We need debates at least three times a year to help Rwandan citizens to
understand about the genocide …it will make us prepare for the new
generation. This debate competition has given me a way to participate in dialogues with
others. To me it is part of democracy.
-Rwandan students
Speech is what makes man a political being
-Hannah Arendt
__________________________________________________________________________
In July 2009, 30 university students (15 from 5 Rwandan universities and 15
from the University of Melbourne, Australia) met for a human rights workshop in
Kigali. None of the Rwandan participants were aware of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, to which Rwanda is a signatory, and only a few had vague
ideas about the existence and the provisions of Rwanda’s 2003 Constitution and
the specific laws and policies that were enacted to address human rights in the
country. Rwandan youth participants in similar workshops organized in 2006,
2007, and 2008 also lacked a basic understanding of human rights.1 It should be
stressed that Rwandans of this age that are able to go to university and participate
in English-speaking events will be some of the most privileged in this country,
and as those attending such events will have self-selected, it is not unreasonable
to assume that these were some of the most politicised (and, one would think,
politically aware) young Rwandans in the country. If a democracy is only as robust
as its citizens, Rwanda is in trouble.
The purpose of this piece is to review the creation and promulgation of a debating
programme which evolved in response to this sort of worrying finding. Debating
is used in Rwanda as part of a broader programme of civic awareness and advocacy
conducted by a Rwandan NGO, Never Again Rwanda (hereafter NAR) from
March 2011. This work is based on fieldwork conducted by the author (shown in
fig. 1) in Rwanda in spring of 2010 (when the programme was devised) and spring
2011 (when I was fortunate enough to be present for the inaugural Rwandan
Schools’ Debating Championships).
A superficial assessment of this programme indicates that it has had some success.
Since March 2011, NAR has trained 93 students and teachers and hosted 3
debate competitions, reaching 21 Secondary Schools in Kigali, Bugesera, and
Nyagatare (as fig. 2 indicates, this is a not inconsiderable geographical spread for
a project this young). These trained students and teachers are now, in the parlance
of donor organisations taking ‘ownership over’ debate. After each training and
competition, schools have organized their own competitions. Lycee de Kigali,
Riviera High School, and FAWE Girls in Kigali have hosted competitions, as have
Nyamata High School in Bugesera and SOPEM in Nyagatare. Finally, teachers
from 10 secondary schools in Kigali have formed a Teacher Association for
Debate and organised a further competition for Kigali Schools in October 2011.
All this proves, however, is that debating is happening, and likely to continue.
The purpose of this article is, firstly, to briefly review the case for debating in
Rwanda, not just as something to do for fun, but as part of a broader peacebuilding
agenda, secondly, to give more detail on the specifics of the programme,
and thirdly, to try and evaluate what, if anything, can be learned from Rwanda’s
experience at this early stage.
Why Debating? Why in Rwanda?
The academic evidence for the benefits of debating is compelling2, if somewhat
fragmentary: these include examining both sides of issues in a thorough and
fair manner3, promoting gender equality and advancing feminist perspectives4,
promoting liberal values in the curriculum5, improving student communication skills6,
helping students to overcome their fears7, increasing active student involvement in the
learning process8, advancing critical thinking skills to new levels which likely could not be
achieved via other methods9, and empowering students to take responsibility for their
own learning, rather than being instructor dependent10. These, it is suggested, are the skills of
democratic citizens: debating is supposed to free students by helping them to
think for themselves, and communicate that to others. As such, it is an ideal
activity to foster democratic citizenship.
Although debating is widely practiced in American and European universities
as an intellectual game, several organisations have recently begun to use debate
to build democratic citizenship, civic engagement, and social capital in fragile
democracies, and post-conflict environments. Za in Prodi Slovenia and the
Nansen Dialogue Centre11 have an extensive programme using debate in the
former Yugoslavia to promote the growth of a democratic citizenry. These projects
educate youth about politics, give them the skills to be able to engage in peaceful
civic activism, and foster liberal values. Similarly, IraqDebate and QatarDebate12
have been using debate to promote respect for human rights and democracy in
the Gulf.
