When Paul Kagame became Rwanda’s central leader, he did not inherit a country that had undergone a normal political transition and collapse.

No, after one of the darkest human rights atrocities of the 20th century, Rwanda was left with deep scars. In 100 days (April – July 1994), over 800 000 to more than 1 million people – mostly Tutsi but also some moderate Hutus and many others – were brutally murdered in a carefully planned genocide.

After the genocide, Rwanda was left with mass graves, traumatised survivors, destroyed trust, refugees who had fled the country, and very weak and often broken institutions, as well as a ruined economy.

Today, Rwanda is a country with visible order that has been recreated and where public administration is strong.

Large investments have been made in the fields of health, education, infrastructure, ICT, and tourism. Furthermore, the country is experiencing rapid economic growth.

This does not remove the serious questions about political freedom and human rights, but it does mean that Kagame’s leadership must be discussed against the background of both Rwanda’s unimaginable collapse and its remarkable reconstruction.

Paul Kagame is not the president of Uganda. He is the president of Rwanda.

These simple facts are important. They situate Kagame in the correct country – Rwanda – and within the appropriate political and historical space – Rwanda’s post-genocide, post-ethnic violence reconstruction and development.

But, for many reasons, Uganda is not irrelevant to Kagame’s life and times.

As a young boy, Kagame was a Rwandan refugee in Uganda after his family was forced to flee due to ethnic violence. It was in Uganda as a refugee that Kagame grew up, was formed in exile, in military struggle, in discipline, in a hard school of learning in a foreign land.
The refugee camp, the military, the struggle for return to Rwanda, and the memories of the damaged people he encountered along the way all played a role in shaping the person who would become central to Rwanda’s post-genocide reconstruction.

Why should South Africans take note of Paul Kagame?

Not because Rwanda gives us a perfect model. Not because Kagame is above criticism. Not because efficiency cancels out democracy.

Not because we should import authoritarian habits into our constitutional democracy. We should pay attention to Kagame because his leadership prompts an important question that South Africa must confront before the 2026 local government elections: What is the purpose of leadership? Is leadership intended to serve the common good, or is it simply a means for politically connected individuals to consume public resources?

Should we measure leadership by slogans, songs, promises, and ideological speeches, or by tangible outcomes such as roads, clinics, schools, safety, clean towns, functioning infrastructure, and accountable governance?

Paul Kagame inherited a failed state

Rwanda had been devastated not only by the loss of life in the 1994 genocide, when some 800 000 people were killed, mostly by their neighbours, but also by the destruction of the moral fabric of the country.

Families had been killed; neighbours had been turned against each other; institutions had collapsed; refugees had fled the country; survivors of the genocide were left to pick up the pieces and come to terms with what had happened; and the state itself had been one of the organisers of the genocide.
To rule Rwanda after 1994 was to ask whether it was possible to rebuild national life.

Something has clearly happened in Rwanda under Kagame

First and foremost, Rwanda has become more stable than it was in the years following the genocide.

The capital, Kigali, is a clean and well-run city, with a sense of order not always found elsewhere in Africa. Public administration has been improved, and the country is actively seeking investment.

Tourism has been developed, and health, education and infrastructure projects have been prioritised. Long-term planning has become part of the state’s culture, and Rwanda projects an image of discipline to Africa and the rest of the world.

That is why Kagame’s leadership deserves serious attention.

He represents a kind of leadership that is impatient with excuses.

His style is disciplined, austere, technocratic and performance driven. He seems to ask constantly:

• What is the target?
• Who is responsible?
• What has been delivered?
• Where is the report?
• What must be improved?

This is the opposite of the lazy political culture that has become too familiar in parts of South Africa, where promises are repeated election after election while municipalities collapse under corruption, cadre deployment, poor maintenance and administrative incompetence.

But the Christian/moral question goes deeper than this. It is not merely a question of whether the leader is any good at governing.

