Bloody Legacies, Regime Hybridity and Donor Rationalisations

This chapter analyses those factors which shaped the governance styles of the ruling parties in Uganda, Ethiopia and Rwanda. All three countries had suffered from protracted political instability, civil strife, extensive militarisation and authoritarian rule. National unity was weak, and in the case of Rwanda and Uganda earlier experiments with multi-party democracy had proven to be easily reversed. The three armed liberation movements which seized power, and then became ruling parties, were to varying degrees influenced by Marxism-Leninism, in particular its focus on collective rather than liberal individual freedoms, and the need for vanguard parties and centralised control. Their leaders’ experience as armed combatants led to a preference for applying targeted violence to achieve political ends, top-down decision-making and secrecy, and an intolerant attitude towards dissent treated as threats to national security. An emphasis on security issues would be carried over from their armed struggles to their post-victory ruling styles and ensure that their armed forces occupied prominent positions in national power structures. The concept of regime hybridity, combining both authoritarian and liberal features, is explored in relation to the three African regimes, as are the challenges such ambiguity posed for Western donors.