Decentralisation has been one of Rwanda’s important governance reforms, designed to bring public institutions closer to citizens, improve service delivery and encourage participation in decision-making. Over the years, the country has established structures and mechanisms intended to give communities opportunities to express their concerns, identify priorities and engage with local authorities.

However, bringing government closer to citizens does not automatically mean citizens have greater influence over decisions. The existence of community meetings, consultation platforms and feedback mechanisms is important, but their real value should be measured by whether the concerns raised translate into action.

This is where the next phase of Rwanda’s decentralisation agenda deserves particular attention.
The 12th Rwanda Governance Scorecard, published by the Rwanda Governance Board (RGB) in October 2025, offers useful insights into the country's governance performance during the 2024–2025 financial year.

The assessment gave Rwanda 86.31% in participation and inclusiveness, 84.67% in anti-corruption, transparency and accountability, and 71.73% in quality of service delivery.
The findings indicate considerable progress in important governance areas, while also pointing to service delivery as an area requiring continued attention.

The Citizen Report Card 2025, also published by RGB, provides a closer look at citizens’ experiences. It reports satisfaction levels of 78.5% with local government accountability, 78.1% with the performance of decentralised entities and 78.6% with service delivery in decentralised entities.

These figures provide an encouraging assessment of local governance. Nevertheless, they should not be the end of the conversation. An important question is how to translate these achievements into stronger relationships between citizens and the leaders responsible for serving them.

After all, satisfaction with public institutions and meaningful participation in their decisions are related but not necessarily the same thing.

A citizen may be satisfied with a service received but still have limited influence over how local development priorities are determined. Similarly, attending a community meeting does not necessarily mean that one's views have shaped the decisions made afterwards.

The same governance assessment identifies areas where improvements are needed. Citizen satisfaction with land administration and management stood at 53.5%, while satisfaction with service delivery in agriculture was 55.3%.

These figures deserve attention, particularly because land administration and agricultural services have direct implications for people's livelihoods. They also demonstrate why national averages should be complemented by assessments of citizens' experiences in individual districts, sectors and communities.

Of course, not every service delivery challenge can be attributed to local leaders.

Responsibilities are distributed across different institutions, while some decisions depend on national policies, resources and technical approvals. Nevertheless, local authorities should be able to explain what falls within their responsibilities, what has been achieved and where further intervention is required.

Participation must translate into influence

One of the most important questions for Rwanda's decentralisation agenda is whether citizens can see a clear connection between the concerns they raise and the decisions taken by public institutions.

Community assemblies and participatory planning processes provide opportunities for residents to identify priorities, discuss challenges and engage with local authorities.

However, participation becomes more meaningful when institutions demonstrate how they have considered the issues raised.

For instance, when residents identify inadequate access to water, poor roads or challenges in accessing administrative services, they should receive feedback on how those concerns will be addressed.

If a proposed project cannot be implemented because of financial or administrative constraints, citizens should be informed of the reasons. If responsibility lies with another institution, that should also be communicated, including any steps taken to refer and follow up on the matter.

The same principle should apply to complaints. Registering a complaint or forwarding it to another office should not automatically be considered a satisfactory resolution. Citizens need to know whether action has been taken, who is responsible and what remains outstanding.

Local authorities could strengthen this relationship by maintaining accessible records of issues raised during community consultations, decisions taken, responsible institutions and the progress made in addressing them.

Such information would allow residents to follow up on commitments rather than repeatedly raising the same concerns without knowing what happened to previous submissions.

Elections should be an opportunity to assess performance

The ongoing 2026 Local Government electoral cycle provides an opportunity for citizens to reflect on the performance of local leadership and consider what they expect from those who will serve during the next term.

That assessment should go beyond the number of projects completed or meetings held. Citizens should also consider whether completed projects are functional, whether services are accessible, whether development priorities reflect community needs and whether public institutions respond to complaints.

The Rwanda Governance Scorecard and Citizen Report Card can contribute to this assessment, but national figures alone cannot determine the performance of an individual district, sector or cell leader.

Citizens need information that reflects the responsibilities and commitments of the specific leaders and institutions they are assessing.

This is also an opportunity for the media, civil society organisations and other stakeholders to support informed public discussion by making governance information accessible and encouraging citizens to ask questions about local development priorities and public service delivery.

The objective should not be to direct citizens towards particular electoral choices, but to equip them with information to make independent assessments of leadership performance.

Accountability must continue after elections

Ultimately, the effectiveness of decentralisation should not be judged only by the structures established or the opportunities available for citizens to participate. It should also be assessed through the extent to which public institutions listen, respond and account for their decisions.

This requires making accountability a continuous process rather than something that receives attention mainly during election periods.

Local leaders should regularly communicate progress against development commitments, explain implementation delays and provide updates on unresolved community concerns. Citizens, in turn, should have opportunities to review that information, seek clarification and contribute to discussions about local priorities.

Particular attention should also be given to ensuring that women, young people, persons with disabilities and residents of remote communities can meaningfully participate in decisions affecting them. The measure of inclusion should not simply be how many people attend public meetings, but whose concerns are heard and considered.

Rwanda has established an important foundation for decentralised governance through its policies, institutions and citizen participation mechanisms. The challenge now is to strengthen the relationship between these arrangements and the everyday experiences of citizens.

As the country moves through the 2026 Local Government electoral cycle, the question should therefore extend beyond who will occupy local leadership positions. It should also be about the standards of accountability citizens can expect and the mechanisms through which they can hold their leaders to account.

The author, Innocent Ndahiro, is a citizen participation expert with over 18 years of experience in Rwanda’s local and central government systems.