Rwanda's choice and its possible ramifications

If it goes according to script, Paul Kagame will be Rwanda's president until 2034. Put another way, Mr Kagame's rule will outlive three General Elections in Kenya.

This is after a constitutional referendum called on Friday to abolish term limits got the nod from 98.1 per cent of the voters.

The change allows Kagame to run for a third seven-year term after his term expires in 2017. After that he will be eligible to run for two five-year terms.

At the end of his term(s), a Rwandese born when Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front swept into Kigali in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide will be 38 years old.

After witnessing one of history's most cruel episodes, it is easy to see why most of the Rwandese would forego the need for change at the top. Yet the world is awash with examples of democracies where the benefits of giving the people a real choice during elections far outweighs the benefits of propagating the status quo.

Rwanda could have fallen into the trap of the "fear of the unknown" by refusing to let go the demons of the past. It could also be that Rwandese are wary of the trend across most of the continent where as Oxford University professor Paul Collier argues; despite regular elections, wretched injustices are perpetuated by a venal political class.

In many ways, Kagame has turned Rwanda into one of the world's fastest growing economies. Comparatively, Kigali is orderly, corruption is minimal and there is a general sense of the rule of law and an outpouring of nationalism from the 11 million Hutus and Tutsis. But then there are growing concerns that Rwanda's impressive story is down to one man's discipline and tight political control rather than governance institutions.

But there are cases where the unhindered rule of one leader has bred contempt and pushed a country into the abyss. Rwanda has the choice and time to avoid that.