Performance, accountability and the case for continuity or change

Local-government elections provide an opportunity to assess not only who should hold public office, but also the standards by which public leadership is judged. In Rwanda’s 2026 local-government electoral cycle, the central question is whether existing leaders have earned continued confidence or whether another candidate offers a stronger prospect of serving the public interest. Neither continuity nor change is inherently superior. The defensible choice depends on evidence, institutional responsibilities and the needs of the communities concerned. Rwanda’s post-1994 institutional reconstruction placed decentralisation among the mechanisms intended to bring public administration closer to citizens and improve local participation and accountability. The quality of leadership also depends on how officeholders use public authority, manage resources, respond to citizens and strengthen institutions. The Constitution provides for citizens’ participation in governance and the exercise of suffrage under the law (Republic of Rwanda, 2023). This article offers a conceptual and policy-oriented argument rather than reporting original empirical findings. It brings together scholarship on accountability, impartiality and participation to propose a concise framework for evaluating incumbents and prospective leaders. Its central claim is straightforward: leadership selection should be a reasoned public judgement, grounded in credible evidence and a realistic assessment of who is most likely to deliver fair, inclusive and effective local governance. Assess performance through outcomes, not promises Local leaders are expected to coordinate development, oversee services within their mandates, manage public resources and address community priorities. Their performance should therefore be assessed against both their commitments and the changes experienced by residents. Counting completed projects is insufficient. A constructed classroom is an output; improved learning conditions and educational outcomes are the intended results. A water point is an output; reliable and equitable access to safe water is an outcome. This distinction matters because performance reports can emphasise activities and targets without fully demonstrating their effects on people’s lives. Citizens and representative bodies should examine development plans, performance contracts, budget execution, service-delivery indicators, audit findings and residents’ experiences together. In Rwanda, tools such as performance contracts, Rwanda Governance Board reports and reports from the Office of the Auditor General, among others, can contribute to this assessment. No single measure should be treated as conclusive: results must be interpreted in light of a district’s mandate, resources, starting conditions and local needs. The World Bank’s (2017) emphasis on commitment, coordination and cooperation reinforces the point that public results depend on more than an individual leader’s visibility. Effective leadership builds the institutional relationships and collective capacity needed to sustain services. Incumbents should be judged on what they have delivered, what remains unfinished and whether they can explain the gap between commitments and outcomes. New candidates, by contrast, should be assessed on relevant experience, demonstrated competence and the feasibility of their proposed priorities. Accountability and integrity as conditions of public trust Public office is a responsibility, not a personal entitlement. Bovens (2007) defines accountability as a relationship in which an officeholder must explain and justify their conduct to a forum able to question and assess it, with possible consequences. In local governance, accountability therefore requires more than submitting reports or attending formal meetings. Leaders should explain decisions, account for public resources, acknowledge shortcomings and demonstrate corrective action. Assessment also requires distinguishing between failures within a leader’s control and difficulties caused by external constraints. Delays may arise from poor planning or supervision, but they may also reflect funding limitations or dependencies beyond the district’s authority. Citizens should expect evidence and explanations rather than accept either blanket excuses or unsubstantiated accusations. A leader who is candid about problems and acts to resolve them may have a stronger case for continued service than one who avoids scrutiny. Integrity is equally important. Rothstein and Teorell (2008) identify impartiality in the exercise of public authority as central to the quality of government. Applied locally, this means that decisions should follow laws and established procedures rather than be influenced by favouritism, personal relationships or private interests. Public trust should not be confused with popularity or familiarity. Both incumbents and new candidates should be assessed for fairness, ethical conduct and responsible stewardship of public resources. Allegations of wrongdoing, however, should be evaluated through credible evidence and appropriate procedures. Responsiveness, participation and inclusion Good local governance concerns not only what authorities deliver but also how they identify priorities and whose concerns shape decisions. Fung (2006) shows that participation varies according to who is included, how people engage and whether their contributions connect to public action. A meeting or consultation does not necessarily constitute meaningful participation. The key questions are whether residents can raise concerns, receive explanations and see how their views influence planning, budgeting or service delivery. Local leaders cannot accept every request: resources are limited, priorities compete and some issues fall outside local mandates. Responsiveness means listening seriously, explaining constraints transparently and applying decisions fairly. Assessment should also consider whether women, young people, persons with disabilities and underserved communities can participate meaningfully and whether their needs are reflected in local priorities. Sen’s (1999) capability approach offers a useful reminder that development should be evaluated by its contribution to people’s substantive opportunities and well-being, not solely by administrative achievements. Continuity or change? A practical framework Continuity can preserve institutional knowledge, maintain working relationships and support the completion of long-term programmes. These benefits matter when an incumbent has demonstrated sound judgement, ethical conduct and measurable results. But experience alone does not establish a right to another term. Continuity is valuable only when it advances public objectives and strengthens institutional capacity rather than making the institution dependent on one individual. Public-integrity systems should support consistent ethical conduct and sound institutional practice beyond the tenure of any particular leader (OECD, 2020). Leadership change can introduce new ideas and approaches, but it is not an automatic remedy for governance problems. A new candidate should demonstrate relevant capability, integrity, an understanding of local challenges and a realistic plan for implementation. The assessment of an incumbent is primarily retrospective: what has been achieved, how authority was exercised and what can credibly be improved. The assessment of a new candidate is necessarily more prospective, focusing on relevant achievements, competence, priorities and the feasibility of commitments. Citizens and representatives can apply five questions consistently: Performance: What evidence shows that the candidate has delivered, or is capable of delivering, meaningful public outcomes? Integrity: Has the candidate demonstrated fairness, ethical conduct and responsible management of resources? Responsiveness: Does the candidate listen, explain decisions and address legitimate community concerns? Inclusion: Can the candidate ensure that diverse groups and underserved communities are considered in local priorities? Future readiness: Are the candidate’s priorities realistic, adequately resourced and supported by a credible plan for implementation and review? These criteria should be applied transparently and in context. Incumbents should not be retained merely because they are familiar, and new candidates should not be preferred simply because they promise change. Those selecting leaders through representative institutions have a particular responsibility to explain the basis for their choices and demonstrate that candidates were assessed against defensible public-interest standards. The question is not whether re-election or leadership change is always preferable, but which option offers the stronger prospect of effective, fair and accountable local governance. Rwanda’s 2026 local-government electoral cycle provides an opportunity to reinforce evidence-based leadership assessment. Citizens and authorised representatives should consider results alongside integrity, responsiveness, inclusion and the credibility of future commitments. They should also distinguish measurable outcomes from administrative outputs and assess performance fairly against each leader’s mandate and available resources. Re-election should be earned through demonstrated public service, not treated as an automatic reward for completing a term. Equally, replacing an incumbent should rest on a credible assessment of alternatives rather than change for its own sake. The guiding principle is to judge incumbents by their record, prospective leaders by their demonstrated capabilities and realistic plans, and all leadership choices by their likely contribution to the public interest. The writer is a local governance expert.

Opinions

Performance, accountability and the case for continuity or change