This chapter deals with an overview of Rwanda‘s history leading up to the period of the genocide. As a previously colonized country, Rwanda went through three historical periods: the Pre-Colonial, the Colonial and the Post-Colonial periods. The upheaval of each period affected the political, social, economic and cultural systems. The only means of recording events during the Pre-Colonial period was the oral tradition (Overdulve 1997:12, Kagame 1943:13-15). As the oral tradition was the only source of history during this time, it is not easy to confirm the accuracy or relevancy of the information offered by any particular source. There is some information in Rwandan history that remains fragmented due to a single source of information that cannot provide consistent details for the historian (Vansina 2001:13). Rwandan written history is mostly the legacy of the colonizer, and the period of colonization marked an important turn in everyday activities.
With the arrival of the colonizers and the missionaries, the dynamism of the traditional lifestyle changed across all spheres within the country with the introduction of schools, hospitals, new agricultural methods, fashion, clothing and so forth. The Post-Colonial period is, to some extent, a continuity of the Colonial period. Ancient Rwandan history focuses on what was going on within the kingship, the lifestyle of Umwami (the King) and those who were related to Umwami.
The general population came into the Rwandan history only when there was a specific event between them and Umwami, at which time they were considered to be related to Umwami.
It has been a legacy of Rwandan history, throughout all periods, to focus attention on the small circle of leaders or elite. Rwanda‘s history has been deliberately disoriented into stories of the ruling elite‘s power over the population, with civil society being likely to execute the elite‘s decisions, including the last-minute implementations of the rulers‘ ideologies. In order to secure
24 their elevated position of power, war and violence, to the point of genocide, among civil society, was intentionally organized (Ferguson 2003: 28). This perspective of history does not allow historians to discover aspects of community life, especially in remote areas where the power of the elite is not observed.
Community life was assimilated into the life of the small circle of rulers. This assimilation does not reflect the daily reality among the population, which becomes particularly noticeable during conflict periods. In the opinion of the leadership, the population took part in conflicts, which affected the Rwandan community‘s ability to make choices; the rulers‘ options were accepted as a predetermined approach to everyday life. The population seems to have been executing the rulers‘ desires instead of making its own decisions. Chrétien (1995: 48-70) states that what is called civil war and violence in the Rwandan context is the product of the political-social organization into which the population was blindly assimilated, putting the leader‘s idea into action.
It is when consequences are significant to the population that the people are the most oblivious and exhibit sightless obedience to the rulers, instead of analyzing whether these rulers‘ actions are judicious or thoughtless. Without reservation, the historian Vansina, cited in Jewsiewicki (2002:127-128), considers this kind of approach as a handicap, both to popular knowledge and to the small circle of leaders. The endeavour to develop this kind of biased history is an attempt to legitimize the power of the leaders in each sphere of the country. The social, the political, the economic and the cultural aspects of society are viewed as the leaders‘ domain, without considering ideas from the population. Moreover, the people‘s lives are evaluated through the leaders‘ views.
Due to this external locus of evaluation, the population has to agree with what the leaders propose and do so without disagreement. This ethos has resulted in a people who accept any behaviour from leaders, even if it is detrimental to them. The independence period has not changed this system; rather, it has worsened the system. The consequence of manipulating civil
25 society in this way is that an atmosphere of domination has been created over the population.
The resultant passivity of the general population has increased the power of the leaders.
Haralambos, Holborn and Heald (2004: 212) define civil society as ―the public life of a society as compared to the activities of the state and the private life within households‖. It is this manipulation that weakened the civil society, to the point that it couldn‘t challenges the leaders who were preparing the genocide.
Turning to the Rwandan genocide, its origin can be traced to the time of the colonizers but the progress of the ideology was nourished by local leadership, which increased frustrations among social groups. In this sense, Eisenstadt (1995: 1) underlines the influence of the past in making the present and shaping the future. He asserts that, ―men (sic) make their own history, but they do not make it as they please, they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past‖.
Making reference to one period has made a significant contribution to the Rwandan genocide.
Keeping hatred alive between Hutu and Tutsi had its roots in all three of the Rwandan historical periods (Waller 1996: 8). Even though the Belgian colonizers misused the Rwandan culture to their own interests, especially in perpetuating the myth behind the origin of Rwanda‘s community, they attempted to divide the country using the existing concepts of Hutu and Tutsi.
They indeed incorrectly interpreted the myth already used and accepted since the Pre-Colonial period.
According to Destexhe (1995: viii), the colonizers biased the meaning of the concepts Twa, Hutu and Tutsi to the point of giving them ethnic meaning; this was originated in the colonial period.
This misunderstanding has served to increase the division among the Rwandan people. Although there are no actual marked characteristics of different ethnic groups, the colonizers exploited and
26 stereotyped differences to advance their own interests in having a division in Rwanda‘s community.