Rwanda’s clean streets attract admiration. Its system for measuring government performance offers Pakistan a more useful lesson.

A family in Karachi leaves its household rubbish outside for collection. The truck does not arrive. By the following morning, stray animals have torn open the bags. Waste spreads across the street. Someone eventually burns the pile.

The residents are told that Pakistanis lack civic sense.

I have heard this argument for years. We throw rubbish into streets, ignore traffic signals and expect the government to solve everything. Some of the criticism is justified. But it overlooks the people who follow the rules and still receive poor public services.

What should a resident do when the garbage truck never comes?

The question returned to me while reading an article about Rwanda’s recovery after the 1994 genocide. The writer praised Kigali’s cleanliness and Rwanda’s strict approach to public behaviour. Pakistan appeared as the opposite: a country with considerable resources but citizens who supposedly lack discipline.

Rwanda deserves attention. Its recovery is real. Yet the most useful lesson may have little to do with sweeping streets.

It concerns what happens when government officials fail to meet their targets.

Rwanda Has Made Progress, but Poverty Remains

Rwanda emerged from the 1994 genocide with shattered institutions and a devastated economy. Rebuilding required years of public investment and administrative reform. International assistance also played a substantial role.

The results deserve recognition.

According to Rwanda’s National Institute of Statistics, the national poverty rate fell from an estimated 39.8% in 2017 to 27.4% in 2024, using a comparable methodology.

More than a quarter of the population still lived below the national poverty line.

Kigali’s clean roads do not tell the whole story. Poverty remains higher in rural areas, where agriculture provides livelihoods for much of the population.

Rwanda also receives international financial support. In June 2026, the International Monetary Fund approved a $250 million financing arrangement.

Pakistan has repeatedly approached the IMF. Rwanda’s financing needs are different, but the claim that it rebuilt itself without IMF assistance is incorrect.

Foreign assistance alone does not explain Rwanda’s achievements. Neither does public discipline. What matters is how the government organises its work and uses the resources available.

That brings us to a less celebrated part of Rwanda’s administration.

Rwanda Measures Its Officials. Does Pakistan?

Rwanda operates a performance-contract system called Imihigo. Government ministers, district mayors and senior officials commit to specific targets. Their performance is evaluated against those commitments.

The system is not flawless.

In its 2024/25 Imihigo evaluation, Rwanda’s National Institute of Statistics reported that Kigali and its affiliated districts achieved an overall score of just 59.3%.

Several planned road infrastructure projects had not been completed. The evaluation also identified problems with procurement and implementation.

Kigali, the city frequently praised as an example of African administrative success, had fallen short of its own targets.

I find that more revealing than photographs of spotless streets.

Rwanda’s evaluation provides a public record of what officials promised and how far they progressed. It does not prove that every failure brings punishment, or that citizens can freely challenge every government decision. But it gives outsiders something concrete to examine.

Now consider Karachi.

Suppose a waste-management contractor misses collection rounds in a neighbourhood. Can residents easily discover how many rounds were scheduled, which were completed and whether the contractor faced a penalty?

If the answer is buried in departmental records, the system has an accountability problem.

Pakistan has monitoring systems and performance targets. The question is whether ordinary citizens can use them to establish who failed to deliver a service.

Karachi’s Garbage Problem Is Bigger Than Bad Habits

A World Bank project document published in 2023 estimated that Karachi generated around 10,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste daily.

Only about 60% was collected, according to the estimates used in that document.

These are historical estimates, not verified figures for October 2026. Still, they show how serious the city’s waste-management problem had become.

The World Bank also described inadequate disposal facilities and the damage caused by uncollected rubbish. Waste blocked drainage channels and contributed to flooding.

Residents contribute to these conditions. Some dump construction debris beside roads. Others throw household waste into drains. Shopkeepers sometimes treat the pavement as an extension of their premises.

Such behaviour deserves penalties.

But a household that uses an authorised collection point should not have to arrange private transport because the municipal service fails.

Karachi’s problem becomes harder to solve because responsibilities are divided among several authorities. The Sindh Solid Waste Management Board handles important waste-management functions, while other municipal responsibilities remain with local bodies and provincial agencies.

