It was expected that Western powers would react negatively to Rwanda’s democratically approved constitutional change that allowed the incumbent to run for a third term. However, what is surprising is the harsh tone in the press statement issued by the spokesperson of the US Bureau of Public Affairs, saying “the United States is deeply disappointed.”

I do not deny Africa’s troubles and the destruction caused by power-hungry leaders, to say nothing of the poverty and underdevelopment. It is these leaders who have turned us into beggars; and with every pittance a beggar receives comes scorn, disrespect, discrimination and control.

The US’s response to President Paul Kagame is a reflection of this. Events in neighbouring Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville and DRC reinforce their resolve.

But they are wrong.

Are we, as Africans, to accept that as the beggars that our looting leaders have turned us into we cede our rights to self-determination without asking questions? Are we to be dictated to about how to govern ourselves?

There is hardly a correlation between success and a specific form of governance. Yes, the US has prospered immensely — with a combination of capitalism and democracy — but so has China, the number two economy in the world, with a completely opposite political system. Singapore punched way above its weight, but it can hardly be called a democracy.

The cure for Africa’s ills is economic stewardship that results in prosperity. This is where the West needs to look at Rwanda differently. The progress made by Rwanda in the past 20 years can best be described as a miracle. For example, Rwandans are being taken out of poverty at probably the quickest pace in the world.

Global Gender Gap ranks Rwanda number six in the world for gender equality. America’s Gallup ranks Rwanda as the happiest and the best place to live in Africa. The World Economic Forum ranks Rwanda the seventh most efficient government in the world. The list of accolades goes on.

Why then would the Rwandan people want to change a government that has brought them so much? Why change a winning formula and take unnecessary risk?

Yes, presidents who defy the will of their people must be dealt with harshly. Identifying them is not hard, the citizenry is the first to show their dissatisfaction through protests and riots. The change in Rwanda was obtained peacefully and democratically. There is thus no reason to believe this wasn’t the will of the people.

It would be a crime to sacrifice the economic prosperity of Rwanda at the altar of unfounded and prejudiced scepticism.  Countries the world over are built on the foundation of strong leaders, whose leadership has created a culture that defines the country.

America had Abraham Lincoln, Britain had Winston Churchill, and Singapore had Lee Kuan Yew, who led Singapore for 31 years. Yet on Lee’s death US President Barrack Obama eulogised him as “a true giant of history, a visionary who led his country from Independence to build one of the most prosperous countries in the world today, he was a devoted public servant and a remarkable leader.”

Yet, just like President Kagame, Lee was criticised that under him, Singapore became known for the government’s authoritarian rule, strict law enforcement and limits on public protests, to which Lee responded that it was a justified tactic necessary to maintain stability and independence.

Just like in Rwanda, the strict rule was reflected in the clean, modern and affluent city that Singapore became. With low taxes, good schools, low crime and investment-friendly laws, Singapore became a popular place for western companies.

It is ironic that all the talk about democracy in Africa is usually presented in the West as if it were a completely new concept. It wasn’t. The the values and democratic processes were as indigenous to Africans as they were to the ancient Greeks.