divisions,
including "exiles and returnees, genocide survivors and
perpetrators, anglophone and francophone speakers." GOR
officials rejected the report's description of a
"rural-urban" divide between the capital city of Kigali and a
Q"rural-urban" divide between the capital city of Kigali and a
poverty-stricken countryside, did not accept the notion that
"Anglophone influence" had increased in the country
post-genocide, and found fault with the idea that political
party activity (as opposed to party structures) had formerly
been restricted at local levels. (Note: a June, 2007 statute
gave parties for the first time the right to organize at
local levels).


4. (C) GOR officials also objected to a description of the
2003 elections as "marred by irregularities," and did not
agree that the ruling RPF had enjoyed an advantage in access
to state media during the election campaign. A description
of local holding company Tristar as "30 percent owned by the
RPF," and providing the party a "healthy revenue stream"
through investments in various sectors, particularly MTN
Rwandacell, drew a lengthy intervention from James Musoni,
who argued that there is nothing fundamentally unacceptable
with a political party investing in a private company so long
as there were appropriate procedures to ensure transparency
and accountability. Musoni did not contest the point that
political party investments in the Rwandan economy could
create significant conflicts of interest. (Note: some
business interests are associated with other parties -- for
example, SORAS Insurance, the nation's second-largest
insurer, is regarded by some as associated with the PSD).


5. (C) Ambassador Arietti responded by counseling GOR
officials not to "toss out obvious factors that everyone
talks about." The report needed to be credible and
acceptable to the international community for it to be of any
value, he added. Several other donor representatives chimed
in with similar suggestions that the GOR work with the
authors and the donor community to find acceptable language.
The head of DFID and representatives of several other
development agencies focused on the draft indicators, arguing
that the JGA would be of real assistance to Rwanda chiefly
through well-crafted indicators measuring positive change in
concrete ways. The JGA authors were then tasked with
providing a second draft by the end of March, with continuing
work on the indicators to be conducted over the next several
weeks.



6. (C) Comment. An objective and balanced governance
assessment, authored by an independent research group, but
jointly "steered" by the GOR and donors, is a tall order to
pull off -- the GOR strongly contests many external
descriptions of Rwandan society and its political system.
But so far the GOR has not contested the need to address many
key issues of governance and seems prepared to agree to calls
for change and improvement. The JGA process has put on the
table many important governance issues. Key to an ultimately
successful process will be a willingness on the part of the
GOR to see real criticisms matched with solid indicators
aimed at serious problems. End comment.
ARIETTI