JOURNEYING THROUGH THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE GENOCIDE IN RWANDA
2.3 Rwanda under colonial rule - Changes and continuity (1897-1962)
2.3.2 Belgian colonial rule (1916-1962)
The Belgians as colonial overlords kept introducing new policies and activities.
Compared to the German period, under the Belgian colonial rule many radical political changes took place. In political life, the indirect rule embedded in the League
42
of Nations mandate to Belgium was not respected. In collaboration with Catholic Church leaders the king’s powers were, between 1916 and 1922, slowly eroded. For instance, freedom of religion was proclaimed. Normally, the king was considered as God’s representative on earth and he was seen as a go-between between the people and God. However, the introduction of Christianity prevented him from controlling the Rwandan population as he did. In addition, chiefs and sub-chiefs had to be appointed by him only with the Belgian Resident’s consent. More importantly, the king’s judicial power was jeopardized. He no longer had the power to kill or save anybody (jus gladii) and a Belgian representative had to assist him during trials.
Thus, he could no longer exercise judicial power without appeal (Nahimana, 1987).
Even more radical politico-administrative reforms occurred after 1925 and were known as the Mortehan Reforms, after George Mortehan, the Belgian Resident in Rwanda who implemented orders given to him by Charles Voisin, the Vice Governor of Ruanda-Urundi. The Mortehan Reforms aimed at reorganizing the territorial administration by merging different political entities and shaping a system the colonists could understand and manage. However, these changes were characterized by exclusion because most of the appointed chiefs were Tutsi. From then on only one chief was appointed at the head of the new designated districts.
This change ended the trilogy of traditional chiefs coming from all social groups.
Additionally, the king’s authority was reinforced in the regions where it was not strong or effective and several Hutu and Twa chiefs were removed. This was done following the advice given by Léon Class, a catholic missionary priest and then bishop (1922-1945), to the Belgian administration, because of their “ethnicity”.
Furthermore, King Yuhi Musinga, who was unhappy due to the weakening of his power and who had refused to be baptised, was evicted by the Belgian colonial administration in 1931 (Des Forges, 2011). He was replaced by his son, Mutara Rudahigwa, who was more open not only to Belgian reforms but also to Christianity.
As a result, more Rwandans became Christians and chiefs who were not converted to Catholicism found that their political situation was volatile (Buhigiro, 2012). In all of this ideas of superiority took root and Father Class, talked about the Tutsi intellectual superiority and that they were therefore born to rule (de Lacger, 1959). In such
43
thinking, he was influenced by the Hamitic myth and the colonial policy of divide and rule (Rutayisire & Munyaneza, 2011).
The Hamitic myth has been rejected by many scholars (Nyagahene, 1997; Sanders, 1969; Twagiramutara, 1980). However, it keeps influencing some authors and Prunier (1997) is one recent case. This myth supports the idea behind Tutsi superiority. When European explorers came to the African Great Lakes region they found well-structured kingdoms and they thought that these were constructed by people with a high degree of knowledge. Thus, they gave a Nordic origin to the Tutsi and depicted them as people who were more intelligent and thus born to rule. In addition, they recognised particular physical traits to all Tutsi (thin, tall, long nose) and described them as pastoralists.
The first European ‘historians’ were thus influenced by a racial ideology which was in fashion in Europe. This ideology categorized human races to depict some as being superior to others. Their reasoning dominated the first books written by Europeans on the history of Rwanda (Baumann, 1894; Von Götzen, 1895). In general most of the first authors, being the missionaries or colonial administrators, were not trained historians. Pagès (1933), Delmas (1950) and d’Arianoff (1952) are examples.
Trained ones such as Vansina (1961) and d’Hertefelt (sociologist) only came in the 1950s and for writing on Rwanda they conducted systematic research contrary to the first generation which was mainly influenced by the sources from the royal court. But, the first writings continued influencing the trained historians of the second generation.
The appointment of Tutsi in most positions by the Belgians, following the advice from Father Class, was a strategy of dividing Rwandan leaders so that they did not oppose colonial rule. However, Des Forges (1999) rejects the idea of a divide and rule strategy but notes that the Belgian colonial administration was putting into practice racist convictions common to most Europeans of the time. Be as it may with the Mortehan Reforms the colonial administration favoured some Tutsi who have done some modern/Western formal education and who were baptized in the Catholic Church. Thus, the colonial administration was favouring Christian Western educated Tutsi and not all Tutsi (Kayihura, 2004) because the educated ones were able to
44
become auxiliaries of the colonial enterprise. By dint of this reform the Belgian colonial administration for all intents and purposes used direct rule, contrary to the League of Nations directives.
The political rule was underpinned by educational initiatives. Since 1925, education was dominated by the Catholic Church. This was based on the decision by the colonial powers to entrust schools to the Catholic Church because priests knew the vernacular language, had required expertise and had time available. In addition, Belgian administrators were considered by the missionaries as traditional allies because they came from Belgium, a Catholic country. Therefore, the collaboration between colonists and missionaries became complicit in the management of colonial matters (Rutayisire & Munyaneza, 2011).
