CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. CONCLUSION
The question defining the concept of ethnic identity and conflict has been answered in the second chapter, where identity is seen as a necessary prerequisite for social life. Effectively the consciousness of ethnic belonging is progressively fom1ed and sharpened through various fonns of social interaction, cultural symbols and codes, as well as through informal and fom1al communication.
The common classification of ethnic groups includes elements such as culture, religion, territory and race features. However, some aspects of ethnicity have shown that the above features are not always the only criteria. This led researchers to assume that ethnic identity refers to how a group describes itself as a distinct ethnic group, no matter how artificially the group is organised or how much the group believes in its sameness and distinctiveness.
After definition, in the same chapter, the concept of ethnic identity has been examined in its conflicting aspects principally regarded as a source of competitiveness when people see themselves as belonging together and decide on the pursuit of political interests, encouraging ethnic identification and ethnic boundaries.
In trying to understand the conflict in Rwanda though the manipUlation of identities by the Colonial Refom1 of Administration, what appeared clear is that before the Colonial Refom1
of Administration there was a situation of diversity and fluid identities among the clans of Rwanda and this played a key role as a unifying factor.
Sharing the same culture and belonging to same clans, this situation presented a solid space of solidarity between Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. As proved by many researchers ( ewbury, 1988; Linden and Linden 1977), for the most, the names Tutsi, Hutu and Twa corresponded to occupational categories limited by many regional identities that restricted their usage to a particular area of the country, notably Central Rwanda, so that many people would feel prouder of their regional and clan identities than their economic status.
Unfortunately, the involvement of colonisers through the Reform modified the traditional structure implying change of meaning of Hutu, Tutsi and Twa identities. The previous economic stratum became ethnic stratum. Consequently, clan became meaningless and even progressively forgotten, whilst the new, colonial labels took more importance.
The factors used by colonisers during the Reform to mobilise particularly Hutu, Tutsi and Twa identities have been discussed in Chapter Four. The results and discussions about this point have been counter checked with previous results obtained by other researchers. The questionnaire (Table 4.2) was answered as the researcher collected 120 questionnaires out of a total 145. To make findings generalisable, they were substantiated with unstructured interviews that were conducted with ten people.
Based on the findings and discussions of the findings, all the objectives that were set by the researcher for this study have been accomplished. Clearly the Colonial Reform of Administration entrenched and ethnicised Hutu, Tutsi and Twa social identities. Thus, an
assessment of the factors of ethnic mobilization as discussed in the previous discussions brings to light the following conclusive points:
Ethnicity in Rwanda is a typical social creation and not a fact of nature. Conventional ..
distinction between Hutu, Tutsi and Twa as ethnic groups based on racial characteristics, territory distinctiveness, and cultural difference cannot satisfactorily work. However, sometimes although to limited degree, Rwandans are able to distinguish or to classify themselves as Tutsi or Hutu according to physical features. It is perhaps not sufficient to use the Hamitic hypothesis about the origin of Tutsi as a reason for ethnic division and_
killings. Different ethnic groups which have coexisted and interacted for several decades are able to make such physical distinctions between, for example, a Muluba of Kassai (DRC) and a Mukusu ofKindu (DRC).
Ifone assumes that ethnicity in Rwanda is a typical social creations, at the same time it is assumed that this required the involvement of outsiders. To a greater extent the Belgians divided Rwandans into racial categories. As proved by findings of this study and other research, the root-cause of Hutu-Tutsi conflict was based on actions and policies established by the state. The ethnic criteria in allocation of resources between Hutu, Tutsi and Twa appear to have been the most important factor of division and ethnic conSCiOusness.
During the Colonial Reform of Administration, Belgians were the real holders of power in Rwanda. They previously promoted the Tutsi group but in 1950's they shifted their support from Tutsi to Hutu domination. They backed Hutu leaders who exploited the ideology of
the Hamitic myth in the sense of a campaign against the Tutsi who were defined as Hamitic or foreigners.
Division in Rwanda appeared to have both a rational and an emotional attaclU11ent due to the combination of ideological aspects and calculation about resources. The rationality is justified by the use of ethnicity as instrumental and expressive of survival needs. However, the emotional aspect became predominant despite the gains to be made by acting in a non- ethnic way. People in Rwanda chose to continue to act ethnically. This is illustrated by the genocide perpetrated after the signing Arusha Peace Agreement that suggested many convenient solutions to the Rwandan conflict.
The action of the Belgians was largely strengthened by the involvement of the Catholic Church. The involvement of the Catholic Church contributed to the conflict as a social factor expressed in terms of the education provided to the Tutsi elite. However, the education given to Rwandans was very limited. For example the famous school of chiefs and their sons, 'Nyanza School', that existed from 1919 to 1935 was categorised as a primary school. Those who studied in this school had an important role to play in goveming Rwanda under the supervision of Belgians. In reality the educational level of those of graduate did not allow them to understand the future consequences of their collaboration with the Belgian colonisers. King Musinga who tried to resist against such collaboration was isolated, dismissed and finally banned.
However, if the Belgian action led to creation of division in Rwanda, their action is the root-cause of ethnicity in Rwanda. At independence and in later years, native leaders chose
to support and, even worse, they emphasised ethnic ideology and ethnic policy as means of full control of power.