Africa’s governance debate no longer whispers; it argues loudly. At the centre of that argument sit Rwanda and Ethiopia—two countries often praised for results, yet criticised for methods. Together, they force an uncomfortable question: must political freedom wait for development, or does postponing it carry its own dangers?
Rwanda is the poster child of order as policy. The state works. Institutions function. Corruption is punished swiftly, sometimes ruthlessly. Kigali is clean, services are delivered, and public officials know they are being watched. For a country that emerged from genocide barely three decades ago, this is no small achievement. Rwanda’s leadership has made a clear wager: stability first, politics later. The gamble has paid off economically and administratively.
But the price is visible. Political space is narrow. Opposition is tolerated only within strict boundaries. Dissent is often treated not as a democratic right but as a security risk. The government defends this approach by invoking history—arguing that unrestrained politics once tore the country apart. Many Rwandans, and admirers abroad, accept that trade-off. The question is whether such a tightly managed system can evolve without cracking once generational change arrives.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Ethiopia took a different, riskier path. For years, it pursued a developmental state model that delivered impressive growth through massive public investment. Roads, railways, industrial parks, and dams transformed the economy and raised expectations. Then came political opening. What was meant to be reform quickly became rupture. Long-suppressed ethnic grievances surged into the open, and the state struggled to mediate competing nationalisms. Conflict followed, most devastatingly in Tigray, revealing how fragile the foundations of unity had been.
Where Rwanda suppresses political competition to preserve cohesion, Ethiopia attempted to manage diversity through federalism and reform—only to discover that opening politics without a settled national consensus can be explosive. One chose control; the other chose reform. Both choices carried consequences.
These models unsettle Africa’s democracy conversation. They expose the limits of importing Western political templates into vastly different historical and social contexts. Yet they also warn against romanticising “strong states.” Power that delivers growth today can become rigid tomorrow. Suppressed voices do not disappear; they wait.
The real danger lies in false binaries. Africa is often told it must choose between development and democracy. Rwanda and Ethiopia show that the challenge is not choice, but sequencing and adaptation. Strong institutions matter. So does legitimacy built through inclusion.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
As Africa’s youthful population demands jobs, dignity, and a voice, governance models that deliver without listening may struggle to endure. Rwanda and Ethiopia are not failures, nor are they final answers. They are works in progress—and cautionary tales for a continent still searching for a governance formula that delivers both prosperity and freedom.
------------------------------
Daniel Makokera is a renowed media personality who has worked as journalist, television anchor, producer and conference presenter for over 20 years. Throughout his career as presenter and anchor, he has travelled widely across the continent and held exclusive interviews with some of Africa's most illustrious leaders. These include former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former South African presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and presidents Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He currently is the CEO of Pamuzinda Productions based in South Africa.