All these programmes, broadly speaking, share the same inter-related goals:
Debating teaches the skills of active citizens. Through active learning,
debaters gain critical thinking skills, knowledge of political and social
problems, and their potential institutional remedies. They develop skills
in research and documentation, and the generation of ideas, convincing
arguments, and solutions to social problems. Furthermore, debaters learn
to understand different points of view, how to engage with those they
disagree with using reason and logic, and to respect those opinions. They
also develop skills in public speaking, collaboration with others, and the
presentation of their opinions and desires in a reasoned and compelling
manner.
Debating is a source of social capital. A nationwide debating circuit is a
platform and structure through which youth can openly express their
views and concerns. It creates and reinforces social relations between
participants, giving them opportunities to meet and work together with
youth from a diversity of backgrounds, with a diversity of experience and
knowledge. This encourages socio-cultural exchange among participants.
Furthermore, a functioning debating league establishes a collaborative
structure within the organisation which youth can use as a forum to foster
further civic education, tolerance, and conflict resolution.
Debating fosters civic engagement. Debating amounts to an education in
the politics and governance of the contemporary world. Throughout
debating, participants will be required to learn about the institutions of
their country, and the wider world; how they work, what problems they
may have, and how they may be resolved. Secondly, debating demands
an engagement with the arguments concerning human rights, justice,
democracy, equality, and so on. In so doing, it fosters a respect for peaceful
dispute, the rule of law, tolerance, and constructive civic action. Thirdly,
the debating tournaments offer a unique opportunity for youth to present
their opinions to representatives of the media and government.
These goals are precisely the priorities identified by other youth intervention
projects in post-conflict settings.13 The key principles of Fischer’s recommendations
for civic education in Bosnia-Herzegovina (the need for opportunities for
networking across social cleavages, giving youth the resources to articulate their
needs, and integrating youth into a civic polity) lie at the heart of debating.
The need to take up this task is particularly urgent in Rwanda. During the postcolonial
era, Rwandan youth suffered from deliberate Rwandan government
policies that denied citizens their human rights, democratic institutions, and a
peaceful co-existence. The Rwandan government of the time openly promoted
divisions based on one’s ethnic background, religion or region of origin. They led
the country using fear and violence which led to massacres that started in the late
1950s and culminated with the 1994 Tutsi genocide. The Rwandan youth played
a big part in carrying out these atrocities. These youth, often under-educated
or not educated at all, and lacking freedom of expression or choice, were easily
manipulated by those in power and turned into killers – the Interahamwe militia.
They were used to torture and brutally kill their victims, to rape women and
girls, to loot or destroy property, and to commit other horrific acts that are well
documented.
After the events of 1994, the new Government of Rwanda embarked on the most
challenging task of reconstructing a country and a society destroyed by these
events. The Government has put in place the necessary laws and policies to support
good governance, build democracy, protect equal rights of all citizens. The official
discourse unceasingly emphasises the unity of the people who must therefore
work together as Rwandans in the reconstruction and economic development
of their country. The efforts made by the post-genocide Government of Rwanda
with the support of its development partners are largely working. The country
is now enjoying peace, and there is visible evidence of economic development.
However, the consolidation of democracy and human rights within Rwanda
remains an unfinished and fragile project. Increasing government restrictions
on political space and individual freedoms, and growing intolerance of criticism
of state policies14, have led to concerns of heightened repression among human
rights groups and several international donors15. Preparations for the 2010
presidential election raised fears of intimidation and violence within local
communities and led to a handful of arrests of individuals supporting the
formation of new political parties.16 This is a time when supporting human
rights and democracy in Rwanda is as urgent as ever. Furthermore, the
Government of Rwanda’s reforms and initiatives are largely meaningless in the absence of an active, politically
informed community of citizens with the skills and knowledge to engage with
their government.
This conviction is not based on merely anecdotal evidence. An emerging academic
and practitioner consensus17 suggests that a crucial component of successful
democratic consolidation is the presence of a ‘democratic citizenry’; a populace
informed about their rights, conversant with democratic institutions and politics,
and equipped with the skills to engage with their co-citizens and their state
effectively. Put more simply, the best defenders of citizens’ rights and freedoms
are citizens themselves. Youth are particularly significant with regards to this goal,
not only because they make up 60 per cent of the population, but for three other
reasons:
Firstly, high unemployment, poverty, ethnic tensions, few educational
opportunities, and scarcity of land have a disproportionately negative
impact on young people.
