CHAPTER 5: RWANDA TODAY: 1999-2009
5.1. National narratives
From the outset the Rwandan government called itself the Government of National Unity and Reconciliation, declaring its intent to move beyond ethnic division towards inclusivity. In a research report for the African Studies Centre, Arthur Molenaar comments on the ‘profound influence of central authority’ in Rwandan society and that positive policy can have a far reaching impact on all levels of society (2005, 48). He then describes the official national discourse which has a strong emphasis on ‘abandoning ethnicity’. This is done through
rewriting history and educating citizens in the governments’ vision at public gatherings and through the media (2005, 52). The following section will unpack this national strategy, describing the efforts of the National Unity and
Reconciliation Commission, gacaca and the process of democracy and development between 1999 and 2009.
5.1.1. National unity and reconciliation
In section 4.2, some of the challenges to the new government were described. In 1999, the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) was launched by the government to assist in the process of reconciliation in Rwanda. NURC represents the government’s policy and action in terms of reconciliation and national unity.
At its inception, NURC ran a country-wide survey which asked the following two questions: what do you think is the cause of genocide and what do you think are the strategies to meet the challenge of unity and reconciliation? The main causes of genocide were listed to be bad leadership, a distorted history, poverty and a culture of impunity. NURC then developed the following strategies in response to this: civic education, the writing of an objective history, supporting community initiatives, and conflict management and peace building activities (Personal interview, Kigali, January, 2007). NURC’s official aim is “organizing and supporting national round tables on the promotion of unity and reconciliation amongst Rwandans” (IJR, 2004).
Apart from countless activities related to the above-mentioned around the country, NURC has published various papers on reconciliation, the position of women and land reform in Rwanda. They have also established ingando, which are solidarity camps initially for the purpose of reeducating ex-prisoners and reintegrating them into society. Today, every Rwandan is encouraged to attend ingando, and they are mandatory for anyone wanting to enter tertiary education.
Public debates, workshops and conferences as well as research papers and educational syllabuses have been developed to educate people in principles of good governance, human rights and responsibilities, citizenship, democracy and
the like. During the civic education activities, a representative from NURC described how they teach things like: “You are not from Chad, Hutu; you are not from Ethiopia, Tutsi; you are not from the forest, Twa. Even taking into
consideration migrations, for each one of you your heritage is Rwanda” (Personal interview, Kigali, January, 2007). The primary goal, however, according to the NURC representative, is to take Rwandans to the place where they share the same understanding of Rwanda’s past, the reasons for conflict and the way forward in the future. The NURC representative strongly emphasized the importance of a same understanding and a same thinking, arguing that when everyone is thinking in the same way, there will be no more division, and there will be unity and reconciliation.
Similarly, Arthur Molenaar quotes a government official who was responsible for a public gathering in his province as saying,
“The goal is to make people have the same opinions. It is very important that people in Rwanda think the same way because we need unity in this country. What we hope to achieve is that after a meeting, 75% of the people leave with the same mindset. Those people will also talk with other people so that we reach almost the entire population” (2005, 59),
This is in line with the official government position which says that ethnic identity was the result of colonial constructionism and that it is time for Rwanda to return to how it was prior to colonialism, when there was unity, peace and harmony between all Rwandans. As described by the NURC representative, the government would like to see all Rwandans accepting a united identity and a common understanding of history, the reasons for genocide and the way forward.
5.1.2. Gacaca
Directly after genocide, as was mentioned in chapter four, the entire judiciary system had been destroyed and the jails were filled with some 800 000 people (or one in four of the adult Rwandan population) awaiting trial. According to Molenaar, it may have taken up to 200 years to prosecute all prisoners using a classic
system of justice (2005, 2). The government thus came up with an alternative,
gacaca. This Kinyarwandan word is said to mean ‘on the grass’ and is a grass- roots form of justice that was used in Rwanda prior to colonialism. It is described as a community-based, restorative model of justice that involved communities sitting together, with both victim and perpetrator, to come up with possible solutions to the satisfaction of all parties. The result was normally along the lines of symbolic restitution and the restoring of the perpetrator into the community. The government adapted this model to address a modern day Rwanda with its unique challenges.
The gacaca process started with the election of judges, normally respected members of a community, who were trained by, amongst others, the international legal NGO Avocaats Sans Frontiers (ASF). Community members then had to bring all the information they had to these judges who organized them into one of four categories. The Act on the Organization and Pursuits of Crimes of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity of August 1996 created four categories of alleged criminals: Category 1 are planners, organizers and leaders of genocide, those who have acted in positions of authority, presumed infamous assassins and those alleged to have committed sexual crimes involving torture or rape; category 2 are co-perpetrators, or accomplices of voluntary homicide or violence with the
intention to cause death or serious bodily harm leading to death; category 3 are perpetrators of serious bodily injury to others without intention to murder; category 4 are perpetrators of crimes resulting in property damage. Gacaca courts have jurisdiction over the last two categories; those in higher categories are prosecuted before the national criminal courts. In 2005, weekly gacaca trials began to be held within communities across the country, with people coming together at a central point, carrying with them their benches or blankets and settling around the appointed judges.
