This study attempts to examine the extent and limits of democracy following periods of intense conflict, as it asks the question: how much democracy is possible post-conflict? The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 left the international community watching for the emergence of a democracy in the fragile nation in the years following. Tackling these challenges required intense political commitment to the ideals of democracy, although this form of democracy came with certain limitations on "rights" and allowances, namely in terms of freedom of speech, that in turn inhibited various individuals, groups, and media outlets from having an active voice in the political process. These acknowledged trade-offs were initially enforced to inhibit residual tensions and bring about progress and country-wide rehabilitation and peace, but this same limited form of democracy is still present today, to the detriment of Rwanda's development. By looking at governmental power through the use of the courts, restrictive election procedures, and the further marginalization of Rwanda's Twa population, the current political situation in Rwanda shows how this same form of post-conflict democracy also has the potential to be wielded as a authoritarian political tool that imparts dangerous rights limitations and notions of second-class citizenship through policy, laws, and interactions with the international community. Rwanda's government has embarked on a campaign of repression and censorship of the population that prevents the expression of dissenting political opinions, uses fear to gain compliance, and prevents the recognition of unique concerns facing the indigenous communities along the borders. Unless the current administration is held accountable for addressing the numerous rights limitations inherent in Rwanda's current democracy, the danger of re-instating authoritarian rule is very real.