Secondly, at the present time Rwandan youth lack basic knowledge of
their rights, or how their democracy works, including universities students
who have the greatest access to information. As future national leaders
of Rwanda or community peace-builders, it is critical that youth have a
strong foundation in human rights, and an understanding of democratic
institutions, so they can work to promote and protect them.
Thirdly, Rwandan youth also lack the capacity or even the opportunities to
express their concerns through few official forums which exist in Rwanda.
Traditional cultural practices and norms discourage youth from openly
voicing their concerns (even more than they do everyone else), and there are
powerful social taboos around criticising unjust laws and policies or to even
offer constructive ideas. The lack of youth empowerment and involvement
undermines Rwanda’s efforts to build a democratic and peaceful nation
that ensures the equal rights of all citizens.
Finally, debating is not new to Rwanda. NAR has hosted debate trainings
and competitions since 2004, and several other organisations, such as Tuvuge
Twiyubaka, and Vision Jeunesse Nouvelle, have also been involved in debating.
The problem is that these efforts were piecemeal, uncoordinated, implemented
with very meagre resources, and conducted without any commonly agreed upon
structure. Without an institutionalised common format and structure for debate,
there was continual retraining and lost capacity. The purpose of NAR’s 2011
debating programme was to create an institutional structure capable of surviving
without direct support. The basic idea of the programme was to use debating as
a medium for effecting tangible change in the character of the youth, thereby
promoting of political pluralism, human rights, and a more open, democratic
society.
Who is Never Again Rwanda? What was the programme?
NAR was founded by 3 students at the National University of Rwanda in 2002.
They believed that young people in particular were used to destroy Rwanda
leading up to and during the 1994 Tutsi genocide.18 Even as a post-conflict
society, they observed that divisions continued to exist between young Rwandans
based on ethnicity (Hutu vs. Tutsi), spoken foreign language (Anglophones vs.
Francophones), history of residency in Rwanda (returnees vs. non-returnees),
and returnees’ previous residence (Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, DRC, etc.). Their
vision was one of a nation where young people are agents of positive change
and work together towards unity and sustainable peace. To that end, the idea of
NAR is to enhance youth’s capacity to analyse the root causes of past conflicts,
and facilitate dialogue among peers in order to generate ideas and activities that
work towards conflict resolution and sustainable peace. Within that, they have
six specific goals19
To educate youth in Rwanda and around the world about Rwandan
history, including the 1994 Tutsi genocide and its causes, in a fair,
balanced and accurate way.
To create in Rwanda a culture of dialogue by creating safe spaces
where youth can learn how to discuss ideas and share experiences in an
understanding and respectful way.
To create a culture of critical thinking among youth in Rwanda.
To empower Rwandan youth to engage with and participate in decision
making processes.
To seek creative and effective (non-violent) means of preventing,
managing, and resolving conflicts in Rwanda and around the world.
To create local and international networks in which youth can discuss
and act on issues related to conflict prevention and resolution.
Since 2004, NAR youth members have organized themselves into clubs and
associations. These clubs and associations are supposed to empower young
people through youth-led activities and projects that engage their intellect and
ideas, develop their capacities as leaders, and positively contribute to building
sustainable peace in their communities and nation. Currently, NAR has over 27
Youth Clubs in secondary schools and universities and 5 Youth Associations of
non-schooling youth. These clubs and associations operate in 7 districts within
Kigali City and the Northern, Western and Southern Provinces (Kicukiro,
Gasabo, Nyarugenge, Huye, Nyabihu, Ngororero and Rutsiro). NAR supports
these clubs and associations through activities such as seminars and workshops
in human rights, theatre performance, youth-run radio stations, and conflict
mitigation, and events such as sporting tournaments, conferences, and so on.
They also operate a Peace-building Centre (PbC) located in Kigali. The PbC
offers space for youth meetings and activities and the multimedia resource library
consists of books, DVD s, and other materials available to NAR youth members
on a loan basis. This should be understood as an extraordinary amount of activity
given NAR’s extremely small size and it’s even smaller funding.