In many respects, though, it is far from the original model. Perhaps the key difference is that the model has shifted from a restorative one, where the perpetrators and their family would face the victim with their family and they together would discuss restitution, to a retributive one, where judges mete out punishment to the perpetrator. Perpetrators are promised a reduced sentence if they admit guilt and show remorse.
Gacaca remains a controversial issue within Rwanda although there is a sense that it has achieved what it set out to achieve in that the vast majority of cases have been recorded and tried. Communities have had the opportunity to give voice to what happened, survivors now know how friends and family died and where their dead are so that they can be buried and the details of how the genocide unfolded have come to light (Molenaar, 2005, 123).
5.1.3. Ingando
The Ingando solidarity camps were established in 1996 to help Tutsi returnees reintegrate into Rwandan society. But with the establishment of NURC, Ingando became its responsibility and has targeted a far wider range of people, including ex-combatants, released perpetrators, teachers, students and leaders of a variety of backgrounds. The purpose of Ingando is to foster reconciliation through
education in Rwandan history, why the genocide happened and Rwandan identity.
Following NURC ideology, the central message is that ‘we are all Rwandan’ and need to accept the centralized understanding of Rwandan history. In addition, depending on the group targeted, there may also be education on HIV/Aids, basic military training and practical assistance in terms of reintegrating into civilian society.
Most pertinent to the case studies considered in this thesis, is the Ingando camps for students entering tertiary education. Chi Mgbako describes three phases of these camps. The first two weeks are spent in activities encouraging critical thinking, followed by activities helping the students identify political, social and economic issues facing the nation. In the third phase, the students break up into small groups to debate and discuss solutions to the identified problems (2005, 217). A strong emphasis during these student camps is ‘erasing the myth of ethnic difference’ and helping students see ‘there is no Hutu or Tutsi, we are all
Rwandan’.
Mgbako is critical of Ingando camps, describing them as political indoctrination camps in a context where such indoctrination has had dangerous consequences in the past (2005, 202). Although the students were encouraged to engage in
dialogue and asked for suggestions on how Ingando could be improved, Mgbako describes how students seemed reluctant to say anything critical or contrary to what they had been told by government officials presenting the lectures (2005, 217). He suggests that Ingando would be more successful were the government to allow a greater degree of open dialogue about history and a higher degree of political pluralism (2005, 203). On the other hand, Ingando forms an important channel between released perpetrators and ex-combatants into daily life. It also provides a necessary opportunity for public debate around critical issues in Rwanda
5.1.4. Democracy and development
In an interview that can be found on the Rwandan governments’ official website, President Paul Kagame describes democracy as a process that needs to be carefully guided. In 2000, he argued that political parties needed to be suspended during the transitional period so as to avoid politics along ethnic lines. He
describes how the government has been “been moving systematically and deliberately, making sure we lay a firm foundation”.
Proponents of the government appreciate the government’s clear position and decisiveness in bringing about their vision. Opponents believe this vision to be close to brainwashing, enforcing all Rwandans to hold ‘the same’ view regardless of what the truth or the diversity of opinions might be. However, in a country where literacy is around 69%, with only 53% of children enrolled in schools, a high HIV/Aids rate and few resources, some would say the country needs to be run tightly (USAID, 2005). USAID reports that there has been an increase in citizen participation in government affairs over the past few years due to government encouragement (2005, 2).
Alongside the national narrative of reconciliation is the narrative of development.
Countless newspaper and magazine articles within Rwanda and internationally speak of the Rwandan governments focus on development, particularly in the area of IT. In an interview with President Kagame in the Rwandan magazine Enterprise, he speaks of the necessity to develop human capacity and physical
infrastructure. 16.5% of total public expenditure is channeled towards education (2009, 8). The June, 2009, edition of Rwanda Dispatch describes Rwanda’s ‘e- Dream’ of development through IT. In this magazine, Kagame writes an article in which he encourages the country to develop itself. “We appreciate support from the outside, but it should be support for what we intend to achieve ourselves. No one should pretend that they care about our nation more than we do, or assume they know what is good for us better than we do ourselves” (2009, 10). Alongside this strong rhetoric is tangible action in the form of policy decisions that encourage development. This includes supporting entrepreneurship and innovation, the adoption of English as the national language, installing fibre optic cables across the country for wireless internet access, and brokering deals that allow Rwanda’s greatest exports such as coffee to be sold to the ‘world’s most demanding
customer’s’ at a high price (2009, 10).
These national narratives of reconciliation, justice, democracy and development are countered, however, by narratives of fear, voicelessness and dictatorial control. The following section will explore some of these less heard narratives as this will bring to light some of the factors that need to be considered in developing a model for sustainable healing and reconciliation.