The education system in colonial Rwanda aimed at training catechists, native clergy and laity auxiliaries. The intellectual point of view was not the most important, rather elementary literacy based on religious instruction proved to be key. The school of chiefs’ sons started under the Germans was reinforced and upgraded to train them to become the enlightened administrative auxiliaries and to also train instructors for public schools to educate the Tutsi in turn to become clerks. A focus was placed on modern and traditional sports and Kiswahili was replaced by French (from grade 4) to discourage the expansion of Islam because Kiswahili, due to its mixture with Arabic and African languages, was considered a language for Muslims. However, missionaries were unhappy with schools which did not place a special emphasis on Catholicism. In addition to the special education given to the Tutsi, seminaries created by the Catholic Church continued to train the Rwandan elite. Yet, their graduates were not privileged such as those who did the Groupe Scolaire d’Astrida, who were recruited into the administration and could also be given a house (Rutayisire & Munyaneza, 2011). Thus, there was a kind of frustration amongst the Rwandan elite who studied in seminaries because they were not promoted in administrative positions as their colleagues from the Groupe Scolaire d’Astrida.
On the economic front Rwandan development was conceived according to the needs of the Belgian Congo. In this regard, a customs union was created between Rwanda, Burundi and Congo and due to huge and unexploited Congolese resources some
45
Rwandans were sent, to work in Congolese mines from the time of the 1920s. De la Mairieu (1972) and Kagame (1975) describe different socio-economic activities undertaken by the Belgian colonial administration such as road and aerodrome construction, fight against famines, fight against erosion, construction of schools and health institutions, introduction of new food and industrial crops and expansion of a modern economy by the use of money instead of barter trade. Most of these activities were done under harsh conditions and traditional authorities underwent unpopular sentiments from the general population because these traditional authorities had to coerce people to work hard to reach targets fixed by the colonial administration. As a result, some Rwandans migrated to British colonies where working conditions were more favourable and easier for getting money to pay taxes.
As some scholars (Arnold, 2005; Kagame, 1975; Wepman, 1993; Wines & Majerol, 2015) point out, after World War Two, different factors contributed to the decolonisation not only of Rwanda but also of other Third World countries. The colonised countries had participated in the war against the Axis powers which were mainly Germany, Italy and Japan. Rwanda was not involved in the fighting due to its statute under the League of Nations. However, it contributed to war efforts by increasing the production of raw material or enlarging roads for facilitating the passage of British trucks (Buhigiro, 2012; de la Mairieu, 1972). Thus, the contacts with other countries which aspired to acquire their freedom inspired Africans who participated in the war to claim their independence once back home. Economically, African countries benefited either from the increase of the wartime exportation to Europe or to European investments in Africa.
This new development contributed to the creation of urban centres and unions which were informed through reading about the ideas of independence (Wepman, 1993).
Thus, the demands for freedom were faced by a broke and war ravaged Europe from its colonial subjects all over the world (Wine & Majerol, 2015). European colonial powers were disposed to accept colonies obtaining self-government due to their war efforts. Thus colonised people’s loyalty received the reward of independence (Wepman, 1993). Western powers, mainly the United States of America through the Atlantic Charter, an agreement between the American President Franklin Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on the future of the world, were in
46
favour of freedom of nations and their counterpart the Soviet Union was against the exploitation of nations due to its ideology of communism. The United Nations also recognized the right of nations to govern themselves.
In the 1950s, the political evolution of Rwanda was judged by the United Nations to be very slow. As the socio-political and economic demands of the Rwandan elite became more pressing the colonial administration believed that it was time to prepare the country for autonomy and independence (de la Mairieu, 1972; Kagame, 1975; Rawson, 1966; Wines & Majerol, 2015). The Rwandan elite, whether privileged or not by the colonial authority or by Christian missions, contested colonialism more and more and reforms were implemented. Changes were consequently put into place by the decree of July 14 1952, which aimed mainly at allowing Rwandans to participate more widely in political structures. This participation to power was characterised by the creation of different councils – the council of sub-chieftaincy, the council of chieftaincy, the council of territory and the National High Council presided over by the king. This situation created turmoil among the Rwandan elite. Both the Hutu elite, who were excluded from power, and the Tutsi who were benefiting more from the colonial system but not earning the same salaries as their white colleagues or not having the true decision making power, were frustrated by these changes. The Tutsi elite continued to claim more changes but the Belgian authorities were not willing to take them into account because they believed it was too early to make important changes arguing that Rwandans had not yet acquired political maturity (de la Mairieu, 1972; Rawson, 1966).
In 1957, members of the National High Council published Mise au point, a document openly requesting the Belgian administration to allow Rwandans more participation to power and to end inequalities between Belgian employees and their Rwandan counterparts - for instance when doing the same job, Belgians were better paid. The Belgian colonial administration did not react. The same year, another document Note sur l’aspect du problème racial indigene au Rwanda known as Bahutu Manifesto, was published by Hutu leaders. Instead of attacking the colonial administration, the document stated that the Tutsi had a monopoly in all domains.
