This thesis explores two lines of critique of social theories of modernity by way of a historical sociological analysis of Burundi and Rwanda. Firstly, it engages with arguments about the Euro-/Western-centric assumptions which are suggested to have underpinned many conceptualisations of modernity. Secondly, it considers the notion that the processes of modernity move gradually, if precariously, towards more peaceable forms of cohabitation within and between societies. In doing so, it draws on and develops the theoretical framework of entanglement, which emphasises the existence of a variety of intertwined historical routes to and through modernity. Central to the analysis is a critique of both the idea that modernity entails a progressive ‘detraditionalisation’ or destruction of traditional societal forms, and the idea that tradition provides a repository of cultural resources upon which are founded distinct, plural ‘modernities’. In the case of Burundi and Rwanda, I argue that colonial modernity, in its indirect rule format, in important respects ‘solidified’ tradition in racial terms. In the transition to independence, the colonial legacy both enabled and delimited autonomous societal self-understandings and political movements. In the postcolonial period, the tension between the modern commitment to autonomy on the one hand and seemingly traditional legacies on the other has been realised in profoundly destructive and violent ways. I conclude that the historical experiences of extremely violent social conflict in Burundi and Rwanda are situated within a specific route to and through modernity. The original contribution of the thesis is twofold. Firstly, it presents a new substantive case study to the analysis of non-Western experiences and interpretations of modernity. Secondly, in doing so, it offers a theoretical contribution to debates concerning the multiplicity of modernity which have arisen principally in the paradigm of ‘multiple modernities’ and postcolonial sociology.

This thesis explores why state effectiveness differs in countries that otherwise share many common characteristics, a question that has been central in recent academic and policy debates, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The thesis presents a comparative study of two such states, Burundi and Rwanda. Although they share many characteristics, their performance has followed diverging paths since the end of the civil war in Burundi (1993-2003) and of the war and the genocide in Rwanda (1990-1994). Through a comparative case study analysis, the research examines why the state is more effective in implementing government policies in the latter than in the former. Drawing on a year and a half of fieldwork, the thesis explores the effectiveness of the state from two analytical vantage points. First, a functional perspective examines the articulation and implementation of specific policies, taking as sub-case studies the promotion of fertiliser use in agriculture and the promotion of maternal health. Second, state effectiveness is explored through an organisational perspective, examining the incentive, monitoring and disciplining mechanisms of officials in the local-level and national-level bureaucracies. Both countries had formal state institutions ostensibly designed to promote development. However the informal norms and organisational behaviour promoted by ruling political parties undermined developmental efforts in Burundi while supporting them in Rwanda. The thesis argues that the difference in state effectiveness between the two countries lies ultimately in elites’ differing strategies of legitimation, making a well-functioning state less politically imperative in Burundi than in Rwanda. To demonstrate this, the thesis improves on existing typologies of forms of legitimacy and probes the relationship between the elite’s legitimation strategies and state effectiveness. Empirically, the research contributes to redressing the relative paucity of the literature on the political economy of the state in Burundi. It engages with the polarised scholarship on Rwanda by revisiting the main debates on the nature of its state. It invites nuancing current analyses on how power is deployed from the centre to the periphery in that country.