CHAPTER 8: CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE DIALOGUES
8.3. Reconciliation conference
confidence of Robert and Fred that things are moving forward, other stories
suggest something quite different. Reginald says, “Development is fantastic and is working, but is it working as it should be? It works for the IMF, the international community, the governments’ image, the AU and so on, but is it working for the Rwandan people?”
The following section will report on and analyse the dialogue that took place during a NURC Reconciliation Forum seminar. This is significant in its own right but particularly because of the light it sheds on the dialogue between the four young Rwandan men. Where the dialogue between the interviewees was largely divisive, the dialogue amongst members of the Forum, although still full of tensions and challenges, gives more reason for optimism.
manage to live side by side. Three talks were given, one by Shalom’s director, Jean de Dieu Basabose, on the concept of forgiveness and reconciliation, one by Penine Uwimbaba, a member of Shalom, on leadership that supports sustainable reconciliation and one by myself on the role of storytelling in reconciliation. After these talks and a shared lunch, there were several hours within which members of the Forum could ask questions and discuss the content of the talks. Apart from the rich dialogue which took place, further insights could be drawn from the feedback forms participants completed after the seminar. Three broad themes emerged. The first was around the process of reconciliation, the second was around the need for open dialogue and truth, and the third was the need for practical interventions, such as poverty reduction, that would support the reconciliation process.
8.3.1. Perspectives on reconciliation
While one participant expressed that it was a waste of time to discuss reconciliation because people were already reconciled in Rwanda, another expressed how difficult and painful the reconciliation process is. This captures well the kinds of comments heard amongst Rwandans generally, with some feeling reconciliation has already happened in that Rwandans are living side by side and getting on with their lives, while others feel the process has hardly started as there is still so much mistrust and unforgiveness in people’s hearts.
This brings to light the importance of clarifying what one means by reconciliation before embarking on efforts to bring about reconciliation.
In the context of storytelling, I spoke about how negative things in our past stories can sometimes continue in our present and future stories and that it is difficult to leave these behind. One participant mentioned that in Rwanda’s past story there was an approach to leadership that was authoritarian and aggressive. He said that this story has been carried over and that the current governments approach to the national reconciliation process was similarly done in an authoritative and aggressive way. Others laughed about this and the conversation that developed from there expressed both an appreciation for the government’s efforts to bring about reconciliation as well as critique that it was done in this authoritative way.
Related to this, one participant commented that perpetrators are required by law to show remorse and that they are required to ask forgiveness from the
government, within the gacaca process, rather than from the victim. They felt this side-stepped the central issue in reconciling people, which is for the perpetrator and victim to come face to face, and not the perpetrator with a legal system. This echoes what Francois said about reconciliation needing to take place between himself and those who had hurt him. Robert also reiterated distrust in the gacaca process because the remorse expressed by some perpetrators was not regarded as genuine.
There was a suggestion made during the discussion that perpetrators and victims should sit in one room, face to face, thrashing things out. My presentation was an attempt to show that it is not always easy to say who the perpetrator and who the victim is. To those at the Forum, however, it was clear that these were two demarcated groups without any doubt as to who fell into which group.
On evaluation forms, respondents were asked what they had learnt from the seminar. A few mentioned that although much work has been done in the area of reconciliation, there are still many challenges ahead. Some mentioned that the seminar had revived in them a desire to participate in reconciliation processes and highlighted the necessity for their participation in order for them to live in peaceful communities. Mention was made of the need for both offender and victim to play a role. Several referred to what Jean de Dieu Basabose had said about victims forgiving their perpetrator before the offender asks for pardon for the sake of the victim’s own healing process. Another referred to Basabose’s presentation which highlighted the need for the offender to also forgive themselves.
On evaluation forms, respondents were asked what they recommended various groups would do, including the district authorities, NURC and Shalom, Educating for Peace, and other NGO’s working in the area. One comment suggested that NURC needed to “recognize that reconciliation is a voluntary process and should not be forced”. Although participants expressed appreciation for what the
government is trying to do, there was a sense that a rushed process that is driven from the top down might hinder the reconciliation process rather than help it.
