Two Diverging Countries

When a civil war ends, the world celebrates peace agreements as milestones of progress. Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) are case studies in the diverging paths of what happens thereafter. Both countries experienced violence throughout the 1990s and emerged from their respective conflicts with new institutions and hopes for stability. Their trajectories, however, have varied significantly. Rwanda has built a centralised, cohesive, and largely trusted state. Meanwhile, BiH remains fragmented and is in a state of political paralysis. Understanding why these two countries, which have experienced similar conflicts yet strongly different outcomes, diverged so drastically highlights a critical factor in post-conflict recovery: Trust.

Peace Without State Building

Peace agreements formally end the fighting, but they frequently do not address deep-rooted political and social divisions. That a secession of violence is only the first step in the journey toward recovery is an experience both Rwanda and BiH have lived through. The Dayton Peace Agreement, signed in 1995, ended the bloodshed of the Bosnian War. However, the agreement froze ethnic divisions within the political system. The Rwandan Genocide, which lasted for over 100 days in 1994, marked the height of four years of civil war. Different from BiH, no formal peace agreement or external intervention occurred. This lack of external influence ultimately gave the government greater freedom to shape Rwanda’s approach to recovery. International interventions can sometimes conflate peacebuilding with state-building, treating them as the same processes. This may result in mismatched goals, unclear priorities and, as a result, institutions that lack legitimacy as they fail to adequately account for a country’s local history or norms.

The Success of Gacaca in Rwanda

Recovery in Rwanda following the genocide has thrived. The World Bank Group’s analysis of Rwanda found that it “has made a remarkable transition from post-conflict reconstruction to development”. Among the efforts that aided Rwanda’s recovery, one of the most notable was that of the gacaca court system. This community-based system of courts was implemented to try genocide cases and brought ordinary citizens into the justice process. Specifically, communities would meet in villages, provide evidence and elect local-level judges. The courts operated from 2002 to 2012, and thanks to participation from communities across Rwanda, handled around 1.9 million cases. The courts were successful in creating spaces for truth-telling, accountability and reintegration.

The NURC and Promoting National Identity

In 1999, the  National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) was established by the Rwandan government. Over time, the NURC has shown itself to be a vital force behind Rwanda’s post-conflict recovery.  The work of the NURC included holding public meetings, organising events which educated people on genocides and leading re-education camps for perpetrators of the genocide. Moreover, the NURC promoted a unified national identity in Rwanda by launching civic education programs and solidarity camps. The ‘Ndi Umunyarwanda’ program, launched in 2013, in particular focused on unity and constructing a “uniquely Rwandan national identity”. Promoting national unity and building the Rwandan identity were core components of Rwanda’s approach to reconciliation, which has resulted in the country’s impressive development.

A Fragmented BiH Identity

BiH’s approach to post-conflict recovery took a starkly different direction from Rwanda’s. Notably, the lack of a sense of national unity and shared identity remains an ongoing issue that is holding back BiH’s recovery. The signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement left the country divided between the Bosniak-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska, each with their own police force, education system, parliament, and public administration. This meant that instead of functioning as a single state, BiH functions as two states under one flag. This setup was chosen due to the composition of BiH’s population, being made up of several ethnic groups. The three largest of them are the Bosniaks, the Serbs, and the Croats, leaving a sense of unity and national identity in BiH a fragmented and complex subject.

Two Schools under one Roof

Divisions among citizens are reinforced across all areas of life in BiH, even within the classrooms. The country has an ethnically-divided schooling system, which comprises of three distinct systems operating in parallel for Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. Not only are pupils physically taught separately, but the textbooks and teaching continue to reinforce wartime narratives. Textbooks differ between the educational systems, alongside reciting inconsistent information or omitting it altogether. In response to this, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) has published a database of judicially established facts, an educational tool providing students with reliable sources of information on the Bosnian war.

The Missing Link in State Stability

The cases of both countries showcase that one factor is particularly vital in determining the success of post-conflict societal recovery: Trust. This trust works on two levels. Horizontal trust among citizens and vertical trust in institutions. Both levels of trust are essential for rebuilding a country in the aftermath of a conflict. Renowned survey instruments, such as the World Values Survey and Balkan Barometer, consistently show a strong correlation between trust and political stability. In countries where corruption signals unequal treatment, trust often erodes quickly. This can push citizens to turn to ethnic groups, warlords, or patronage networks for protection rather than state institutions. Meanwhile, in countries where trust is higher, governance outcomes tend to be stronger, more predictable, and more resilient.

An Abundance and Absence of Trust

Rwanda’s public institutions continue to command citizens’ trust through their efficiency, promotion of a national Rwandan identity and commitment to national recovery. This faith and cooperation from citizens have ultimately allowed development to flourish in Rwanda. The country continues to expand its infrastructure, education and healthcare in line with its development framework, Vision 2050. BiH, meanwhile, continues to see trust among citizens fractured, especially along ethnic divides. Trust in BiH’s institutions also remains low; in 2022, the national government had only a 25% approval rating among citizens surveyed, making it the least popular institution in the country. Ultimately, Rwanda’s and BiH’s experiences demonstrate the relevance of the factor trust in post-conflict recovery.