Authoritarian governments are not just limited to one-party rule. Barbara Geddes in “What Do We Know About Democratization After 20 Years,” breaks them into four categories: military, personalist, single-party, and mixtures of the other three. Since I have already explored single-party rule in Rwanda, namely the authoritarian regime in place since the end of the Rwandan Genocide, I now turn to instances of military and personalist rule in Rwanda, or the time between the mid-70s until 1994 and the start of the Genocide, though also possibly including Rwanda today.
Former President Habyarimana whose Personalist Rule dominated Rwandan politics from the mid-70s until his death in 1994. His death served as a major trigger of the Rwandan Genocide.
After a military coup in 1973, lead by Juvénal Habyarimana, Rwanda stayed under military rule until 1978, when Hambyarimana became the president. In this military rule, Hambyarimana was the leader of a group of other officers who had also contributed to the coup, all part of the Hutu majority though more moderate than their predecessor government (Ibid). After Hambyarimana became president, , though there were elections, I would argue that Habyarimana’s years of rule until his assassination in 1994 would be classified as personalist rule, as determined by Geddes. In her paper, Geddes describes personalist rule as characterised by a single ruler who has access to office and its benefits (Geddes 121-122). Habyarimana created a party to serve him but he was the sole power during his entire rule. In fact, no one even ran against him in 1988. His rule dominated the nation for these two decades, as he headed the party and government. Furthermore, his assassination in 1994 triggered the Rwandan Genocide. Geddes states that personalist rules cannot survive the death of their leadership, while single party regimes can at least turn to a new leader within the party (Geddes 122). Though of course the Rwandan Genocide was ultimately due to the igniting of simmering tensions between the Tutsis and the Hutus, exacerbated by Habyarimana’s call for peace and plans to include Tutsi representation in the government, his death was the immediate trigger.
Though it is undeniable that the period between the 1973 coup and the 1994 Genocide were characterised by militarist and then personalist rule in Rwanda, there is an argument that the current authoritarian government in Rwanda could be considered personalist as well. Though elections are held and there are technically other parties, Rwanda as a state has been dominated by the ruling RPF since 1994, and by Kagame himself since 2000. Though ostensibly this is a single-party system, Kagame has had ultimate power in the country for a long period of time, something that is not likely to end anytime soon due to new laws which allow him to continue to run for president. Kagame is the leader and the sole power, clearly the definition of personalist rule. Perhaps this will change in the future and power will stay in the single party just moving to another leader or the authoritarian government will collapse, it is impossible to say, but for now it is entirely possible to consider Rwanda as a personalist regime, especially as Kagame silences all dissent even that within his own party.
President Kagame as a parliamentary meeting in 2011
Works Cited:
Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115 History.com Editors. (2019, September 30). Rwandan genocide. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide Paul kagame | biography, education, & facts. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Paul-Kagame Rwanda: History | the commonwealth. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/rwanda/history
Rwanda Reconsidered 
.jpg){kind=link}