Rwanda’s post-genocide model prioritises security over freedom and equality – a risk to future stability
Supporters of Rwanda’s trajectory believe in the aspiration of its president, Paul Kagame, for the country to become Africa’s Singapore.
- Supporters of Rwanda’s trajectory believe in the aspiration of its president, Paul Kagame, for the country to become Africa’s Singapore.
- Others denounce it as an ethnocracy, a state dominated by one ethnic group, and one run by a hyper-authoritarian dictatorship.
- I conclude that a contradiction exists at the heart of Rwanda’s state-building model, placing a question mark over the country’s future.
Rwanda’s legacy
- The persistent polarisation over Rwanda is partly the legacy of the country’s civil war that culminated in genocide (1990-94).
- Those who value democracy, civil liberties, justice and reconciliation find much wanting in post-genocide Rwanda.
- In contrast, those who think effective state institutions, socio-economic development and political stability are more important disagree and view Rwanda more favourably.
- There is also much more at stake in these assessments than just the fate of one small African state.
- The approach – narrative analysis coupled with active interviewing – is premised on the idea that some insight into Rwanda’s future stability may be gleaned.
to establish “consensus” over competitive politics
to systematically de-emphasize the importance of ethnicity in society
to modernise the state and use it to grow and diversify the economy.
Supporters and critics
- Strikingly, regime supporters cited the same two underlying rationales for each of these three choices: security and unity.
- Critics, however, offered different rationales.
- Lastly, in economics, critics argued the strategy pursued sought simply to entrench and enrich the ruling party.
- Supporters and critics then have opposing understandings of why these strategic choices have been made.
The bottom line
- The regime’s preoccupation with security is at odds with its desire for unity.
- It’s impossible to have “political consensus” without meaningful choice, yet choice is not compatible with coercion.
- Similarly, a post-ethnic society is not achievable if your choices reflect a fear of the enduring power of ethnicity in society.
Omar Shahabudin McDoom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.