Op-Ed: How John Legend's Rwanda Concert Challenges the Politics of Boycotts

John Legend is standing ten toes down on his decision to perform a sold-out show in Rwanda despite backlash over the country's alleged role in the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Grammy winner recently headlinedMove Afrika in Kigali, an event organized byGlobal Citizen. Legend deleted a promotional post for the concert but defended his choice. "I don't believe that we should punish the people of Rwanda and punish the people of other countries when we disagree with their leaders," he told theBBC, arguing that his presence was part of a mission to help "grow touring capabilities" across Africa. Rwandan artists Bwiza and DJ Toxxyk joined him for the performance, and, notably, he did not receive payment for the show.

His performance — and the uproar surrounding it — comes as the crisis in Eastern DRC has escalated into a bigger humanitarian disaster. Rwanda stands accused ofsupporting the M23 rebel group, which has seized major cities Goma and Bukavu in an armed offensive that has caused civilian deaths, displacedover half a million people, andexposed women and girls to sexual violence. United Nations experts claim Rwanda has as many as 4,000 troops in Eastern Congo supporting the M23 advancement.

Rwandahas repeatedly denied these allegations, with President Paul Kagame pushing back againstcriticism and mounting sanctions.

Despite claiming awareness of the situation, Legend proceeded with his performance. In contrast, Nigerian singer Tems took the opposite approach. After facing a similar backlash, she canceled her Kigali concert, stating she had been unaware of the conflict and did not want to appear insensitive.

With two global artists taking divergent stances, the question arises: as the situation continues to deteriorate, is a cultural boycott the appropriate next step?

Cultural boycotts have a significant historical precedent. During apartheid,a boycott led to South Africa's exclusion from international events like the Olympics andconcerts, further isolating the country until President Nelson Mandela's release and subsequent reforms.

Rwanda isunderstandably displeased with the backlash. The country has invested heavily in establishing itself asone of Africa's premier destinations. With pristine infrastructure and strategic marketing, Rwanda has positioned itself as a hub for major conferences, sporting events and concerts, building a reputation as a model for development in Africa. The NBA (viaBasketball Africa League),Formula 1 andinternational football showcase Rwanda's growing influence and financial investments.

Legend's position is not without precedent. Many artists maintain that their role is to engage with people, not politics. Like Legend, they believe bringing music and culture to countries facing boycott calls enriches lives rather than endorses governments.

Boycotts also present ethical dilemmas. Do they effectively pressure governments or primarily impact ordinary citizens who attend cultural events? A clear double standard exists — some conflicts trigger widespread boycott calls, while others receive little attention. Musicians continue to perform in the United States despite its history of foreign interventions and human rights violations. The cultural boycott of Israel hasreceived mixed reactions, with some artistsrefusing to perform while others reject the movement entirely. Meanwhile, few artists refuse to perform in Saudi Arabia or China, despite their controversial human rights records.

Where should the line be drawn if artists are expected to boycott Rwanda? Should they also refuse to perform in countries with questionable foreign policies? These difficult questions confront both artists and their fans.

When the band Queen performed several shows in Sun City, South Africa, in 1984, during the cultural boycott, they initially defended their decision amid the backlash. However, in 2021, drummer Roger Tayloradmitted it was a "mistake."

With Rwanda now in the spotlight, artists must decide which side of history they want to stand on.