Education and Peacebuilding. What role has formal education played in fostering a sustainable, positive peace in post-genocide Rwanda?
The ‘two faces’ of the Rwandan education system’s contribution to the national peacebuilding project
Bachelor Thesis 2016 50 Pages
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
i. Historical Background
ii. The Theory of Peacebuilding
iii. The Relationship between Education and Peacebuilding
iv. Methodology – A Qualitative Application of the ‘Four Rs Theoretical Framework’
3. THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF RWANDA’S EDUCATION SYSTEM:
4. THE CONTENT AND CURRICULUM OF RWANDA’S EDUCATION SYSTEM:
This dissertation illustrates the ‘two faces’ of Rwanda’s formal education system in contributing to the creation of a sustainable, positive peace in the post-genocide state. In conveying this argument, it employs the emergent ‘Four Rs Theoretical Framework’ - which is grounded within the foundational Comprehensive Conflict Transformation Model of peacebuilding theory - to undertake a qualitative methodological evaluation of official primary documents and secondary sources.
Through its appraisal of the developments of both the structure and the content of the Rwandan education system since 1994, this paper highlights the mixed record of Rwanda’s formal education system in terms of its contribution to the nation’s wider peacebuilding project. On the one hand, significant progress in all constituent components of the ‘Four Rs’ framework is observable. Policy changes to both its core foundations and its overarching curriculum have promoted elements of redistribution, representation, recognition and reconciliation in Rwanda. By facilitating the necessary personal, social, cultural and structural transformative processes, therefore, Rwanda’s education system has gone some way in helping to build the infrastructure required for a sustainable, positive peace in the nation. On the other hand, however, this paper also seeks to draw attention to the evidence which suggests that today’s post-genocide schools in Rwanda are in danger of undermining the nation’s initial successes in building peace. The reflection and amplification of inequalities and exclusion throughout the central features of the education system risk constraining and potentially destabilising the nation’s peacebuilding mission.
This dissertation presents a balanced appraisal of the role of formal education in building sustainable, positive peace in post-genocide Rwanda. It defines ‘formal education’ as the overarching ‘form, structure, curriculum and content’ of the Rwandan national education system that is ‘institutionalised, intentional and planned through public organisations and recognised private bodies’ (UNESCO, 2011: 11). Moreover, it defines a ‘sustainable, positive peace’ as the widespread cessation of forms of both structural and direct violence, whereby underlying social injustices are addressed, and the conditions and root causes which underlay past conflict are eliminated (UNICEF, 2011: 7). This, therefore, is directly tied to the Rwandan ‘national peacebuilding project’, which is ‘understood as a comprehensive concept that encompasses, generates and sustains the full array of processes, approaches, and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships’ (Lederach, 1997: 84-85).
Through a critical analysis of Rwanda’s post-genocide formal education system, this dissertation illustrates that formal education has made a significant contribution to Rwanda’s peacebuilding project since 1994. The Rwandan government should be commended for initiating wide-ranging educational policy changes which have helped to promote the positive transformations at all levels of analysis - personal, relational, cultural and structural – which are necessary to construct a sustainable, positive peace. A qualitative evaluation of primary and secondary sources from the post-genocide era highlights the ways in which education has facilitated a clear advancement in the levels of redistribution, representation, recognition and reconciliation within the nation. It is, moreover, the multidimensional and multiscalar interconnection between these core indicators which is indispensable in concomitantly underscoring, deepening and enhancing Rwanda’s transformative peacebuilding processes.
On the other hand, however, this paper also seeks to draw attention to the evidence which suggests that today’s post-genocide schools are in danger of undermining the nation’s initial successes in building peace. A broader, deeper and more critical assessment of the underlying structures, attitudes and behaviours which the education system is inculcating illustrates this ‘negative face’. The reflection and amplification of underlying inequalities, the continued exclusion and marginalisation of specific social groupings and the top-down imposition of a singular national identity, for example – all of which all underlie the core structural and curricula foundations of the Rwandan education system - risk constraining and undermining the nation’s wider peacebuilding process.