47
The Bahutu Manifesto attracted the attention of the colonial administration, Catholic Church and the media. Thereafter, the colonial administration changed its point of view and supported the claims of the Hutu leaders (Logiest, 1988). It is not easy to explain this change in allegiance and mind-set but it was possibly influenced by the new ecclesiastic leaders and a new group of Flemish colonial administrators who were in favour of the Hutu petitions (Prunier, 1997). It is also argued that the Belgian administration expected to acquire international backing by supporting the Hutu movement and it was a way of circumventing reforms requested by both the Hutu and Tutsi elites and to avoid showing their responsibility in the matter. Instead, the Belgian administration preferred to show that all Rwandan political problems were created by the Tutsi (Rutayisire & Munyaneza, 2011). By supporting the Hutu’s petitioners, the colonial administration did not take care of the Tutsi, Hutu and Twa masses who were uneducated and poor. The political debate thus became dominated by "ethnic problems” (Rwanda Parliament. The Senate, 2010; Rutayisire
& Munyaneza, 2011).
The main political parties, which were authorized since 1959, were Parti du Mouvement pour l’Emancipation Hutu and Association pour la Promotion Sociale de la Masse and were dominated by the Hutu. The Tutsi elites were divided mainly into two political parties: Union Nationale Rwandaise and Rassemblement Démocratique Rwandais which had a unifying aim. The unexpected death of King Mutara III Rudahigwa in July 1959, increased tensions between both social groups (Perraudin, 2003) which kept sending each other and the colonial administration provocative messages and petitions as the King had failed to understand requests regarding the social malaise which was done in ‘ethnic’ terms. One of the most well-known is Joseph Habyarimana Gitera, who despite his initiative to promote the social masses in the 1950s, became the first one to announce that the Tutsi are Rwanda’s enemies and he proceeded to dehumanise them by comparing them to snakes. Gitera called on the Hutu to resist Tutsi domination and to avoid cohabitation with the latter. The Catholic Church was obliged to react against Gitera’s hate speech of 27 September 1959 and to warn Christians against Gitera’s divisive stance which was not in their view Christian (Mbonimana, 2004).
48
In 1959, a tense political climate existed and socio-political violence occurred. The colonial administration was no longer on good terms with the traditional authorities and the royal court. The meetings of political parties were characterised by insults and the Union Nationale Rwandaise was opposed to other main political parties. In the meantime, the mistreatment of one Hutu chief, Dominique Mbonyumutwa by Union Nationale Rwandaise youth at Byimana, cranked up the conflict. Rumours about his death were propagated throughout the country. At the same time, violence against the Tutsi started in central and northern Rwanda and spread all over the country. This atmosphere was followed by a counteroffensive by some members of the Union Nationale Rwandaise and royalists. Some Tutsi were killed, their houses burnt and a good number of them was obliged to go into exile. Most of the Tutsi chiefs were also jailed (Kagame, 1975; Logiest, 1988; Rutayisire, 2011). In the meantime, the Belgian administration seemed to be inactive and justified its inability to a lack of sufficient security forces and the unfavourable topography of the country.
But the royal court considered this attitude as support for the Hutu.
The colonial administration supported the Hutu political parties and replaced absent or jailed Tutsi chiefs with Hutu (IRDP, 2005). Moreover, through elections the Hutu dominated parties managed to control the legislative assembly and the administrative entities. For the Belgian administration, it was impossible to support the monarchy composed of only 15% of the population. It preferred to put into place a democratic regime supported by the majority (Rutayisire & Munyaneza, 2011). It is in this divided climate that Rwanda achieved its independence in 1962. On one hand, the replacement of Tutsi by Hutu leaders was considered by some authors as a ‘Hutu revolution’ (de la Mairieu, 1972; Lemarchand, 1995; Murego, 1976; Taylor, 1999). On the other hand, it was viewed as a ‘period of violence’. In the view of the latter group, a revolution should have been directed against the Belgians who were the true owners of power (IRDP, 2005; Kagame, 1975; Rutayisire, 2004).
The Belgian colonial period was characterised by a series of reforms in different domains of national life. The Belgian policies contributed to antagonising Rwandan society. During this period, the identity card was introduced and Rwandan social identities were recorded. Social groups which were fluid became rigid and mainly used for promotion in administrative positions. Tutsi were the first to be favoured but
49
later the decolonisation process which required colonial powers to allow more powers to local population brought tensions between the ruling class and the colonial administration. The Belgian reversal to support Hutu dominated political parties brought violence mainly against Tutsi and pushed some of them to go into exile.
Thus, this period is seen as one of the remote causes of the Genocide and is also controversial because the role of both Rwandans and Belgians are discussed differently. This period with some controversial issues is part of the history taught in secondary school and needed to be analysed to understand the challenges teachers face to explain what happened. After independence, the socio-political violence and unequal treatment between Hutu and Tutsi did not stop as will be explained in the next section.