As Rwanda convenes Umushyikirano, the National Dialogue Council, beginning this Thursday, the mood across the country is one of anticipation. For years, Rwandans have looked to this unique forum as a serious national moment where concerns are aired candidly, solutions are debated openly, and leaders account directly to the people they serve. Few platforms offer this level of structured, nationwide dialogue between citizens and their leaders. Umushyikirano has earned its place in Rwanda’s governance culture precisely because it is not ceremonial. It has been a problem-solving space, a stock-taking exercise, and at times a corrective mirror held up to leadership. That legacy explains why expectations are once again high. Citizens will tune in hoping to hear clarity on livelihoods, service delivery, cost of living pressures, infrastructure gaps, and the everyday frictions that affect communities. They expect honesty about what is working, what is not, and what will change. They also expect timelines, responsibility, and follow-through. In that sense, Umushyikirano is less about speeches and more about accountability. However, as much as Umushyikirano is an opportunity, it should not become a crutch. Leaders at all levels must resist the temptation to treat it as the moment to hurriedly acknowledge challenges they have long been aware of. Problems that have persisted for months—or years—should not suddenly receive attention simply because the nation is watching. Responsive leadership is, by definition, continuous. Issues raised by citizens through local government structures, community forums, service centres, and routine engagements should be acted upon promptly, not queued for an annual dialogue. When Umushyikirano becomes the first time a problem is taken seriously, it risks diluting the very effectiveness that has made it respected. This is not to diminish the importance of the forum; far from it. Rather, Umushyikirano should serve as a checkpoint, not a starting line. It should validate progress made throughout the year, interrogate bottlenecks that resisted earlier solutions, and refine priorities for the road ahead. It should amplify accountability, not replace it. Ultimately, the strength of Umushyikirano lies not only in what is said during the sessions, but in what happens before and after. Citizens will judge it by whether commitments are implemented, whether lessons are institutionalised, and whether leaders remain accessible long after the microphones are switched off.