The following chapter establishes my key research puzzle, outlining how the paper seeks to provide a critical analysis and evaluation of the contribution of formal education to processes of peacebuilding in post-genocide Rwanda. It conveys a rationale for how I will address the fundamental research question of this dissertation, and situates the dissertation within extant academic debates regarding the role of education in peacebuilding programmes. It first provides a review of the main academic literature on peacebuilding theory, offering a critique of both the United Nations Liberal Model of peacebuilding and the Cosmopolitan Conflict Resolution Model. In turn, it seeks to iterate the comparative advantages – particularly in the methodology and ontology - of the Comprehensive Conflict Transformation Model which this paper employs. Second, the chapter evaluates existing research on the linkages between education and peacebuilding - often referred to as ‘Peacebuilding Education’ projects. It highlights the theoretical inadequacies of the field, which too frequently offer tangled causational linkages, fail to address the interface between academic theory and praxis, and project oversimplified deductions on the education-peacebuilding nexus without critically analysing how education policy and practice has the ability to either ameliorate or aggravate conflict dynamics in specific contexts. Third, leading on from this overarching assessment of the theoretical foundations of peacebuilding and ‘Education for Peace’ research – and the ways in which the academic field has tried to integrate the two – the paper’s methodology is outlined. It elucidates how the qualitative methodological usage of the emergent ‘Four Rs Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Contribution of Education to Successful Peacebuilding’ – situated within the underlying Comprehensive Conflict Transformation Model – can not only overcome the aforementioned shortcomings of the wider academic field, but also answer the specific research question of the paper.
Building upon the ‘Literature Review’ – and thus employing the paper’s methodology which has been established in Chapter 2 - the following two chapters are more substantive and develop the paper’s core arguments by analysing the research findings of the study. Chapter 3 evaluates the ways in which the ‘Form and Structure of Rwanda’s Education System’ has contributed to the processes of Redistribution (Ch. 3.i.) and Representation (Ch. 3.ii.) within the nation.
Similarly, Chapter 4 in turn appraises the ‘Content and Curriculum of Rwanda’s Education System’ for its effects on Reconciliation (Ch. 4.i.) and Recognition (Ch. 4.ii.) within the nation. Chapter 5 reiterates and draws together the main arguments that have been iterated throughout this dissertation. It reflects on the core findings of Chapters 3 and 4 in order to explicitly answer the paper’s research puzzle. Thus, it underscores the argument that the formal education system in Rwanda has made a duplicitous contribution to the nation’s wider peacebuilding project. Although positive developments have been realised in achieving greater levels of redistribution, representation, recognition and reconciliation in the nation through reforms to both the structure and the content of formal education, fundamental weaknesses and inadequacies of the education system continue to undermine and constrain the nation’s attempts to build a sustainable, positive peace. The conclusion therefore reiterates the arguments developed throughout this paper, presenting a balanced appraisal of the ‘two faces’ of the contribution of Rwanda’s formal education system to its broader peacebuilding project in the post-genocide era.
Following the conclusion, Chapter 6 provides full bibliographical information of all sources consulted for this dissertation.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
i. Historical Background
Taking place within the wider context of the armed conflict between the Rwandan government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) that was ignited in 1990, the Rwandan genocide involved the mass murder, rape and torture of up to one million Rwandese during 1994. Citizens labelled as ethnic Tutsis were targeted by genocidal Hutu militias, but all parties to the conflict have been proven to have committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity (Amnesty International, 2014).
Current explanations of the genocide and intergroup conflict in Rwanda are complex and multicausal. Moving beyond myopic assertions that the Rwandan genocide was driven by nothing more than primordial, tribal atavism, emergent research stresses the significance of proximate causes in directly catalysing the outbreak of the war and genocidal killing, while also recognising that underlying permissive factors were required for the activation of these more immediate proximate causes (Prunier, 1997; Mamdani, 2002). As its starting point, therefore, this paper builds on the increasingly widespread consensus among Rwandese citizens and the academic community that the interplay between longer-term psychocultural conditions and short-term socio-cultural factors fuelled, aggravated and accelerated the conflict (Magnarella, 2005; Hintjens, 1999). The deep-seated categorisation, collectivisation and stigmatisation of ‘ethnic’ groups – who are neither definitionally or anthropologically ethnic, but served as a meaningful identity and social cleavage in Rwanda – emphasised the role of shared and profound ‘we-they’ oppositions, the conceptualisations of enemies and allies, and fundamental dispositions about intergroup relations (Ross, 1993: 15). Moreover, the short-term socio-structural conditions of both significant vertical and horizontal inequalities within Rwanda – spread across all social, economic and political aspects of society – served to stimulate and amplify the underlying psychocultural antagonisms (King, 2014: 18-19).