NAR’s debating project had five components:
1. A Unified Debating Curriculum for Rwanda (completed by April
2010). A comprehensive set of teaching materials on debating for debaters,
judges, coaches, and tournament organisers. These materials fall under two
categories:
a) One part of the materials introduce youth to the basics of debating, and
the processes involved in reasoning, building arguments, researching issues,
and thinking about politics, including the nature of human rights, and
democratic institutions. These materials follow the World Schools debating
format20, so that NAR is able to take advantage of the global debating
community’s support and expertise in future
b) The other part covers the organisational aspect of debating: how to set
up debating within a school, how to coach debaters in order to develop
skills most effectively, how to host a debate, how to judge debates such as
to make them pedagogically useful, and how to set up inter-school debates
in their locality.
The idea is to equip clubs to run debating by themselves, for themselves.
They were made available online, for free, for any school or association to use.
These materials were also printed and disseminated in hard copy to the entire
network of participating clubs across Rwanda.
2. Debate Training Sessions (November 2010). NAR ran a series of training
events for teachers and students to be coaches in their school clubs. The point
of this training was to provide the initial impetus to set up an institutionalised
tradition of debating in these schools. It focused on the basics of debating, how
to research a topic, how to set up and run a debating club within their school,
and how to participate in inter-school debating competitions. This training
was conducted by NAR’s staff, who have experience running such events, and
were trained in the use of these materials by the author. All training sessions
followed the same format:
a) An introductory three-day training session focussing on teaching
participants [i] the basics of debating, [ii] how to use the curriculum
materials, and [iii] how to set up debating successfully in their school.
During this session, participants plan a schedule of activities in the following
months which they can do to promote debating.
b) A follow-up two-day training session a month later in which participants
[i] consolidate the skills learnt at the previous session, [ii] report back on
the success of setting up debating in their school, and work on ways to
improve that (particularly with reference to inter-club collaboration). In
addition, participants were given [iii] the requisite materials to prepare for
participation in our tournaments, [iv] additional material on coaching a
team for participation in these tournaments, and [v] advice and support
on setting up networks within their region for the promotion of debating
independently of NAR organised events.
3. Support for Autonomous Club Organisation of Debating (2010 –
2011). Debate training sessions (see point 2 above) encouraged NAR youth
clubs to conduct internal debates within their school, and ‘friendly’ debates
with other clubs in close proximity to them, which they organise themselves.
The aspiration is, as far as possible, to have the topics, priorities, and structure
of debating within Rwanda driven by youth themselves. As such, the training
included encouraging coaches to form a plan for a future schedule of activities
in which they work together, selecting their own debating topics, and running
their own debates
4. The National Debating Championships (March 2011). NAR organised
and hosted a one-day debating competition in March, in Kigali, for 8 secondary
schools, each fielding a team of three students (i.e. 48 participants in total),
with topics focussing on human rights and strengthening democracy. Motions
included debates on population controls, compulsory voting, and free speech.
5. The Autumn Tournaments (August to October 2011) Survey respondents
after debating events in Rwanda have frequently commented that events do
not happen often or regularly enough to ensure that skills are consolidated
and retained beyond the initial event. This reasoning is supported by the
evaluations of the English Speaking Union and Za in Prodi, both of whom
emphasise the importance of repeated events to create a civic debating culture,
as opposed to simply having one tournament. With that in view, NAR ran
a second set of tournaments (in Kigali, Bugesera, and Nyagatare in Autumn
mirroring the Spring tournaments. This gave youth clubs something to work
towards across the summer, and was a strong incentive to the clubs to continue
developing the skills and acquiring knowledge.
To conclude this section, I want to make three observations. Firstly, the programme
which ended up being run was astonishingly productive if measured on a purely
quantitative basis: tournaments were run; students did form debating clubs,
etc. Secondly, this was conducted with almost no money whatsoever (in stark
comparison to many programmes which rely on flying in ‘star debaters’ from
various parts of the world), and with an unrelenting focus on capacity-building
and harmonisation across clubs and interested parties as a result: if NAR close
down tomorrow, debating in Rwanda is not over.21
But so what?
Trying to assess, what, if anything, the real impact of such programmes runs into
three ubiquitous problems common to almost any citizenship intervention in postconflict
settings. Firstly, selection bias: the students which engage in debating do
so voluntarily. It does not stretch the imagination, therefore, to assume that those
are the students most receptive to engaging as citizens and informing themselves
in any case. This is compounded by the reasonable desire of NGOs to place their
events where running costs are low, where experienced individuals will be willing
to help out, and where you can persuade government officials and other grandees
to turn up (essential if you ever want to be refunded). In Rwanda, this means
Kigali. NAR take enormous credit for running events in rural Rwanda, but even
there the bias will be for schools organised and enthusiastic enough to respond
actively to the services NAR offers.
