I’m not a great fan of Rwandan President Paul Kagame. The fellow is not big on genuine democracy and doesn’t brook any serious political opposition, with some of those perceived to be a threat to his apparent plan to govern until 2034 having been eliminated, allegedly by his hit squads.

But there is a silver lining to his style of leadership – nay, dictatorship. He does not suffer Ministers and other senior officials who do not pull their weight, much less those whose conduct is a source of embarrassment to him as the appointing authority and the political party he leads.

Only last week, Kagame publicly laid into a Parliamentarian whose political party is in alliance with the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front for drunk driving. The police were not spared – for failing to effect an arrest for the offence, which carries a fine equivalent to about R2 400 and five days in detention after arrest. The MP subsequently resigned his seat in Rwanda’s Chamber of Deputies.

This is a breath of fresh air on a continent where men and women who commit far more serious infractions don’t suffer any consequences and continue to occupy public office. Across the length and breadth of Africa, there are many who have dark clouds over their heads – including allegations of serious corruption – but choose to stay put, arguing that one is innocent until proven guilty.

But the reputational damage this causes to governments should be enough to prompt the appointing authorities to show anyone implicated the door faster than he or she can say: “I’m sorry, sir.” By appointing authorities, I mean Presidents, Premiers, mayors and others.

Indeed, when one is a leader in government at any level – national, provincial or municipal – one should always keep one’s eyes wide open and act promptly and decisively at the slightest whiff of corruption or other wrongdoing involving a public office bearer.

This is because politics tends to attract low-quality individuals – including those who would not hesitate to engage in corrupt activities. There are many theories to explain this. One has to do with comparative advantage and assumes that incompetent candidates have a lower opportunity cost of choosing a life in politics than those who are more skilled and have more to lose from giving up private life. This lowers the quality of the pool from which voters can choose. In other words, bad politicians win because the rewards from public office are too low to induce potentially good politicians to run.

This is not the whole picture, however. Some good politicians still run for public office, driven by the so-called ego rents, the psychological rewards associated with social status and power. But some high-quality individuals may still be dissuaded from seeking public office because of the ‘negative externality’ that is generated where there are a large number of low-quality politicians. One wouldn’t want to be part of a political class that is viewed in a dim light, would one?

If all African Presidents and other heads of State were like Kagame, we wouldn’t have characters with unsavoury reputations occupying influential public positions. In Mzansi, for instance, all those implicated in the State capture project – and they are more than a handful – would be in the political wilderness now.

Clearly, the negative externality for men and women of probity wishing to serve their nation would be significantly mitigated, and we would most likely begin to see an increasing number of such individuals putting their hand up at election time.

So, Kagame is spot-on in insisting that his lieutenants in government and other sectors of Rwandan society live up to citizens’ expectations at all times. All he needs to do is to rein in his hunger for power.