Description
Over the last few decades, the liberal peace(building) paradigm has faced compound challenges. Interventions informed by liberal principles have been the subject of intense criticism, fuelling debates on whether its era has ended. Simultaneously, there has been growing literature that analyses the illiberal authoritarian peacebuilding strategies used by governments. Despite this, there is a gap in the literature focused on comparing these two strategies. This dissertation fills this gap by investigating the comparative effectiveness of liberal and illiberal peacebuilding models in achieving long-term stability, using the case studies of Rwanda and Burundi. Drawing on a mixed-methods research approach, this study assesses the political, economic and social dimensions of long-term stability by employing quantitative indicators and qualitative thematic analysis. Additionally, process tracing is used as a supplementary research method to uncover the causal mechanism between the respective peacebuilding strategies and stability outcomes.
The key findings indicate that Rwanda’s illiberal peacebuilding model outperforms Burundi’s liberal peacebuilding model in terms of political and economic stability. However, this comes at the cost of significant repression, human rights violations and limited civil freedoms. Conversely, Burundi’s liberal peacebuilding model fostered higher levels of social stability but ultimately faltered as a result of growing authoritarianism and political volatility. These findings suggest that though both liberal and illiberal models offer distinct advantages, neither reflect a sustainable pathway to long-term stability. Consequently, this study offers valuable insights for both the academic debate and practitioners.