In 2000, the Rwandan government began the phased introduction of a decentralisation programme throughout the country. The programme aimed at countering citizen’s exploitation and marginalisation – a principal driver of the 1994 genocide – through broad-based participation in local development planning. This article analyses the extent to which Rwanda’s evolving decentralisation process is meeting this aim. Tracking a shift in emphasis from local political participation to economic growth, it argues that increased technocratisation and centralised control combined with poor policy responsiveness and low levels of local government legitimacy are undermining post-conflict reconstruction.

Sierra Leone is widely cited as a positive example of the contribution that decentralisation can play in post-conflict reconstruction. This article critically examines this viewpoint from a political economy perspective as applied to an understanding of donor-driven institutional reform as well as the nature of hybridity and its impact on the sustainability of decentralisation processes. It examines the devolution of functions, finance, political and administrative powers, as well as its impact on three aspects of human development – primary health, basic education and rural water supply. The article concludes that external pressure can indeed ‘lock-in’ reforms but that a more nuanced, iterative and locally contextualised approach based on sound political economy analysis is needed in order to foster and sustain reform gains.

This paper explores decentralisation’s contribution to post-conflict state building in four Commonwealth countries: UK (Northern Ireland), Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Drawing on insights from senior local government officials, it explores post-conflict institutional arrangements and finds that decentralisation policy has made a significant, if varied, contribution to community cohesion, reconciliation and state legitimacy in each country. In Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent Sri Lanka, quasi-federal structures have enabled peace negotiations through greater autonomy and state legitimacy in the eyes of former separatists. This has however limited further devolution to sub-provincial local councils. In Sierra Leone and Rwanda, decentralisation has had a more developmental rationale. Greater equity in basic local service provision and more inclusive local governance has supported community cohesion and reconciliation in all four countries, though there are capacity gaps and coordination issues with central government agencies. There is evidence decentralisation has contributed to peace in all four countries although in Rwanda the restriction on pluralism has limited local government flexibility to address community needs. The case studies offer key lessons and signpost continuing challenges, which may help other governments to consider what features of decentralisation may work best for their post-conflict political settlement and the sociocultural dynamics of the communities they serve.

This collection is designed to partially address a gap in the academic literature. Whilst decentralisation is frequently included in peace agreements, the actual scope and role of local government is far less frequently discussed. This gap remains despite a considerable literature on local government in developing countries more generally, particularly with regard to decentralisation; but also despite a considerable and growing literature on post-conflict reconstruction. Despite this, very little has been written specifically on the politics of local government and post-conflict. This collection aims to fill that gap, providing a mixture of case study and conceptual material and also perspectives from both academics and policy-makers.

This article takes stock of Rwanda’s decentralisation by reviewing the existing evidence and putting it into perspective with the wider literature on decentralisation. It challenges the narrative that depicts the Rwandan decentralisation as a wholly negative or destabilising process by arguing that the focus of the scholarship on lack of popular participation should not ignore key dynamics that had significant stabilising effects. Yet, as the Rwandan economy and society are becoming more diversified, introduction of bottom-up mechanisms of decision-making will be necessary in the future to enhance the government responsiveness to evolving local needs and ensure stability in the long run.