In recent weeks, Rwanda has been a subject of intense scrutiny and criticism in Western media. Despite its remarkable achievements over the past three decades, the narrative often paints a picture of repression and authoritarianism. This raises a critical question: how can a supposedly repressive government achieve such impressive citizen-centred development and economic growth? The answer may lie in Rwanda’s pursuit of self-reliance and its potential to inspire a broader African departure from neocolonial dependencies - the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other countries, especially former colonies. Since the horrific 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, Rwanda has transformed itself into a model of stability and progress. Under President Paul Kagame’s leadership, the country has seen substantial improvements in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The World Bank cites Rwanda as one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa, with significant strides in poverty reduction and technological innovation. However, this progress has been accompanied by persistent negative portrayals in Western media, which often highlight human rights concerns and political repression. To understand this paradox, it is crucial to examine the broader geopolitical context. Rwanda’s trajectory challenges the established order of neocolonial influence, wherein former colonial powers and their allies exert considerable control over the political and economic directions of African states, including causing deep mistrust of the state as a benevolent actor. Rwanda’s approach, which includes reworking traditional Western systems to fit its unique context and needs, represents a significant shift towards self-reliance and away from the prescribed paths of development set by external actors. Historically, countries that have sought to break away from neocolonial frameworks and pursue self-determined paths have encountered significant pushback. Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah serves as a poignant example. Nkrumah's vision for a self-reliant Africa and his efforts to diminish dependency on external actors were met with substantial opposition. In 1966, he was overthrown in an event widely believed to have been influenced by Western intelligence agencies. Similarly, Patrice Lumumba of former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), who sought to use the country's vast resources for the benefit of its people rather than foreign interests, was met with hostility from Western powers. His assassination in 1961 marked a tragic end to his efforts to forge an independent path for his nation. His country has never recovered. A different, yet equally instructive example, is Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew. When Singapore gained independence in 1965, it was a small, resource-poor country with a diverse population and numerous challenges. Lee Kuan Yew's leadership transformed Singapore into one of the world's most prosperous and well-governed states. However, this transformation did not follow the typical Western model. Lee's government implemented policies that were often pragmatic and tailored to Singapore's unique context, including strict regulations and a focus on meritocracy and anti-corruption. Despite its success, Singapore faced criticism for its political system and curbs on certain freedoms, illustrating that deviation from Western norms can provoke significant scrutiny and opposition. Rwanda’s situation shares similarities with these historical examples. Its push for self-reliance includes rejecting certain models that were imposed during colonial rule and adopting homegrown solutions that better align with its social, economic, and political realities. For instance, Rwanda's community-based Gacaca courts, which processed nearly two million genocide-related cases before closing, exemplified a revived traditional justice system response to an overwhelmed modern judicial system. While the Gacaca courts were innovative and instrumental in addressing the backlog of cases, they also attracted significant criticism. Rwanda’s focus on gender equality, with the highest percentage of women in parliament globally, and its successful community health insurance scheme, are all indicative of policies tailored to Rwanda’s context rather than external prescriptions. The negative media coverage can be seen as part of a broader strategy to delegitimise Rwanda’s leadership and its development model. By focusing on allegations of human rights abuses and political repression, these narratives overshadow the substantial gains Rwanda has made. This is not to say that human rights concerns should be dismissed, but rather that the disproportionate emphasis on these issues compared to the country's development successes suggests an ulterior motive. Efforts by Western media to tarnish the reputations of non-compliant states are not new. Historically, during the Cold War, the media played a crucial role in shaping public perceptions against countries that deviated from Western influence, often branding them as authoritarian or failed states. The negative portrayal of Cuba following its revolution, despite its significant achievements in healthcare and education, serves as another example. What drives these concerted efforts? Geopolitical interests, economic interests, and cultural hegemony are among the primary motivators. Rwanda's resilience and continued progress, despite the negative press, demonstrate a robust commitment to a self-reliant path. It offers a compelling model for other African nations grappling with the pressures of neocolonialism. If left unchecked, Rwanda’s success could indeed inspire a wave of similar movements across the continent, advocating for economic independence, sustainable development, and tailored governance systems. Recent movements in several West African nations suggest a growing appetite for such change. It is reasonable to suggest that the persistent negative coverage of Rwanda in Western media, especially during pivotal moments such as the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections or national reflections like the 30th commemoration of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, can be linked to the threat Rwanda poses to neocolonial interests. This assertion gains further credibility when considering that important voices and perspectives challenging the prevailing narrative are often sidelined. By pursuing a path of self-reliance and rejecting imposed systems, Rwanda not only challenges the status quo but also offers a viable alternative for other African nations. The concerted effort to ensure Rwanda toes the line underscores a broader fear: that Rwanda's success could herald a new era of African independence and empowerment, reducing the continent's dependency on external powers. History has shown that such a shift is often met with formidable resistance. The author is a Regional Policy and Strategy Advisor