The question is: Is the leader any good?
There is a huge difference between being good at what one does and being good.

There is no doubt that an extremely evil man (or woman) can be technically extremely brilliant.

A man/men of immense power can be strategically (politically) extremely brilliant, while at the same time being completely ruthless and unfair.

A leader (of immense power) can build all the roads he or she likes while shutting up any critic. All the visible results of progress of development that one can like can be brought about while being completely against all the good that any human being can be against.

Thus, while being extremely competent and extremely effective, a leader can be extremely evil. Thus, while being extremely good at what one does as a leader, a leader can be extremely evil.

A Christian view of leadership must ask two profound questions of any leader.

The first is: Does the leader deliver? The second is: Does the leader serve truth, justice, human dignity, the common good?

Biblical wisdom, on the other hand, guides our reflections on leadership through this passage from Jesus:

“What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36).

So, what good is it for a politician? Power? Control of a party? Election victory over his opponents? Building a public image? Development? Justice? Order? Stability? A clean city?

But a contaminated conscience of the state?

Note that here I am not saying that Christians should only learn from other Christian leaders. In fact, the Bible teaches that those who do not have the law (i.e., the explicitly Christian law) can in fact do many things required by the law ‘by nature’ since the law is written on their hearts and their conscience bears witness (Romans 2:14,15).

This is what is called natural law.

That is, the moral awareness of those created by God is not limited to those who explicitly base their moral principles on the Bible and the church.

When we study Kagame, we should look for traces of natural moral wisdom.

We should ask where he manifests concern for order, for taking responsibility, for doing his public duty, for discipline, for fighting corruption, for the common good.

And where does the natural goodness cease to be so when power is not checked by accountability, by humility, and by democratic openness?
Taking this in, the one positive lesson one would take from Kagame is that leadership has to be taken seriously.
Government is not a play; the municipal council is not a club where being a member of the party is enough to secure a seat on the council.

Public funds are not for private exploitation. A mayor is not a pop star, councillors are not landlords, and the municipal manager is not a trophy that the politician brings back to headquarters as proof of his good work.

Leadership exists to serve people, to lead them in the way they would like to be led. In the scriptures, leaders are viewed as shepherds. And just as shepherds are expected to protect, feed and look after their sheep, so too are leaders expected to look after their followers.

In Ezekiel 34, this group of shepherds are rebuked because they feed on the fat and have used the strong to eat up the weak.

One could so easily relate this to the actions of the most corrupt of public officials who have used public funds to amass personal wealth while communities around them are battling with issues of sewage not being removed from streets and backyards; with potholes in the roads and sometimes for years on end; with no water coming out of their taps; with no lights in their neighbourhood; and with budgets being stolen left, right and centre.

Reforming Rwanda under Kagame challenges the cheap excuse that African countries cannot be organised enough to sustain even minimal order.

History and/or structural conditions are no excuse for the falling apart of our town and/or cities, even when all conditions are in place for optimal development. Rwanda had no development to fall back on when it started reconstructing, yet it is visible.

South Africa has much more to fall back on than that: far more resources; stronger institutions; a bigger economy; deeper universities; a more vibrant and livelier civil society; an independent judiciary and constitutionally protected checks and balances.

Yes, history matters much and must not be reduced to blanket denials of its depth. Apartheid did cause real wounds to the black people of South Africa. But decades have passed since.

So, today’s evident deterioration and/or failure cannot only be attributed to history.

Corruption, entitlement, ineptness, lack of accountability, arrogance of those who rule, as well as decay of moral fibre, are also among us and cannot be denied anymore.

A critical perspective on Christian ethics of leadership would argue that such leadership is not merely measured by the ends it seeks to achieve, but by the character of the leader himself or herself.

Christian ethics of leadership is as much concerned with the type of person willing to take on a leadership role as with the impact such a leader will have on the wider community. Proverbs 29:2 says, “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan”.

The people groan when leaders steal.

