Rwanda has been rather well-known for its seemingly effective post-conflict reforms; and Paul Kagame, the leader of the RPF, has been celebrated for his efforts to bring about political stability to the nation. However, underneath this guise, the ruling party has created a police state where all political competition, government dissension and open government criticism is severely punished. While Rwanda is no longer a nation that is known for its vicious ethnic divisions, it is now a nation that can be known for the human rights abuses that the shepherds of peace dish out to the electorate. The stringent conditions that have been put into place, requiring Rwanda to be ethnicity-less, have focused solely on ensuring that negative peace prevails throughout the nation. According to Rama Mani, negative peace simply refers to a cessation of hostilities. And ensuring sustainable peacebuilding requires a delicate balance between the absence of direct violence and the removal of structural and cultural violence (positive peace).
Schaap, using the Australian case,
…show more content…
State-run reconciliation processes become less about correcting the wrongs of the past; and more about instructing victims on how they have to go about overcoming their grief. These objections aim to highlight how problematic the current conception of reconciliation actually is. The Rwandan case helps to provide an example of a nation whose reconciliation process has realistically done little to promote the wellbeing and interests of those affected by the murderous conflict. This specific country example draws attention to the fact that reconciliation seems to ultimately not be that effective at achieving positive change. Schaap’s objections do a commendable job of outlining exactly what can, and does, go wrong when a nation attempts to pursue