CHAPTER 8: CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE DIALOGUES
8.2. Critical reflection on the life stories
8.2.2. Injustice and freedom of speech
long enough until it is true” but that he does not trust the motives behind this as being for the good of all Rwandans. He is also skeptical of the move from an economic system dependent on agriculture, which places power in the hand of every farmer, to a service-based economy which is controlled by a few powerful people.
On the question of individuals in the diaspora being followed by the government, he says that, as unlikely as it seems, he was surprised when one of his refugee friends was contacted on his cell phone by the Rwandan embassy in his host country. Officially, refugees should not be contacted or acknowledged by their countries of origin and in the case he cited, his friend had never given his contact details to the embassy. These stories incite fear and suspicion.
Francois, more cynically than Reginald, feels that Robert’s theory of a negative feedback loop is only a guise to hide what the government is really up to, although exactly what that might be remains unclear. During the interview he handed me a document signed by a woman who alleges that her husband was assassinated by the Rwandan government in June, 2009. This allegation can be found on several websites which suggest that the author’s husband, a Tutsi with a high ranking position in the Rwandan army, was hired by the government to help make people the government deemed to be a threat ‘disappear’. The author’s husband became progressively uncomfortable with this job and began to protest. One night, in June 2009, gunmen entered her home and shot her husband while she and her
children managed to escape. Following websites such as these can instill a sense of fear and conspiracy, particularly if they are supported by alleged witness
accounts which are then spread through the diaspora. These allegations are difficult to verify but have a powerful effect on those following them.
that? … I have friends who have family members killed by the RPF and they can’t say anything about it. How can there then be reconciliation?”
Francois suggests that a way forward would be to have an external mediator. He identified three groups, namely, Hutu extremists, Tutsi extremists and moderates in the middle. The Hutu extremists blame everything on the RPF. The Tutsi extremists blame everything on the genocidaires. It’s hard to find people in the middle. I suggested that President Kagame may be in the middle in that he releases prisoners and tries to reintegrate people back into society but Francois responded by asking how many Hutu students are studying on government scholarships abroad compared to Tutsi students? He added that jobs are
reserved for Tutsi. Hutus might hire Hutus as they fear the Tutsi may be spies but Tutsi will hire Tutsi. He argued that the president is making diplomatic decisions to protect his position of power.
Yet another fear of Francois is the lack of freedom of speech. He says that not only do people keep quiet about the ‘truth that everyone knows’ but that there is no room for public debate. In response to this, Fred suggests that the Rwandan government is doing the best they can on limited resources. One of the major challenges is the competence of journalists. Investigative journalism has a long way to go in Rwanda and journalists may be shut down not because they are exposing things but because they are printing rumours and gossip rather than carefully and thoroughly investigating issues and allegations. Fred adds that there are newspapers, such as Umeseso, which are critical of the government and widely read on the street without being under threat.
Robert further describes how the governments National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) is working hard to bring public debate into communities, encouraging people to talk about controversial and difficult topics together in public spaces. He adds that NURC’s work is probably not moving fast enough to counter the powerful negative feedback loops that spread by word of mouth but that they are trying, through forums and Ingando, to reach as many people as they can.
Where the focus of NURC’s efforts were on the reasons for genocide and what happened, Robert suggests that now they are moving towards more positive stories, including rewarding people who did good and heroic deeds during genocide. These awards are an acknowledgement that not everyone was collectively guilty during genocide but that there were also positive things that happened that can form the foundations for a new vision for the country.
Reginald repeats that the need for public debate is urgent. Even if there were public debates on critical issues, he argues that Rwandans have a “particular way to tell their story”. He suggests that there is an unspoken understanding between Rwandans that only certain topics can be addressed and critical issues are
addressed in particular acceptable ways. People are scared, and however difficult it may be to articulate why, “the bottom line is that they are”. One of the things that cannot be publically debated, for example, is the government’s version of the genocide story.
Both Francois and Reginald feel that the problem of freedom of speech is exacerbated by the lack of political opposition. National elections take place in 2010, but Francois is doubtful that they will mean anything in a one-party state.
He says that the reconciliation process in Rwanda is like putting a bandage on a sore muscle instead of massaging and healing the muscle. It is all about creating an appearance of development and progress to impress donors when under the surface there are issues that are not being addressed.
When I described the improved circumstances of Hutu friends in Kigali, Francois responded by saying that in Kigali people generally don’t know each other and people from all over the country and the diaspora live side by side. In the city, people have access to resources such as lawyers and can protect their property and livelihood. But in the rural areas, everyone knows each other well and has lived together for generations. People live alongside those who killed their family members. There is no access to the legal system or other resources and it is difficult to protect yourself against others who may accuse you of genocide or spreading genocide ideology.
On the question of genocide ideology, I mentioned to Robert that this creates a lot of fear within the country as well as a feeling that everyone is part of a spy
network. I told him of a friend of mine who admitted that were I to mention the name of a Hutu friend who spoke against the government, they would feel compelled to report him to the government. Robert responded that the ordinary Rwandan wants to be a good citizen but are not always aware of what that involves. He doubted that the government would have the resources or the
interest in following up every individual Hutu who might say something negative in a private conversation. They may be interested in following up teachers or people in public positions who were trying to pass on genocidal ideologies to others. He referred again to the pressure many Rwandans are under to maintain a high standard of living with competition for jobs and resources and that being a model citizen is something to strive for and may lead people to an exaggerated
compliance to laws in a way that the government did not intend.