This article analyses how political space, defined here as the ability of actors other than the government to critically engage in debate on government policy and practice, is being constituted in post‐genocide Rwanda. Using evidence from interviews with civil society activists and examples from the Rwandan Government's post‐genocide policies, it explores the kind of political space which results from an interplay of potentially competing influences. These include the promotion of a liberal approach to democracy, favoured by many of Rwanda's donors, and a more tightly‐managed and limited transition which is both preferred by and beneficial for the RPF Government. The article shows that although space could be seen in some areas as opening, this trend is hampered by government actions, including legislative and shadow methods, by donor reluctance to pressure the ruling RPF and by fear within civil society of tackling politically sensitive issues. In conclusion, the author suggests that this fear is reinforced by government policies which narrow perceptions of political space, exacerbated by perceived abandonment of civil society by donors, and that in combination these factors pose a long‐term challenge to more openly contested politics in Rwanda.

Select committees play an important role in scrutinising government policy. They have come under increasing pressure to seek evidence for their inquiries—including both formal and informal evidence—from a wider range of stakeholders. Two particular pressures can be observed within this trend. First, committees are expected to show commitment to hearing from a more diverse set of stakeholders. The second pressure relates to the representativeness of those providing evidence. Consequently, they have been urged to increase public engagement. The recent Citizens’ Assembly into adult social care points to one mechanism for engaging a ‘mini-public’ in committee inquiries. Due to their use of random and stratified sampling to recruit participants, mini-publics could diversify the evidence base and facilitate public scrutiny of the committees. However, we know little of what committee members and staffs think about these issues. In this article, we draw insights from over 60 interviews with select committee chairs, members and staff to gain insight into their perspectives on evidence diversity and the potential of mini-publics to promote this. We find that traditional approaches to inquiries are still favoured. While mini-publics are seen as a solution to the failings of current approaches to public engagement, this is for instrumental reasons, meaning that they are only valued in particular circumstances. Ultimately, further culture change is required if committee inquiries are to move substantially beyond the traditional approach.

This article explores the relationship between the UK and Rwanda, using the lens of the UK Department for International Development's integrated approach to state building and peace building in fragile and conflict-affected states. It identifies a number of priorities for UK aid under such a framework, but shows that in the case of Rwanda these have not been foregrounded in the bilateral aid relationship. The article suggests a number of reasons for this, arguing that, by refusing to acknowledge or address Rwanda's deviations from what was considered a positive development trajectory, the UK is becoming internationally isolated in its support for the RPF regime. It concludes that, while this bilateral relationship may support achievement of stability and relative security in Rwanda, promoting such a narrow form of state building is detrimental to more holistic peace building, both nationally and regionally.This article analyses the ways state building and peace building have been promoted through the UK's relationship with post-genocide Rwanda. Its central claim is that UK attempts to promote state building by supporting a 'developmental' elite in Rwanda have negatively impacted prospects for longterm peace building. 1 In particular, it argues that, to promote stability and support developmental aspects of the Rwandan political elite, the UK downplays the authoritarian tendencies of the regime. The experience of previous 'good performers' in development terms, such as Zimbabwe, Uganda and Ethiopia, suggests that supporting elite stability at the expense of opening political space and tackling underlying social tensions and divisions, remains short-sighted and can undermine long-term peace building and stability. The article therefore argues that there are considerable tensions between state building for stability, and the democratic political development the UK Department for International Development (DFID) considers conducive to peace building. Some of Rwanda's donors clearly recognise these tensions, as evidenced by the more complex relationship between Danielle Beswick is in the

No abstract

No abstract