• The people groan when tenders are manipulated.
• The people groan when officials arrive late, leave early and treat citizens as interruptions.
• The people groan when public servants forget the word ‘servant.’
• The people groan. Christian ethics of leadership would argue that the people also groan when political leaders speak of the poor but live off the poor.

A society cannot be healed by leaders who consume it.

So, what’s so good about being good?

Being good is not weak; it’s not soft. It’s not some sort of naive idealism. What I mean by being good is moral strength directed towards life.

It’s building trust. It’s protecting the vulnerable. It’s telling the truth when it’s more profitable to lie.
It’s refusing a bribe when everybody else is saying, “Well, this is how you do things.”

It’s putting the most competent person in the job, as opposed to the most loyal fool. It’s maintaining the infrastructure because, at some point in the future, there are going to be people living in this city.

And that’s what matters. So it’s not about what I can get from this office; it’s what I must give through this office.

From a Christian perspective, the goodness of God is the foundation for the goodness of human leadership.

God is not only powerful but good

As a result, for Christian leaders, worship of power is out of bounds.

This is explicitly contradicted by Jesus in Mark 10:42 – 45, where he distinguishes his way of leadership from that of the rulers of the nations who ‘lord it over others’ and says to his followers ‘not so with you’. Instead, whoever wishes to become great among them must be their servant, and whoever wishes to be first among them must be their champion in a spirit of humility.

This is the Christian revolution in leadership: in terms of greatness, greatness equals service; excess equals self-denial; truth equals reality; love of neighbour equals love of office.

This is where Kagame must be evaluated with both appreciation and caution.

Appreciation, because Rwanda’s recovery shows the value of discipline, planning, anti-corruption, administrative seriousness and national purpose.

Caution, because Christian ethics cannot bless repression, fear, silenced opposition, media control or the personalisation of power.

The biblical tradition values justice too deeply for that. Micah 6:8 does not say, “Do development, love order, and walk proudly with power.” It says, “Act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” Justice, mercy and humility belong together. Development without humility can become technocratic pride. Order without mercy can become control. National unity without justice can become enforced silence.

The lessons for South Africa are thus balanced and urgent. South Africa needs leaders with Kagame’s delivery focus, but without concentrating power in the same way.

South Africa needs a government with disciplined administration, but not one that is fearful of criticism.
We need development that is measurable and tangibly felt, but not at the cost of silencing the opposition.

READ MORE Over a cup of coffee, Reverend Maans van Zyl asks what does real leadership cost?

We need to have clean towns and cities, but not at the cost of personality cults.
We need to be able to implement long-term plans, but not by shortcutting democracy. We need leaders who are fanatically committed to fighting corruption but also to accountability.
We need leaders who are strong enough to be good governors, but humble enough to be open to challenge.

It’s time to wake up from the hypnosis that has gripped voters so far and stop blindly voting for parties based on colour, liberation history, ethnicity, ideology, or the personality of the candidate.

The local government elections are not a concert, not something to be inherited from family members, and not a test of loyalty to any particular group.

What voters need to focus on is whether the water comes out of the tap, whether the sewage is being properly disposed of, and whether the roads are being maintained.

READ MORE Over a cup of coffee, Reverend Maans van Zyl asks if a leader’s guidance are successfully transforming people – making them healthier, wiser, freer, stronger, and more capable

They need to check whether refuse is being collected regularly, whether the municipality’s budget is clean, and whether officials are picking up their phones.

If tenders are being awarded honestly, and if public money is being spent to meet public needs, then voters should be casting their ballots for the candidates who will form the best municipality to serve them.

A municipality is simply the concrete form of theology.

It either honours the neighbour or dishonours him.

If I claim to love my neighbour, then I am not going to be indifferent to the plight of the children of that neighbour who are forced to walk through sewage-laden streets and drink polluted water.

I am not going to be indifferent to the plight of those children who are studying in the dark or who are living in a town where decay and neglect have become the norm.

