Dear Government, Don’t Give Up Your Ability to Persuade

-

 

The public is not concerned about the idea of better pensions.



When faced with public outrage over a decision, governments often find themselves at a crossroads:

i. Stick to the decision and try to convince people why it is necessary, hoping logic and goodwill prevail; or

ii. Listen to public concerns and consider adjusting the plan, even if it means walking it back.

The recent announcement to double pension contributions from 6% to 12% starting January 2025 and to gradually increase them to 20% by 2030 has lit a fire of public debate. The Ministries of Finance, Public Service and Labour, along with the Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB), did step forward to explain the reasoning behind this move. They highlighted some quite solid goals: increasing pension payouts for retirees whose life expectancy has increased, providing capital to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises in the private sector, and boosting research and innovation funding. The leaders even did compare regional pension contribution rates, showing how Rwanda’s current rates are much lower than our neighbors’.

This effort to communicate is commendable. It shows the government is not ignoring the noise. But hey! Responding after the uproar is reactive. A proactive approach—engaging with the public before the announcement—might have helped gauge the mood, manage expectations, and refine the rollout approach.

Context Is Key

Yes, Rwanda’s pension contributions are low compared to other regional countries. But context matters here. Rwanda’s story isn’t like anyone else’s in this region. The country is on a reconstruction trajectory after a devastating history, and while we have achieved amazing progress, we are still catching up on a number of things. 

So, when government officials compare us to countries, some of which have had over 60 years of uninterrupted development, it feels like an apples-to-oranges comparison. Sometimes the government leans on “our unique history” when people’s expectations need to be aligned with the government’s constraints. The same is expected when people need the government to understand their constraints. The saying ingendo y’undi iravuna goes both ways. It cannot be fair to ask citizens to bear burdens based on a comparison to others without also acknowledging our prevailing limitations and working from a position of recognition of such constraints.

It is not the benefits—but the approach.

The public is not concerned about the idea of better pensions. No one is out here saying, “I want to struggle in my old age!” The frustration lies in how and when this is happening.

Look at the timing:

The first big jump—from 6% to 12%—takes effect just a month from now.

Subsequent increases march steadily to 20% by 2030.

For employers and employees alike, this feels rushed. Add to this the economic backdrop: rising food prices, inflationary pressures, and the declining value of the Rwandan Franc. People’s take-home will shrink. Unfortunately for many, that pay is already stretched thinner than a chapati. Hahah!

Sure, future safety nets are important, but people are wondering whether they should come at the cost of people’s present survival. It is inconsiderate to ask someone to secure tomorrow if they’re struggling to survive today. It is like telling someone drowning in a river to save their breath for singing karaoke later. 

Fuel vs. Friction: A Lesson in Change Management

In The Human Element: Overcoming the Resistance That Awaits New Ideas, authors David Schonthal and Loran Nordgren argue that achieving change does not only take making one’s idea appealing (adding fuel) but it, more importantly, involves reducing the resistance—friction—that holds people back from accepting the change.

In this case, government officials have focused on the fuel:

Explaining the benefits of higher pensions.

Showing how this will fund innovation and MSMEs.

Highlighting that Rwanda actually ranks lower than other regional countries.

All this is beautiful, but where are people’s worries at? Friction, it is!

The friction is what is driving public dissatisfaction:

The speed of implementation.

The economic hardships people are already facing.

Concerns about transparency and trust in RSSB’s management of funds.

RSSB has claimed it has strong returns on investment. Great, isn’t it? Now, people are wondering:

If RSSB is making such good profits, why do people need to pay more in pension contributions? Can’t RSSB use the returns on investment to cover the expected increments in pension packages?

How are these profits being used?

What measures are in place to prevent misuse, given past allegations (in the Auditor General’s report, Public Accounts Committee inquiry & news reports)? 

These are the kinds of questions that need answers—not just in a press conference, but in a meaningful, ongoing dialogue with the public.

Why Persuasion Matters

Governments hold the power to enforce decisions, but persuasion builds trust, and trust is the foundation of good governance. Rwanda’s government has earned global recognition for its effectiveness and enjoys high levels of public trust. This trust is not just a nice-to-have; it is a strategic asset.

Ignoring public frustration risks chipping away at that trust. Even small cracks can widen over time. Revolutionary political movements in other countries didn’t lose power overnight—it was a slow erosion of trust, often caused by what seemed like minor, ignorable concerns. Like our leaders always warn against, the RPF cannot afford to be complacent.

It is worth noting that this is not a call to backtrack dramatically. It is a reminder of the importance of meeting people where they are, not just where they are wanted.

A Dance, Not a Tug-of-War

The government’s job isn’t just to lead—it is to lead in step with the people. That means listening, adapting, and yes, sometimes slowing down the pace to let everyone catch their breath.

So, dear government, don’t give up your ability to persuade. You have shown time and again that Rwanda does things differently. Let a response to the current outcry reflect Ubudasa bwacu. Keep the dialogue going, address the frictions, and prove once more that leadership here is about partnership.

After all, no dance is enjoyable when one dances alone. We can waltz our way to progress together.

 





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Processes and Outcomes: The Case of Taxation.

-
Image
  When the process of taxation is friendly to existing taxpayers, it creates room for the widening of the tax base as it favors and elicits enterprise. However, when the process of taxation is unfriendly to existing taxpayers, it limits room for the widening of the tax base. Note that it limits, it does not prevent When the reason for doing something is a future outcome whose success rate we cannot determine only in numbers, it is important to ensure that the way activities leading to the outcome are done is such that it elicits doing more of the thing(s) which lead to the desired outcome instead of things that give more of the desired outcome very fast.    Take the example of tax revenues and the practice of taxation.    Taxation is not an end in itself, rather it is a means to an end. While tax revenues are a finite goal, taxation is infinite- in that it exists forever, for as long as the nation within which it is conducted exists as an independent entity w...
Read more

Is SADC breaching its own protocols with deployment in DR Congo?

-
Image
  SADC’s Protocol on Politics, Defense and Security Cooperation  has, among its objectives, to “ prevent, contain and resolve inter-and intrastate conflict by peaceful means .” It is, also, in the objectives of the same protocol to, “ consider enforcement action in accordance with international law and as a matter of last resort where peaceful means have failed.” A January 2024 SADC Communique pertaining to deployment of a Mission in the DR   C ongo  provides, among other things, that the deployment is in accordance with the principle of collective defense and collective action. According to the Mutual Defense Pact , Any armed attack perpetrated against one of the State Parties shall be considered a threat to regional peace and security and shall be met with immediate collective action . SADC’s Protocol on Politics, Defense and Security Cooperation  has, among its objectives, to “ prevent, contain and resolve inter-and intrastate conflict by peaceful means .” It...
Read more