The second problem is one of over-determination. Some post-conflict settings are
‘sexy’ (Sierra Leone and East Timor spring to mind): they are gifted with a wellpublicised
story which can be packaged into a simple moral narrative of ‘saviours
and survivors’22, the bars are good, and they’re not too far away from beaches.
Rwanda easily fits this description. The consequence is that Rwanda groans under
the weight of innumerable NGOs all bent on the modern version of civilising
the native whilst the tragedies of places like the Central African Republic go
largely ignored. In the crowded NGO scene of Rwanda, enthusiastic youth will
be bundled through the doors of countless ‘active citizen programmes’, ‘youth
interventions’, and ‘empowerment platforms’. In such a context, who’s to say
what effect debating has on a community?
The third problem simply concerns what, if anything, we are (or could or should
be) measuring. The laudable donor aim of being able to work out whether or not
things actually do anything has a couple of perverse consequences. In general, this
creates a bias towards doing things where impact is immediate and quantitatively
measurable. This is pretty unfortunate for education in general (which is simply
never going to be able to compete with vaccination programmes as long as this
is the metric), but death for programmes like debating, where the outcome is
(a) long-term, (b) open-ended (people do not learn specific facts in debating,
but different ones depending on who their judges, coaches, and co-debaters
are), (c) skill-based (it is always easier to assess whether or not ‘facts have been
imbibed’ rather than an ability to do something, and, finally, (d) directed to the
particularly inchoate set of skills encapsulated in the idea of an ‘active citizen’
(how, for example, do you even begin to try and assess increases in the capacity to
critically analyse the statements of their leaders?).
All of this makes me deeply cautious about saying anything definitive about the
success of this programme. In these circumstances, NGOs fall back on two things:
‘people through the door’/’money out the door’ (i.e. ‘we spend this much money,
and this many people participated’), and anecdote. The former doesn’t work: it
gives us no means to distinguish between something truly game-changing, and
an event which merely takes up a weekend before everyone goes back to their
lives as before. In evaluations written after the event (such as those quoted in the
opening) participants have always been glowing about debating, but we shouldn’t
be unduly impressed that well-brought up students are polite.
Which brings us back to anecdote. The final of the championships held in Kigali
was between Riviera High School and FAWE Girls school. The motion was ‘That
this House would abolish all laws restricting freedom of speech in Rwanda’. In
the Rwandan context, this is immediately read as a motion about the ‘genocide
ideology’ laws, which amount to an expansive and somewhat under-specified
variant of Germany and France’s holocaust denial laws. These, it is argued by critics
of the regime, hand huge unconstrained power to the executive to shut down
debate and criminalise opposition by selectively reinterpreting political criticism
as in some way reinvoking the ‘ideology of genocide’. Indeed, the government of
Rwanda has repeatedly closed down newspapers, arrested opposition politicians,
and banned political parties using these laws. The effect of this is to dampen
political discourse in Rwanda. On that day though, six Rwandan students stood
up and openly spoke about censorship in modern Rwanda. They did it politely, reasonably,
without ever suggesting that the other side of the argument was in advance unacceptable because of
the historical memory of the genocide, and with a government representative
in the room. My claim here is threefold: firstly, I cannot name a single
other context in which Rwandan youth could do that – not in their schools, or in the multiple other
NGO ‘youth interventions’ (many of which talk about the genocide, many of
which teach them to recite the constitution, not one of which encourage youth
themselves to develop their own thoughts on contemporary political realities).
Secondly, if six students can stand up and publicly have a debate about the merits
and demerits of Rwanda’s genocide ideology laws, as they did in this final, then
the discourse they are engaging in is already substantially freer than that of the
mainstream Rwandan media, or the Rwandan parliament, where those laws
cannot be discussed: anecdotal this evidence may be, but it would astonish many
of Rwanda’s critics. Thirdly, this is the only youth programme I have ever seen
which teaches that most democratic and anti-genocidal of values: disrespect. If
there is actually something which merits the title of genocide ideology, a key
part of it is deference. Rwandan youth almost never talk back to their elders,
and certainly not to a government representative in a large public forum. They
did that day. If one of the best ways to build the anti-genocidal democracy is to
create space for reasoned, civil discussion in which truth can be spoken to power
without it being seen as a threatening and subversive act, then this programme has
already succeeded, not just for the six students in that final, but the five hundred
who watched and now know such an act to be possible. Now to find some way to
put that in a quantitative evaluation.