A resident may complain to an elected representative who has little control over the relevant contractor.

The rubbish remains where it was.

Pakistan Has Rules. Who Enforces Them Fairly?

Pakistanis are often accused of ignoring laws. Traffic behaviour gives that criticism some force.

Motorcyclists ride against traffic. Drivers ignore signals. Vehicles occupy footpaths intended for pedestrians.

No government failure can excuse conduct that endangers other people.

Yet enforcement also needs credibility.

A traffic authority that penalises motorists should maintain functioning signals and clear road markings. A municipal department that fines residents for illegal dumping must provide a practical way to dispose of household waste.

Otherwise, enforcement becomes a one-sided demand.

The problem is not a shortage of legislation. Pakistan has rules covering traffic and municipal services. Their application varies, and citizens often struggle to identify the office responsible for correcting a failure.

Officials should face scrutiny for the services under their control.

That is where the Rwanda comparison becomes useful.

Rwanda’s Courts Are Not a Shortcut for Pakistan

The original Rwanda article also praised the country’s Gacaca courts, which helped process genocide-related cases after 1994.

Rwanda faced an extraordinary judicial emergency. Conventional courts could not handle the enormous number of suspects within a reasonable time.

Gacaca proceedings helped address that backlog, but they also raised serious concerns about fairness. Human Rights Watch documented problems involving witness intimidation and inadequate legal safeguards.

Pakistan’s judicial delays have different causes.

A property dispute may involve contested inheritance claims or defective land records. Faster hearings would help, but speed alone cannot resolve uncertainty over ownership.

Pakistan needs better court administration and reliable records. Judicial independence and the right to a fair hearing must remain protected.

Rwanda’s experience shows why institutions sometimes need major reform. It does not establish that community courts are suitable replacements for Pakistan’s judiciary.

Kigali’s Clean Streets Come With a Political Question

Paul Kagame has served as Rwanda’s president since 2000. His government has overseen reconstruction and economic growth.

It has also faced sustained criticism for restricting political opposition and independent scrutiny.

Freedom House classified Rwanda as Not Free in its 2025 assessment.

Kigali’s appearance cannot answer questions about political rights.

Pakistan should study Rwanda’s administrative methods without treating its political system as a model to copy. A government can meet infrastructure targets while restricting public criticism.

That is not a trade-off Pakistan should accept.

The challenge is to make officials answerable for their work while preserving the freedom to question them.

Pakistan’s Local Government Problem

Pakistan’s Constitution already provides a starting point.

Article 140A requires provinces to establish local-government systems and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to elected representatives.

The difficulty lies in how authority is distributed.

In Karachi, residents may approach local representatives about problems controlled by provincial agencies. An elected official cannot repair a service simply by receiving complaints if another authority controls the budget and contractor.

I examined the wider issue in an earlier article, Does Pakistan Need New Provinces? The Real Problem Is Power Stopping at Provincial Capitals.

Creating more provinces would not automatically bring government closer to citizens. The authority to deliver local services must reach the institutions that residents can hold responsible.

Rwanda’s performance contracts offer one possible administrative lesson, though Pakistan would need to adapt the idea to its constitutional system.

A city department could publish monthly collection targets. Independent inspections could verify completed work. Contractors could face clearly defined consequences for repeated failures.

Residents would know whom to question.

Such arrangements would require reliable data and public oversight. Otherwise, performance contracts could become another exercise in producing impressive figures.

Start With the Garbage Truck

Pakistan does need better civic behaviour. Littering and dangerous driving impose costs on everyone.

But public officials have obligations that cannot be transferred to citizens.

A family can put rubbish at the designated collection point. It cannot repair a broken municipal contract or force a government department to release its performance records.

The authorities responsible for those services have the staff and legal powers to act. They also control public money.

Rwanda’s experience suggests that measuring official performance is worth taking seriously. Its own 59.3% Kigali score shows why such measurements should reveal failures as well as achievements.

Karachi does not need another campaign telling residents to keep their streets clean without explaining how rubbish will be collected.

The household has put its bags outside. The collection point is ready.

The truck has not arrived.

Who in the government is responsible for sending it?