Why Has The Resolution Of The Rwanda Civil War (Genocide) Been More Stable/ Enduring Than The Burundian Case?

Burundi and Rwanda, located in East-Central Africa, are two countries that have a lot in common. The most devastating similarity is that the two countries have both experienced violent civil wars resulting from the escalation of tensions between their main ethnic groups, the Tutsi and the Hutu. In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the Arusha agreement that ended the conflict in Burundi, the two countries initiated a series of processes aimed at establishing persistent peace. However, the two countries have become increasingly dissimilar with regard to the effectiveness of the conflict resolution processes to precipitate stability. Rwanda has been relatively stable and while Burundi experiences a lot of instability. This has raised questions about the effectiveness of the conflict resolution process adopted by either of the two countries. The purpose of the study is to compare and contrast the conflict resolution processes in Rwanda and Burundi with an aim to conceptualize why the former has been more stable than the latter. Therefore, the study seeks to answer three fundamental questions, namely; What contextual issues in Rwanda and Burundi conflicts influenced the conflict resolution process in either country? How was the conflict resolution processes in Rwanda and Burundi different? Why has conflict resolution in Rwanda been more stable than that in Burundi?