The streets of Kigali, Rwanda were soaked with blood and littered with broken bodies 20 years ago, as the country spiraled into the "crime of crimes." Beginning on April 7, 1994 Rwanda was engulfed by a genocide uncharacteristic of any other in history due to its speed. Within a period of 100 days, the venom that its propaganda took hold of the Hutu people, reigniting ethnic conflicts with the neighboring Tutsi people that date back to the days of colonialism.

The Hutu mercilessly wielded their machetes, fired their AK-47s and hurled their grenades at their neighbors, their family, their friends and their relatives. An estimated 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were slaughtered. The anarchy only came to an end when the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a Tutsi militia bent on destroying the Hutu-dominated government, "saved" the country and the Tutsi people.

Current Rwandan President Paul Kagame was a military leader of the RPF and became known as the "master of psychological warfare" by Rom?(c)o Dallaire, the force commander of United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda. 

Since the government's forces were more focused on the genocide than the fight for the capitol, Kagame was able to capture Kigali more easily and end the war. The RPF's efforts in ending the genocide have largely shaped the light by which Western politicians currently view the country and its government. 

Kagame ensured great success for Rwanda. He diverges from the concept of an archetypal African leader, one who robs his own people and cares more for power than his country. He is seen as the savior of his country by many. Perhaps this is the explanation behind the mutually beneficial relationship between the international community and Rwanda: the country receives one billion dollars in aid annually. 

In turn, the international community can point to Rwanda as an example of how aid money can work in Africa. According to Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times, "Kagame's government has reduced child mortality by 70 percent; expanded the economy by an average of eight percent over the past five years; and set up a national health insurance program." 

However, the government is run primarily by the minority Tutsi population. It is probably due to greater access to "affirmative action" programs that favor Tutsi with college scholarships and high ranking jobs. Paul Kagame doesn't want to create an ethnic war in Rwanda. He wants what is best for his country. 

He fears the potential consequences of letting go of power and allowing for significant free speech. Ethnic rivalries before and during the genocide were aggravated largely by broadcasts on the radio calling for the deaths of "cockroaches." Much like a stereotypical African leader though, Kagame hopes to seek a third term in 2017. He would have to change the constitution in order to make this legal.

He is the kind of leader who speaks softly and carries a big stick. Often characterized by his brutal tactics, his country is kept in his tight grip while the region surrounding falls apart.
Kagame was integral in the invasions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the Congolese Wars during the late '90s and early 2000s. In the name of keeping his homeland safe and gaining mineral wealth, Kagame's government, allegedly, funded the March 23 Movement, a rebel group that haunted the DRC until recently. 

According to Raise Hope for Congo, M23 was responsible for the displacement of 800,000 civilians, the rape of hundreds of women, the abduction of children and the execution of civilians.

However, we must recognize why he remains in power. Though Kagame's power is not illegal, he would never hold the presidential seat if the United States and the Western world disapproved. Paul Kagame exists as the savior of Rwanda because the Western world and former President Bill Clinton failed miserably in the prevention of the genocide that ravaged the country 20 years ago. 

They hopefully feel tremendous guilt, and his status as a public icon and ender of genocide would put the Western world in an unpopular light if they ever try to forcibly remove him.
However, following the genocide the country rebuilt itself, and exists as a sound investment on the continent. Kagame, a proud Tutsi who grew up in a refugee camp in Uganda, is a true example of a success story. 

His country ascended from failure to success as well. Licking the wounds of a disjointed society following a genocide, and rebuilding it without the intervention of the "white man" perhaps supplants the expectations of Western leaders. 

There is no doubt that Rwanda would not have survived without the strength and audacity of Kagame. Rwanda is described as the Singapore of Africa, one of its greatest success stories, a bit of serendipity for a continent perceived in a negative and inaccurate light. Can the state of Rwanda succeed without a strongman? 

At this point, free expression regarding the president is very limited within its borders. This stems from the reality that the government is extremely powerful in Rwanda. The streets are not littered by garbage as the government has outlawed litter. Crime in Rwanda is very low because criminals have been transferred to an island in the center of Lake Kivu. 

On a more personal level, many village officials have banned dressing in dirty clothes. People argue that freedoms of speech and expression are not important in the midst of war.
An elder in a Rwandan village once expressed in a New York Times interview: "80 percent of people support him [Kagame], 20 percent don't. But those 20 percent don't speak, because they are afraid."

As the elections come to rise in 2017, we must recognize that the Rwandan people cannot be subject to another power struggle based off of ethnicity. But power should lie within the hands of the Rwandan people. 

Kagame is the strongman who helped Rwanda get back its feet. He knows struggle, and he works endlessly to stretch the resources he has in order to provide Rwanda a place on the world stage. 

However, the means by which he pursues this success does not always serve the best interests of his people. In the coming election, Kagame should not push for a change in the constitution to allow him seven more years in office. 

However, the country may not be prepared for such a significant shift in governance. Another leadership role should be provided for Kagame because he knows how to make Rwanda work. After 20 years of remembrance, we must say "never again" to the genocide, quite conscious of the fact that Rwanda might have outgrown its savior.