References
1 Author’s fieldnotes
2 And I am indebted to Sam Greenland for helping me encounter it. To the extent that debating
in Rwanda practised any best practices learnt from elsewhere, he takes credit.
3 See Ingalls, Z. (1985), May 8. Resolved, that competition in college debate is as fierce as in a
basketball playoff game. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 13-14., and Mooney, C. J. (1991),
March 13. Foes share a classroom to help students examine both sides of the abortion debate. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A15, A18.
4 See Bruschke, J. and A. Johnson. (1994). An analysis of differences in success rates of male and
female debaters. Argumentation and Advocacy 30:162-173, Elliot, L. B. (1993). ‘Using debates to
teach the psychology of women.’ Teaching of Psychology 20:35-38, and Haffey, D. B. (1993), April.
A problem-solving analysis of women in debate. Paper presented at the 1993 joint meetings of the
SSCA & the CSCA. Lexington, KY.
5 See Rohrer, D. M. (1987). ‘Debate as a liberal art.’ in Advanced debate: Readings in theory,
practice, & teaching 3rd ed., ed. D. Thomas and J. Hart, chap. 2. Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Co.
6 See Garrett, M., L. Hood, and L. Schoener. (1996). ‘Debate: A teaching strategy to improve
verbal communication and critical-thinking skills’. Nurse Educator 21:37-40.
7 See Gersten, K. (1995). ‘Debating the research paper.’ Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
39:71-72.
8 See Crone, J. A. (1997). ‘Using panel debates to increase student involvement in the introductory
sociology class.’ Teaching Sociology 25:214-218.
9 See Colbert, K. and T. Biggers. (1987). ‘Why should we support debate?’ in Advanced debate:
readings in theory, practice, & teaching 3rd ed., ed. D. Thomas and J. Hart, Chap. 1. Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook Co.
10 See Frederick, P. J. (1987). ‘Student involvement: Active learning in large classes’. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning 32:45-56.
11 See www.zainproti.com/english/what-is-pro-et-contra and www.nansen-dialog.net
12 See www.iraqdebate.org and www.qatardebate.org
13 Fischer, M. (2006) ‘The Need for Multi-Dimensional Youth Work: Education, Interethnic
Networking and Income Generation’, in Peacebuilding and Civil Society in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Ten Years after Dayton, ed. M. Fischer, Lit Verlag, Münster
14 See www.eastafricapress.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id
=232:kagame-tops-media&catid=80:latest-news, and www.newtimes.co.rw/index.
php?issue=14196&article=26801
15 See www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/af/119019.htm , www.hrw.org/en/world-report-
2010/rwanda, and www.rsf.org/en-rapport38-Rwanda.html
16 See http://africannewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/green-meps-demand-eu-action-toend.
html or www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/rwanda-intimidation-oppositionparties-
must-end-20100218
17 The literature on this is vast, but a few selected examples might include: Ake, C (2000)
The Feasibility of Democracy in Africa, Bratton, M. and Van de Walle, N. (1997) Democratic
experiments in Africa : regime transitions in comparative perspective, Hyslop, J., Othman, S.
and Williams, G. (1999) African democracy in the era of globalisation, Putnam, R (1993) Making
Democracy Work and Whitehead, L (2002) Democratisation: Theory and Experience
18 A conviction in the fundamental importance of youth is shared by several in the academy:
see McDoom, O. (2005) ‘Rwanda’s Ordinary Killers: Interpreting Popular Participation
in the Genocide’, Occasional Paper Series, London School of Economics, and Sommers, M
(2006) ‘Fearing Africa’s Young Men: The Case of Rwanda’ Social Development Papers No. 32,
Centre for Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction, World Bank
19 Much of this text is taken from the Organisational Overview of NAR. Author’s fieldnotes.
20 See www.schooldebate.com for more details
21 Some readers may think I am underselling my contribution here. Not so. This programme
could (and largely did) happen without me.
22 Mamdani, M. (2010). Saviours and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror.