CHAPTER 8: CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE DIALOGUES
8.4. Recontextualizing the narratives
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.
silenced by a small group of Ugandan Tutsi who are going to extreme lengths to maintain power in the country. The government is seen as a dangerous, dictatorial regime that needs to be overthrown. Under these circumstances, Francois sees no reconciliation taking place.
On the other side, Robert and Fred speak of a country that is the midst of progress and development. After decades of bad leadership and a horrifying genocide, the country was rescued by the RPF who have returned order and have rebuilt the country to what it is today. They pay little regard to the ICTR in Arusha and believe gacaca, with its weaknesses and limitations, is nevertheless playing a significant role in the reconciliation process. Although they admit that Rwanda is tightly run, they believe this is gradually changing as the country begins to work through its trauma, and believe any strict controls are there to help the country as it comes to terms with some terrible realities. They believe the RPF’s crimes don’t compare to that of the genocide and cannot be considered in the same light. They see a country that is slowly becoming more open, with increasing degrees of freedom of speech. They feel reconciliation is taking place although there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Although they are critical of the government, they believe it is doing the best it can under very challenging circumstances.
Alongside these narratives are also the narratives of the survivors and Tutsi from countries other than Uganda. As mentioned, some survivors and Tutsi from Burundi, Tanzania and the DRC feel they have been sidelined and may have a harder line than the Ugandans. Some survivors feel the perpetrators of genocide are being dealt with too ‘softly’ and want a society that benefits them more overtly.
Some Tutsi from the diaspora even support the return of the monarchy and an overt return to Tutsi power in the country.
Developing new narratives in this context poses a challenge, especially if it feels like a single new narrative is being enforced from the top down on all Rwandans.
Johan Pottier is one researcher who has been particularly critical of the governments’ attempt to create a new narrative. He argues that the political doctrine of the RPF is the dominant voice in Rwanda, and has ‘the monopoly on knowledge construction’ (2002, 202). He argues that ‘depictions of reality have come to be led by political visions and ideas, not by empirical studies’ (2002, 203).
Part of the way this new narrative has been developed, he suggests, is by simplifying reality and using ‘feelings of guilt and ineptitude’ on the part of the international community (2002, 202). Following the genocide, there was a vacuum of research and information with regards to Rwanda, much of the available
research being grounded in European race ideologies from the 1900s. Into this vacuum, the RPF carefully constructed a new narrative that the international community and all Rwandans would need to accept.
Chi Mgbako argues that the Ingando solidarity camps are where the RPF ideology is most overtly being passed on. He speaks of the attempt by the government to erase ethnic identity for political purposes; that instead of teaching tolerance for difference, difference is being ‘obliterated’ (2005, 218). Further, he describes how Ingando camps are the only place where history is currently being taught in Rwanda, with it having been removed from the school syllabus. But the history that is being taught is a pro-RPF version which sidelines all other possibilities (2005, 219).
The problem with this new narrative is that it does not take into account the other subtle and complex narratives continuing to find a voice, however quietly, in and outside Rwanda. As those at the Reconciliation Forum said, the government’s approach to reconciliation is as authoritative as the kind of leadership style
existent in Rwanda for the past few thousand years. Further, fear, suspicion and a hesitancy to speak one’s mind has resulted in many narratives not finding voice.
Not allowing for critical engagement with issues of identity and history, argues Mgbako, leads to a ‘resentment’ and he fears people will ‘mouth government rhetoric, but not necessarily reorient themselves’ (2005, 19).
Yet, in the context of a country recovering from genocide, where the majority of the country is either a perpetrator of extreme violence or a survivor of extreme violence, is a strong and tight form of leadership not necessary? Many would argue that were freedom of speech to exemplify Rwandan society, genocide ideology would spread and new violence would erupt. It is argued that were people not controlled by the divisionist law, not exposed to Ingando camps, and not consistently fed a new government-approved narrative by the country’s media,
those in authority and through policy and law, the country would not be able to move beyond destructive, divisive narratives.
This presents us with two possible responses to the divisive narratives that
pervade Rwandan society. The one is to create a new, unified, simplified narrative that can be passed on to all Rwandans, from the top down, until everyone accepts it and it becomes internalized and forms part of a new national Rwandan identity.
The other is to allow for dialogue and debate to take place where each person brings to the table their diverse narratives, as dangerous and destructive as they may be, and allow for multiple new narratives to emerge that can stand side by side to form a plural, hybrid national identity that can encompass the tensions and contradictions existent in Rwanda.
The answer is not simply the latter. In a society under extreme stress and
pressure, following absurdly high levels of violence, it may not be a simple task to encourage open dialogue and trust that it will lead to something healing and good in a society where many are still in denial of the crimes they have committed, still believe in the very ideology that led them to participate in genocide, are still entrenched in understandings of identity founded in ethnicity, still carry wounds and unforgiveness, and are still dominated by trauma, fear and horror at all that has gone before. Alongside this, add the stress of the continued presence of genocidaires on the borders of Rwanda, with constant, confused and confusing violence breaking out between the Rwandan army and an unknown force on the border. And again, alongside this add the pressure of a rapidly progressing society which is introducing technology, a higher standard of living, English as a first language and a western economic and political system into the deal. We are speaking here of a country which is in the most painful stages of transformation.
Simply encouraging greater freedom, the input of opposition politics, an open media and a plurality of identities and narratives may not be a realistic way forward. These are some of the challenges that the interviews, follow-up interviews and feedback from the Reconciliation Forum bring to light. Although Pottier’s critique is important to keep in mind, the reality of Rwanda today begs for a very sensitive intervention.
At the heart of Pottier’s critique is the fact that the new Rwandan identity and narrative is being created by what he describes as ‘a subordinate minority which after protracted struggle overcame the relations of domination which had kept it in exile’ (2002, 204). The question is whether such a minority, namely the Ugandan Tutsi who formed the RPF, can legitimately rewrite and pass on this new narrative on behalf of the rest of Rwanda, however good and upright their intentions might be. Previous attempts at rewriting the Rwandan narrative do not bode well. In addition to this, there is a sense of disconnection not only between the Hutu majority and the Ugandan-dominated Tutsi who are rewriting the narrative, but between this group and all other groups, including survivors and Tutsi from other countries. There seems to be a half-formulated question of what gives these Ugandan Tutsi the right to decide for everyone how Rwanda will move forward.
And the common answer is that they have no choice; the country was devastated, someone had to take charge, and now they are doing a good job of it. However, as much as the country may be progressing well, and as much as the new
narrative may be a positive one, it is not a shared one and it is doubtful that it can forcefully be internalized or made into the national identity and narrative without the explicit participation of more of the population over a period of time.
In the following chapter we will begin to explore the concept of healing and how it takes place. We will investigate the relationship between healing and
reconciliation and what would need to be in place to facilitate a process of healing and reconciliation. Some of the issues brought to light in this chapter will be considered with regards to healing and reconciliation theories.