Thus, although greater research is needed in order to deepen our understanding of the exact interrelationship between the proximate and the permissive conditions of the Rwandan conflict, this lens of analysis facilitates the creation of a multiscalar, intricate and holistic ‘conflict map’ on which to base an evaluation of the processes of post-conflict peacebuilding in Rwanda (Lederach, 2014: 28).
ii. The Theory of Peacebuilding
Emerging with the publication of An Agenda for Peace in 1992 (UN, 1992), peacebuilding is defined as the strategic implementation of a ‘range of measures and actions with which to solidify peace and avoid relapse into conflict’ in a post-conflict state (UN, 2010: 5). These core tenets of post-conflict peacebuilding are employed in theory and praxis through the application and anaylsis of the United Nations Liberal Peacebuilding Model. Developing Galtung’s tripartite distinction between peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, the United Nations model visualises a coherent integration of security, political, economic and social efforts to both de-escalate conflict dynamics, while also laying the foundations for both sustainable ‘positive’ peace and economic development in a post-conflict nation (UN, 2010: 5; Galtung, 1975). It therefore prioritises an effective early intervention in order to promote a short-term absence of violence, while also (re)building the political and socio-economic infrastructure within the target country in order to facilitate longer-term peace, stability and security (UNICEF, 2011: 12-17).
Yet, in spite of its persistent implementation, the theoretical foundations of the United Nations model must be subject to critique. Not only is there an absence of an explicit theory of change within the model, but the frequency of uncritical applications of Western values and free market policies, the inadequate consideration of the collective identities of the citizens of the target country, and the overrepresentation of national issues over deeper individual empowerment, for example, arguably hinder the model’s cogency and efficacy (Richmond, 2007: 461; Van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012). Furthermore, the analysis of the United Nations model seemingly focuses too heavily on international peacebuilding efforts in the first three years of a post-conflict scenario. The consideration of broader, underlying psycho-social transformations within a post-conflict state, for example, are therefore too frequently overlooked by the model’s advocates. This means that evaluations guided by the United Nations Liberal Peacebuilding Model forego longer-term, ‘conflict sensitive’ assessments of the interlinkages between the peacebuilding measures employed and the deep-rooted conflict dynamics of individual states (Salm & Shubert, 2012: 25).
This negative appraisal of the United Nations model can also be replicated in viewing the increasingly popular Cosmopolitan Conflict Resolution approach advocated by Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall (2011). This approach has the concomitant aims of assisting conflict-stricken states to: ‘overcome structural and cultural violence (conflict transformation); make peace between conflict parties (conflict settlement); and keep long-term peace (conflict containment)’ (Ramsbotham et al, 2011: 199). The model’s complex phase and sector matrix, therefore, aims to provide a holistic framework with which to monitor, evaluate and direct peacebuilding processes at all stages of intervention, stabilisation and normalisation (Curran, 2012). Practical assessments based on this theoretical model, however, fail to provide a specific evaluation model with which to adequately appraise the theory’s praxis. Although the earlier works of Diehl and Druckman (2010) and Doyle and Sambanis (2000) could perhaps be re-conceptualised in order to provide clearer assessment criteria, the fundamental contradictions and discrepancies among the model’s advocates undermine its academic utility. The methodological and epistemological breadth of the Cosmopolitan model means that clear goals and values, feedback mechanisms, explicit measurement tools and benchmarks, and a pragmatism regarding the praxis of the model, for example, are too often either indistinct or absent (Salm & Shubert, 2012: 23-25). Like the United Nations model, therefore, the Cosmopolitan model seems to lack the sufficient theoretical and evaluative utility which is needed to evaluate the processes of post-genocide peacebuilding in Rwanda.
It is these overarching critiques which urge me to favour the more integrative and reflective peacebuilding models of Lederach, Neufeldt and Culbertson (2007). This model, often termed the Comprehensive Conflict Transformation Model, similarly advocates a comprehensive peacebuilding strategy which seeks to transform internal conflicts within a country (Lederach, 2014). However, it is distinguished by its prioritisation of: a greater focus on the interface between theory and praxis; the simultaneous use of multiple, wide-ranging and multiscalar tools in order to promote positive peace; the necessity of a longer-term analysis and evaluation of any peacebuilding project; and an awareness of the importance of establishing an infrastructure for peace that is self-owned, engages all levels of a society, and accounts for the fluidity of societal and inter-personal relationships (Alger, 2014: 55-60). In contrast to the competing United Nations and Cosmopolitan models, therefore, this framework seems to afford a clearer opportunity with which to appraise the subnational, communal and inter-personal psycho-social dynamics and relationships that underlie a post-conflict society (Tschirgi, 2004: 9). Thus, the model’s core tenets seem particularly valuable for this dissertation’s study of the construction of ‘positive’ peace in Rwanda, defined as ‘the sustainable absence of direct, structural and cultural violence’ (Dupuy, 2008: 25). Therefore, although it is not without its own methodological flaws – the most significant of which this paper will build on throughout – the Conflict Transformation Model offers the complex, expansive and multi-layered theoretical infrastructure which is necessary in order to adequately evaluate the contribution of formal education to Rwanda’s broader peacebuilding project.
iii. The Relationship between Education and Peacebuilding
Moreover, the four primary dimensions of Lederach’s Conflict Transformation Model lie at the foundation of the majority of extant analyses on the relationship between education and peace. The focus on personal, relational, cultural and structural factors means it is especially pertinent for an analysis of how education can contribute to peacebuilding projects, given the common focus on the interface between broader structural change, societal relationships and individual human development (Novelli, 2012: 22). By facilitating a deeper engagement with the multifaceted processes of post-conflict transformations – creating a lens with which to consider change in national contexts, relational structures, and individual identities – it provides a multi-layered framework which can most adequately encapsulate the multifaceted contributions of formal education to the transformative processes of peacebuilding (Lederach, Neufeldt and Culbertson, 2007: 17-23).
Building upon these core theoretical foundations of the Conflict Transformation Model, the ‘Peacebuilding Education’ epistemic community is bound together by its conviction that ‘educational policy, planning, pedagogy, and practice can provide learners – in any setting – with the skills and values to work towards comprehensive peace’ (Bajaj in Bajaj, 2008: 1-2). Through the deliberate and prudent construction of a formal education system – in terms of its overarching content, its method of communication and its organisational structure – academics from the field of ‘Peacebuilding Education’, therefore, fundamentally hypothesise that education may be a used as a vital tool in a broader peacebuilding project in post-conflict societies. Not only can formal education cultivate in learners the attitudes, skills and behaviours upon which a ‘culture of peace is predicated’, but it can help to cease structural violence, address underlying social injustices, and eliminate the conditions and root causes which have promoted past violent conflict (UNICEF, 2011: 7; UNICEF, 1995). Thus, formal education can impart in all students the social skills, knowledge and attitudes that are needed in order to: first, alter existing behaviours and attitudes; and second, cultivate new transformative patterns, processes and structures of societal relations that can support a sustainable peace within their communities (Tawil & Harley in Tawil & Harley, 2004: 25-27).
As an inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary field, however, ‘Peacebuilding Education’ has a history of internal debate and division regarding its underlying ontological visions. While Harris’s (2004) chronological classification of the theory’s trends over-simplifies the intricacies which have underlay and overlapped each taxonomic grouping, it illustrates that through the course of the late twentieth century, the focal points of the ‘Peacebuilding Education’ literature have shifted from a prioritisation of education for economic development, via narrow conflict-resolution education, and the advocacy of global Human Rights education, for example. This incoherence and divergence among the constituent sub-sets of ‘Peacebuilding Education’ theorists has regrettably cost the field both its conceptual clarity and its status in the wider body of Peace and Conflict Studies. Core texts focus too heavily on descriptive portrayals of alternative visions for the epistemic community, rather than critical and evaluative engagements with the prospects of a foundational paradigm or precise theory of change (Del Felice et al. in Del Felice et al., 2015: xv-xx; Dahir, 2015; Salomon & Cairns, 2010; Bajaj & Hantzopolous, 2016). Moreover, blurred and imprecise hypotheses, undefined variables, tangled causational linkages, and manifold ontological concentrations, for example, have seen the ‘Peacebuilding Education’ epistemic community labelled as exhibiting little more than ‘blind optimism’ and ‘naivety’, tarnished by its own fundamental disjointedness (Gur-Ze’ev, 2001: 315).
Furthermore, in spite of the contemporary works of Bush and Salterelli (2011), Vaux (2011) and Smith et al. (2011), the methodological foundations of the field have also undermined its academic value. Education has too readily been regarded as a benign tool of peacebuilding, escaping adequate critical analysis. Simplified deductions have obscured the complex relationship between conflict and education, failing to consider how education policy and practice in specific contexts has the ability to either ameliorate or aggravate conflict dynamics (Vaux and Smith, 2003: 10). The assertions of abstract, inaccessible research projects – which often ignore the utility and necessity of qualitative multi-scalar analyses, and centre on the narrowly defined education agendas contained in the Millennium Development Goals, for example - means that opportunities for complex, conflict-sensitive comprehensions and transformations are missed (Paulson and Rappleye, 2007: 250; Novelli, 2008: 25). Meanwhile the research projects of manifold NGOs and international political institutions too frequently prioritise large- n quantitative analyses at the cost of an intricate and attentive understanding of the underlying theoretical infrastructure which is provided by the Conflict Transformation Model of peacebuilding (Dupuy, 2008: 81-89; Ostby & Urdal, 2010). There is, therefore, a compelling need in the field to incorporate conflict sensitivity in the analysis of education systems. Through context-specific research and praxis, it is possible to monitor, document and evaluate the innovative education programs that are currently underway in many post-conflict societies, and find lessons from these projects on the ‘two faces’ of education as a tool of peacebuilding (Tschirgi, 2011: 5). Thus, the academic field should endeavour to produce analyses which have a focus on individual countries and their specific conflicts, as this would enable a more comprehensive understanding of the impact that formal education can have on the interface between the intertwining political, economic, social and security dimensions of each individual post-conflict scenario (Smith and Vaux, 2003: 19).
With regret, these overarching critiques of the field of ‘Peacebuilding Education’ have also hindered the accuracy and adequacy of studies on the role of formal education in building peace in post-genocide Rwanda. In spite of the considerable contributions of the works of Obura (2003), Hilker (2010) and King (2014), extant studies examining the relationship between education and peace in Rwanda have too frequently reversed the arrows of causality, examining how conflict disrupted the provision of education in the ‘immediate emergency’ and the aftermath of armed conflict. Lai and Thyne (2007), the World Bank (2005) and Machel (2001) emphasise the role that conflict, as the independent variable, hinders educational attainment, enrolment, expenditure and resources, as the dependent variables. Moreover, when education has been studied as the independent variable with peace as the dependent variable, education is too often measured by its quantity. Schooling is treated as a black box, a binary variable, without any real examination of its quality, its content, its accessibility or the peacebuilding processes which it is directly stimulating in Rwandan schools (King, 2014: 7; Ostby & Urdal, 2010). Finally, studies of Rwanda have given inadequate focus to the impact of formal, state-led schooling on peacebuilding in the nation. Research has only infrequently focused on how ordinary, mass education – as opposed to special classes about conflict resolution, informal grassroots education, or the provision of Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) education – has contributed to the broader peacebuilding project in Rwanda (Purdekova, 2012; Mgbako, 2005).
These overarching themes outlined above therefore serve as the foundations of this dissertation’s specific rationale and research puzzle. By synthesising, critiquing and building on the broader extant body of ‘Peacebuilding Education’ literature, this paper is underpinned by the concomitant goals of: first, positively contributing to the field’s developing understanding of the key theoretical, methodological and practical challenges intrinsic to its research; second, complementing and enhancing the field’s conceptions of the causal linkages between formal education and post-conflict peacebuilding; and third, supplementing and expanding current studies into the ‘two faces’ of the Rwandan education system’s contribution to its national peacebuilding project.
iv. Methodology – A Qualitative Application of the ‘Four Rs Theoretical Framework’
In order to engage with the outlined research puzzle and iterate the paper’s core argument, this dissertation follows a qualitative employment of Novelli, Cardozo and Smith’s (2015) emergent ‘Four Rs Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Contribution of Education to Successful Peacebuilding’. The core claim of the ‘Four Rs’ framework posits that if the form and structure of a nation’s education system - in conjunction with its content and curriculum - can positively contribute to indicators of redistribution, recognition, representation and reconciliation, then formal education can play a vital role in fostering the development of positive and sustainable peace. Through the multidimensional reinforcement and promotion of: first, a more equitable redistribution of educational access and opportunity; second, an increasingly widespread recognition of the social injustices, structural inequalities and cultural hierarchies that contributed to the genocide, and may continue to impede Rwanda’s peacebuilding project; third, a greater participatory representation of the views and claims of all Rwandese in the construction of their nation; and fourth, the underlying national processes of reconciliation, truth, healing and solidarity, the nation’s formal education can consolidate and augment the ‘transformative remedies’ necessary for building a sustainable, positive peace in a post-conflict society (Hamber, 2007; Fraser, 1995: 82, 86; Novelli, Cardozo and Smith, 2015: 12). By linking the earlier work of Fraser (1995, 2005), Galtung (1997, 1990) and Lederach (1995, 1997) – centring itself on the core tenets of the Conflict Transformation Model of peacebuilding - the ‘Four Rs’ model enables an analysis of the ways in which formal education systems can facilitate the realisation of a sustainable, positive peace in a post-conflict state.
Moreover, the ‘Four Rs’ model offers an evaluative framework with which to structure this paper’s qualitative methodological approach. This dissertation combines a concomitant analysis of official governmental documents and a review of secondary sources, channelled by the broader infrastructure afforded by the ‘Four Rs’ theoretical and analytical template. The framework, therefore, acts as useful tool with which to guide this paper’s evaluations of: first, primary sources such as the Rwandan constitution, Rwandan public policy documents, progress reports and education sector plans from the Rwandan Ministry of Education and similar governmental bodies, and official documents outlining the Rwandan national curriculum, for example; and secondary sources, such as academic journal articles and books, policy briefings from non-governmental bodies, and status reports from inter-governmental organisations. This overarching approach has the core advantage of producing a ‘conflict sensitive’ analysis of post-genocide Rwanda that is able to: appraise both the form and structure – and the content and curriculum – of Rwanda’s formal education system; understand and evaluate how this formal education system has impacted upon the multi-layered course of conflict transformation - at all levels of analysis – in Rwanda; and analyse and consider the contribution of the Rwanda’s formal education system to the wider personal, relational, social, cultural and structural transformative processes which must fundamentally underlie Rwanda’s peacebuilding project.
As this paper will develop throughout, using this analytical framework is not an evaluative panacea. Technical, financial, intellectual, political and institutional barriers all continue to constrain the field’s progression: causal mechanisms sometimes remain blurry, unclear and under-developed; empirical evidence is diluted by the operational challenges of research in an increasingly autocratic environment; governmental and non-governmental reports continue to be skewed by the desire to illustrate the achievement of programme goals and the appropriation of further funding; and the true opinions of Rwandan respondents are frequently obscured by self-censorship, selective reporting and the iteration of top-down ‘public transcripts’, for example (King, 2014: 10; King, 2009; Samuelson & Freedman, 2010; Thomson, 2010; Buckley-Zistel, 2007). Thus, cautious and considered conclusions are an imperative. However, the utilisation of the emergent ‘Four Rs’ framework to structure a qualitative analysis of formal policy documents and secondary sources seems to offer the greatest opportunity of achieving a more sensitive and more attentive understanding of the complex, multiscalar and multifaceted relationship that exists between education and peacebuilding in post-genocide Rwanda.
The following table illustrates this paper’s application of the ‘Four Rs’ framework in the case of Rwanda:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
(Adapted from Novelli, Cardozo & Smith, 2015: 1; Novelli, Cardozo & Smith, 2014; Smith & Ellison, 2014: 12-15; Datzberger, McCully & Smith, 2015: 15-18; Fountain, 1999: 36; King, 2014: 28-33).
This dissertation now proceeds to employ the ‘Four Rs’ framework outlined above in relation to Rwanda’s formal education system. The analysis of each core element in turn reiterates the arguments developed throughout this paper, presenting a balanced appraisal of the ‘two faces’ of the contribution of Rwanda’s formal education system to its broader peacebuilding project in the post-genocide era.
- ISBN (eBook)
- ISBN (Book)
- File size
- 687 KB
- Catalog Number
- Institution / College
- University of Exeter – College of Social Sciences and International Studies
- First Class Honours - 74
- Rwanda Education Peace Peacebuilding Peace building Politics International Relations Lederach United Nations Genocide Conflict Post-Conflict Post-Genocide UNICEF Africa