Declaration 2: Publication and Manuscripts
2.1 Rwanda in the pre-colonial period
2.1.1 Main socio-economic activities in pre-colonial Rwanda
Like most other African countries, pre-colonial Rwanda lived in a community set-up of traditional practice. People lived in patron/client relationships, ubuhake, for their daily survival (Gravel 1967: 325, Fegley 1993: xx). They lived similar lifestyles, mostly keeping cattle and cultivating their fields in a dual agrarian economy that would survive the shocks of either of the agricultural activities: whenever there was a cattle problem, herders survived with cultivators; a poor harvest or crop disaster made the cultivators dependent upon cattle-keepers. Both groups exchanged their produce on a continual basis.
Mukarubuga (2006: 5-6) explains that pre-colonial society was strong, with a hierarchical structure of top-down leadership which permitted vertical and horizontal consultations in areas of socio-economic interest. Society was organized on the basis of national interests such as defence, agriculture, livestock and the arts and crafts industry (The Republic of Rwanda 2001: 9,
7 Although often the patron was Tutsi, this was not always so, as Hutu who were wealthy or held a high rank could be a patron of someone with a lower status (Melvern, 2000: 9).
25
Mukarubuga 2006: 6). According to Mukarubuga there also existed various forms of collective gatherings such as livestock gatherings, patronage and welfare assistance (2006: 7).
With livestock gatherings, cattle owners used to meet around the well (where the cows were given water and a salt-lick). While watering their cattle, the owners discussed issues related to their assets and gave assistance to those who did not have milk, especially the children (Muakrubuga, 2006: 6). This was therefore not only a forum related to production but was also an opportunity to review general and individual welfare and to find a collective solution towards alleviating poverty. Through the patronage system, one could work for a wealthier family in exchange for livestock or land to start one’s own economic activities.
Cattle keepers had a system called umuheto; a client-ship which involved client lineage donating cattle, herding and participation in other activities regarding cattle keeping. The cultivators’ equivalent of umuheto was known as ubukonde, which involved the donation of agricultural production (African Right 1995: 4). Considering that Rwanda’s economy was agro- based, members of ubukonde managed a field collectively, harvesting together and sharing the produce.
The institutions of patron-client relationships were shaped by both pastoralists and cultivators (Des Forges 1999: 32). This was the key social institution holding Rwandan society together, since it made for a structure in which everyone but the king was the client of someone else (Mamdani 2001: 65). Under this system, a patron gave a cow to his client.
Therefore the client performed various services for the patron, in return not only for the cow but also for protection.8Moreover, the transfer of cows as an institution was a mechanism for recording relationships between the various corporate groups normally represented by individuals (Grave 1967: 325). Beyond that, in early times, most people in the region were
8 The relationship between Hutu and Tutsi developed into a patron client-ship, donating and receiving from each other.
26
cultivators who also raised small-stock and occasionally a few cattle for their livelihood (Des Forges 1999: 31).
At the end of the nineteenth century, 1894-18959, under king Rwabugiri, the patron-client system was extended and was made obligatory. In most parts of the kingdom everyone who was poor (in a sense, those who had no cattle – mostly Hutu) was bound by ubuhake (Pottier 2002: 9). However in other areas, such as in the western regions, many Hutu owned cattle and relatively few had acquired them through ubuhake (Newbury 1981: 139).
Social obligation began to be used whenever the king or chief felt the need. According to oral information, people felt exploited and as a result, whenever asked to work for the king/chief, the work was called uburetwa, a forced labour. According to Lemarchand (1970: 122), uburetwa was done one day out of five.
Despite the harsh-sounding conditions which King Rwabugiri imposed, perhaps some kind of harmonious co-existence had evolved by the turn of the century, since the districts subjected to central rule were headed by two officials, one Hutu and one Tutsi, who worked independently of one another (Newbury 1988: 46; Lemarchand 1970: 72). The land chief, generally Hutu, acted as arbitrator in land disputes and organised agricultural tribute and dues in labour. The Tutsi cattle chief was responsible for collecting taxes on cattle and other cattle-related matters (Lemarchand, 1970: 73). Scholars such as Newbury (1988), Des Forges (1999), Sefa Dei (2000) and Mamdani (2001: 96) suggest that during the pre-colonial period, people lived in harmony with one another.
Through pre-colonial organisation, people had their own sense of community development and how to attain that goal. This will be seen later in section 2.1.2, where social solidarity and mutual help, such as umuganda and ubudehe, were crucial for community and household enhancement and one of the African social values was that of indigenous community-solidarity.
9 It is believed that in 1894, when the first European arrived in Rwanda, a German count, Gustav Adolf von Götzen, was received at the court by King Rwabugiri (Melvern, 2000: 7).
27
The communal activities in pre-colonial Rwanda were similar to those which Russian peasants called mir, before the communist revolution of 1917. The experiences from many places show that production in the past was organized on the philosophy that people who work alone rarely achieve optimal productivity. Groups were formed to work together, mainly agricultural work.
This principle has underlined the basis of Rwandan cultural values throughout the country’s history. Communal productivity was seen as synergistic, with individualism strongly discouraged. Traditional social groupings, such as lineage, age sets and grades, acted as corporate bodies, protecting the integrity of critical resources like land, cattle and craft. Such social groupings acted as workforces for tasks requiring larger labour pools than individual families could provide (Sefa Dei, 2000: 74). According to Sefa Dei, this was of most value to the early Rwandan communities (2000: 74-75).
Rwanda’s pre-colonial interaction with outsiders was limited (Sefa Dei, 2000: 74). Thus people based their development strategies on exploitation of locally-available resources, using various collective methods of solving the economic problems which they faced. Looking at African cultural practice in general, Wangoola (2000: 266) argues that people sustained themselves through, and drew their strength from, the free, friendly, collaborative, and reciprocal flow of energy among themselves, their family, their clan and their community.