Rwanda is often discussed together with Burundi and eastern DR Congo as if all three share the same history and the same problems. This regional shorthand is misleading.

While these societies were subjected to similar colonial logics, they emerged with very different political capacities and forms of violence.

ALSO READ: A historical timeline of Belgium's divisive politics in Rwanda

Understanding why Rwanda’s path diverged is essential—not to claim exceptionalism, but to insist on historical accuracy.

Rwanda’s tragedy was not the result of timeless hatred. It was the result of how deeply colonial rule reorganised identity and power—and how that structure was later weaponised.

Colonialism turned identity into state infrastructure

Before colonial rule, Rwandan society was organised around a central state, clans, and flexible social categories. Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa were not races. They were positions within a political and economic system that allowed movement and negotiation.

Belgian colonial rule fundamentally altered this reality.

ALSO READ: How colonialism disconnected Rwandans from ancestral identity

By introducing racial ideology, census classification, and ethnic identity cards, colonial administrators transformed social categories into permanent political identities. Access to education, authority, and opportunity was reorganised along these lines. Identity ceased to be lived; it became administered.

ALSO READ: How Rwanda’s clans were erased and replaced with ethnic division

This matters because Rwanda did not merely experience colonialism—it experienced colonial saturation. Few African societies were as thoroughly penetrated by colonial administration at every level of daily life.

Why genocide was possible in Rwanda

It is uncomfortable but necessary to state this clearly. The 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda was possible not because the country lacked institutions, but because it had them.

ALSO READ: A Genocide that demands the world's conscience

Colonial rule had already created: a strong central administration, local authorities embedded in every community, a population accustomed to state-issued identity, and a system where identity and power were inseparable.

When extremist ideology captured the state, these same structures were repurposed for destruction. Identity cards made classification immediate. Local administration made mobilisation rapid. Propaganda travelled through channels already normalised.

ALSO READ: Habyarimana's role in planning, implementing 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi

This does not reduce responsibility—it clarifies it. Genocide was not spontaneous violence; it was organised crime enabled by inherited administrative tools.

Rwanda’s choice after 1994

After the genocide, Rwanda faced a choice that few societies ever confront: how to rebuild when the state itself had been used to destroy society.

ALSO READ: Responsible citizenship the only good choice, genocide convicts told as release nears

The response was decisive: strong central authority, institutional discipline, rejection of ethnic politics and corruption, and a controlled national memory centred on unity and prevention.

This approach has delivered security, reconstruction, and economic progress. It has also imposed limits on the colonial racial political pluralism.

ALSO READ: How ‘Mvura Nkuvure’ programme has enhanced cohesion, reconciliation

These trade-offs are real, but they must be understood in light of Rwanda’s specific history: a collapse caused by administrative order required administrative restraint to prevent recurrence.

Rwanda did not choose control out of habit. It chose it out of memory.

Burundi and eastern DR Congo: Different colonial depths, different outcomes

Burundi’s colonial experience was similar but less thorough. Colonial power weakened institutions without fully replacing them. After independence, violence emerged in cycles—often elite-driven and military-led—but never reached the total social mobilisation seen in Rwanda. Burundi survived, but without resolving the underlying structures that produced its violence.

ALSO READ: Why genocide ideology doesn’t dissolve three decades after dispersion of genocidaires

Eastern DR Congo presents the opposite problem. There, colonial rule was shallow and extractive. Identity and land were manipulated without building a functioning state. After independence, authority never consolidated. Violence became permanent, decentralised, and economically driven.

These differences matter for Rwanda today.

Rwanda’s security concerns, regional engagements, and insistence on state authority cannot be understood without recognising that it is surrounded by neighbours whose colonial legacies produced weak or fragmented states.

One history, three lessons

The Great Lakes region teaches a hard truth: Colonialism did not produce a single African destiny. It produced different failures depending on how identity and power were engineered—and how responsibility was abandoned.

Rwanda shows the danger of over-engineered identity—and the possibility of disciplined recovery.

Burundi shows the cost of unresolved structures.

Eastern Congo shows the consequences of neglect without repair.

Understanding without self-denial

For Rwandans, engaging this history is not about external blame or moral evasion. It is about grounding national memory in truth rather than myths.

Rwanda’s past demonstrates that violence can be planned—and that prevention must be deliberate. Its present demonstrates that recovery is possible—but never automatic. No miracles but good plans, vision and hard-working continuous education. Its future depends on remembering how easily identity can be turned into a weapon when history is misunderstood or ignored.

What was constructed can be dismantled.

But only if it is first understood—clearly, honestly, and without fear.

Amb Joseph Mutaboba is a political and diplomatic analyst specialising on Africa and countries of the Great Lakes Region.

jmutaboba@gmail.com