Collapse, war and reconstruction in Rwanda : an analytical narrative on state-making

Rwanda entered independence following a transition marked by violent internecine conflict. The conflict was stoked by the departing colonial rulers as they sought to place control of the levers of state in the hands of an ethnic majority, which they had hitherto marginalised in favour of a minority they now sought to exclude. It carried on into the country’s post-colonial politics. For nearly three decades Rwanda’s postcolonial rulers presided over an ethnocracy that perpetuated the negative colonial legacy of ethnic division. They systematically practiced a politics of exclusion and repression that placed the country’s long-term stability under threat, eventually led to civil war, and culminated in the genocide of 1994. After the genocide and the defeat and overthrow of the ancien regime of ethnic supremacists, the new ruling elite - most of whom had spent nearly three decades in exile or been born there - embarked on re-building a collapsed state and re-ordering the country’s politics. The last fourteen years have witnessed deliberate efforts to re-orient the country away from three decades of politics of division and exclusion under the First and Second Republics, towards a system which privileges national reconciliation and unity, equity, and inclusion. This paper examines developments in post-1994 Rwanda against the background of pre-1994 politics and society, and the factors that led to and facilitated the war that culminated in the genocide and eventual overthrow of the Second Republic. It provides insights into the efforts and achievements made by the new ruling elites in pursuit of long-term peace and stability. A great deal, however, remains inadequately explored, including political organisation and the role of political parties, economic reform and management, and the reform and management of the security sector, all of which are the focus of on-going research

Collapse, war and reconstruction in Uganda : an analytical narrative on state-making

Since independence from British colonial rule, Uganda has had a turbulent political history characterised by putsches, dictatorship, contested electoral outcomes, civil wars and a military invasion. There were eight changes of government within a period of twenty-four years (from 1962-1986), five of which were violent and unconstitutional. This paper identifies factors that account for these recurrent episodes of political violence and state collapse. While colonialism bequeathed the country a negative legacy including a weak state apparatus, ethnic division, skewed development, elite polarisation and a narrow economic base, post-colonial leaders have on the whole exacerbated rather than reversed these trends. Factors such as ethnic rivalry, political exclusion, militarisation of politics, weak state institutions, and unequal access to opportunities for self-advancement help to account for the recurrent cycles of violence and state failure prior to 1986. External factors have also been important, particularly the country’s politically turbulent neighbourhood, the outcome of political instability and civil conflict in surrounding countries. Neighbourhood turbulence stemming from such factors as civil wars in Congo and Sudan has had spill-over effects in that it has allowed insurgent groups geographical space within which to operate as well as provided opportunities for the acquisition of instruments of war with which to destabilise the country. Critical to these processes have been the porosity of post-colonial borders and the inability by the Ugandan state to exercise effective control over its entire territory. By demonstrating the interplay between internal and external factors in shaping Uganda’s postcolonial experience, the paper makes an important shift away from conventional explanations that have focused disproportionately on internal processes. Lastly, the paper provides pointers to areas of further research such as the economic foundations of conflict that should ultimately strengthen our understanding of factors that combine to make state-making fail or succeed

Policy for agriculture and horticulture in Rwanda: a different political economy?

Agricultural development policies in sub-Saharan Africa continue to be weak, and the reasons are to be found in the incentives transmitted to policy makers by countries’ domestic political systems. The enfranchisement of rural voters within multi-party political systems does not seem to have altered the fundamental dynamics, raising the question whether – in Africa as in Asia – successful agricultural transformation will happen first in countries whose rulers are driven by concerns to avert rural-based political threats of a more fundamental sort. This paper explores this question with reference to Rwanda. It argues that the political incentives are indeed different from those in comparable African countries, but that this did not immediately lead to the adoption of an appropriate agricultural strategy. Today, thanks to a major shock and some serious rethinking, policy has turned a corner and the results are promising. What this experience has revealed is that the political economy of agricultural policy in Rwanda is distinguished by a capacity for learning from errors as well as a seriousness about implementation that are not widely observed elsewhere in the region.DfI

Local government and the rural non-farm economy in Uganda

This brief study of issues regarding local government and development of the rural non-farm economy (RNFE) in Uganda forms part of a larger study of the RNFE led by the Natural Resources Institute (University of Greenwich) for DFID and the World Bank. This project has two components related to developing countries. The Access component is focused on issues affecting peoples’ access to non-farm livelihood activities and participation by households. Several reports on Uganda from this component are already available, and these are listed at the end of this document. There are also a number of general reports relating to the RNFE project, also listed there. This report, Local Government and the RNFE in Uganda is part of the second component, which is on the role of Local Governance in relation to the RNFE, and the conditions which may create the best conditions for the growth of non-farm activities at the local level. This Local Governance component has been divided into two for analytical purposes: one examines the role and significance of formal local governance (basically, constituted forms of authority and power, and the current context of decentralisation of local government). That is the focus of this report in relation to the Uganda case study. The second part analyses the role and significance of non-constituted informal systems of power, in particular the role of the private sector, NGOs and civil society in relation to the RNFE. This will be covered in a further separate report on Uganda. In addition to the case study in Uganda, there is a second case study of India, involving two States in fieldwork: Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. This work will be conducted from late 2001 into 2002, with reports on India expected to be issued from mid-2002

Increasing the power of the poor? NGO-led social accountability initiatives and political capabilities in rural Uganda

Social accountability has become an important new buzzword among development actors seeking to understand the forms of state-society synergy that may be supportive of better public services. Advocates suggest demand-side initiatives are key to increasing the power of the poor in service provision, while sceptics question the application of technical fixes to complex political challenges. This article reports findings from qualitative research into the political capabilities outcomes achieved among local health and education stakeholders through the social accountability interventions of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Western Uganda. It argues that NGOs are unlikely to generate substantive advances for social accountability in agrarian contexts characterised by patronage politics without organising marginalised groups themselves to tackle the causes of their disadvantage