8.3.2. Open dialogue and truth
There was discussion around why the stories we tell about the past differ so much and the challenge this holds for teaching history at schools. I spoke of the need to create a new story for the future together but that this would require
acknowledging the diversity of old stories. However, there was a sense that just knowing the ‘true’ story would make things simpler and that some people’s stories were more valid and counted more than those of others.
A related comment in the feedback forms was that there was a need for
“establishing a dialogue around Rwandan history in order to read together the history and avoid divergences and different antagonistic tendencies”. This may also reflect the government position, which suggests that all Rwandans need to align themselves to one understanding of history in order to move forward.
However, it also holds potential in that ‘reading together the history’ is the beginning of understanding one another’s differences and may allow for open dialogue.
When respondents were asked what the obstacles and challenges were to the process of reconciliation, the first comment was the ‘divergence’ of Rwandan history. Again, it is evident that the divisive stories regarding Rwanda’s past are a central issue for many Rwandans. Secondly, it was said that there was a “lack of a platform where people can sit and speak truth to each other in their community, at grassroots level”. Repeated comments from participants during the discussion and through the feedback forms reiterated the message that there was a desire for more open dialogue in communities. On feedback forms, respondents were asked what needed to happen to strengthen the Reconciliation Forum. The responses included the need for more such forums, with greater time for discussion “in order to allow participants to openly express their feelings and thoughts”. This was interesting in the light of previous conversations with
Rwandans that they do not feel safe to openly express their opinions. This Forum, made up of a diverse group of Hutus and Tutsis in a semi-rural setting, openly expressed the desire for more open debate in public spaces.
One response distinguished the objective of reconciliation from the process being used. “Many people disguise their feelings and thoughts on the way the
reconciliation process is undertaken: Some people seem to appreciate what is done whereas they are not convinced and satisfied with the process”. This highlights a crucial point for the reconciliation process, that although members of this Forum express the desire to debate and dialogue openly there is nevertheless an awareness that many people are still too afraid to express what they really believe. One respondent merely wrote, “Silence, fear and suspicion”. Added to this were the responses that genocidal and divisionist ideology still persisted amongst some people and that many of the offenders who ask for pardon are not sincerely remorseful. These issues exacerbate trust in the reconciliation process and the fear people have to speak out freely.
When asked what the Forum could do to overcome some of these challenges, interestingly, again, mention was made of organizing opportunities where dialogue around Rwandan history could take place. It was also suggested that dialogue need to take place between and with victims to discuss redress. Further, there were suggestions around more efforts to equip the community and allow for more opportunities for dialogue at various levels. In terms of recommendations to the district authorities there was a general suggestion to “educate leaders and citizens to speak the truth to each other”. NURC was encouraged to organize workshops on the village level (umudugudu), and not just the district level. NURC was also asked to “create dialogue spaces where victims and offenders could meet and speak truth with each other and build strong foundations for sustainable reconciliation”.
8.3.3. Practical interventions
Several mentions were made of the need to be equipped to resolve conflicts and having resources to educate their communities in reconciliation and peace.
Further, it was recognised that members of the Forum themselves have wounds from which they need healing and some members asked for trauma counseling and support. One respondent mentioned the need for a workshop on the role of economic development and poverty reduction in the process of reconciliation.
The last set of responses referred to the lack of educational resources, poverty, the absence of a monitoring and evaluation system in terms of reconciliation projects and misconceptions around what reconciliation actually is.
The responses from the Reconciliation Forum show that there is a growing desire amongst Rwandans for space for open dialogue and for a more truthful and honest level of engagement. Where in the past, many Rwandans may have felt that the way to survive was to say only what was acceptable by someone in authority, here there was a sense that people wanted a higher level of
transparency and openness. There was an acknowledgement of the fear, mistrust and suspicion that still exists, and repeated mentions were made of the challenge of a divisive narrative of history. The sense from this discussion is that some of the fears of the young Hutu men interviewed are echoed, but some of the openness of the Tutsi men was also present. It could be said that the
Reconciliation Forum was a realistic reflection of both the challenges present in terms of reconciliation but also the potential and the hope where people have a strong desire to build sustainable peace and reconciliation.
We now return to the dialogue between the four young Rwandans with new insights and new emphases, particularly around the distinction between insisting on one official narrative that all Rwandans should accept and having many narratives that are mediated by higher levels of tolerance.