The negative leaders who will reject this message are predictable.

They are leaders who prefer blame to responsibility.
They enjoy crises because crises hide incompetence.
They prefer slogans because slogans cover emptiness.
They attack accountability because accountability threatens their networks.
They speak about the people while using the people.
They call themselves servants while behaving like owners.
They promise renewal while recycling fails.
They do not fear God, they do not respect citizens, and they do not blush when caught.

There are many leaders who, from a good governance perspective, are bad news.
From a biblical perspective, however, they are no news at all.

The Bible repeatedly portrays the type of person who resists the influence of good leaders – the type of person who is opposed to good governance. This includes the fool, the mockers, the liar and the corrupt person. It includes those who make unjust laws to oppress the poor (Isaiah 10:1).

It includes those who exploit and rob the poor of their rights (Isaiah 10:2).

Such leaders are condemned by Jesus in Matthew 23:6-12, where he attacks the religious leaders of his day who were so eager to gain status that they had no time for justice, mercy or faithfulness. In James 5:1-6, the rich and powerful are warned not to exploit their workers.

In the Bible, abusive power is never viewed as neutral. Rather, it is always viewed from the perspective of the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the poor and the oppressed.

Consequently, a Christian cannot treat corruption as normal.

A Christian cannot say that because it is being done by ‘our side’, it does not matter.
A Christian cannot reward leaders who have failed the community time and time again.

Kagame’s life and leadership can therefore be used as a mirror. In that mirror, we see the power of discipline, vision and delivery.

We also see the danger of power without sufficient democratic openness.

The mirror does not tell South Africa to become Rwanda. It tells South Africa to take it seriously.

It tells us to stop confusing noise with leadership. It tells us to demand results without surrendering freedom. It tells us that goodness must be more than private politeness; it must become public justice.
Leadership in a Christian context is not just about being effective; it’s about being faithful; it’s not just about being strong; it’s about being just.

A leader formed in Christian wisdom is not only trying to build things; he or she is trying to build them without ruining anything.

So, it’s not just about governing; it’s about serving.

Might a leader ask, Does my power protect people?
Does my office serve the common good? Am I trying to make decisions that honour truth?

Are the poor safer under my leadership? Am I building up institutions so that when I’m gone, they’re stronger? And then the biggest question of all, will future generations bless my name or curse my name?

That is the kind of leader that South Africa needs in 2026, not a saviour, not a strongman, not a performer, not someone who exploits public wealth for personal gain, but rather a servant with backbone.

Such a leader would be able to plan, deliver, listen, repent, appoint the best people for the job, fight corruption, and remind his public officials that public office is a sacred trust.

Kagame’s visible changes in Rwanda show that indeed African leadership can produce change.

The Christian wisdom teaches, however, that mere visible changes are not enough; they must be tied to justice, humility, truth, and love of the neighbour.

A far more pertinent and interesting question for us all to grapple with is what Kagame’s tale of rising to greatness as a leader tells us about our own leaders and us as citizens and voters.

What does ‘good’ even mean in the context of a leader?

And will we be so blinded by admiration for his ‘goodness’ that we overlook and even reward the corruption, crass self-interest, and lack of good character of our own leaders?

What future do we want, and are we prepared to demand and vote for a leader who puts the common good above his own self-interest, who will be a true servant leader, and is willing to be held to account for his mistakes?

If we don’t, and we vote for the very same set of characters who have been looting and pillaging our state while our communities are collapsing, then we must not be surprised when nothing changes in 2026.

But if we can recover some moral seriousness and start demanding not only competence but also good character from our leaders, then the 2026 elections could be a moment in South African history when we, as a nation, turn towards the public good.

This column is the opinion of the writer and does not represent the views of Witbank News.

Your city, your story, as it happens. Stay in the loop with WITBANK NEWS.
Find us on our website, Facebook, X, Instagram or TikTok.
Got a tip? Email: info@witbanknews.co.za