JOURNEY COMPANIONS: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL IDEAS
3.6 Some cases of teaching genocides and controversial issues in post- conflict societies conflict societies
3.6.4 Rwanda: The Genocide a controversial issue?
For the case of Rwanda, particular emphasis is placed on the aims of teaching the Genocide and how some aspects thereof are considered as controversial. Emphasis is also placed on other aspects related to the teaching of the Genocide including history textbooks and the use of a single narrative in history teaching despite the controversial aspect of the Genocide against the Tutsi.
Since 1995 different conferences recommended that the European example of teaching the Holocaust should be followed in Rwanda. An international conference on La vie après la mort held at Kigali in 2001 and organised by Ibuka Association found that to not teach the Genocide against the Tutsi was a silence conspiracy. As a result, the gathering recommended the teaching of the Genocide. For the conference, schools and universities were considered as the best places to learn about the Genocide and how to prevent it from happening again and for reconciliation (Rutembesa, 2011a).
It was not easy to put this recommendation into practice in as much as there was an official fear at opening public discussion of shared lived experiences during the Genocide. Firstly, there was a fear that the discussion would open-up a forum for Genocide denial. Secondly, it was feared that debates would further divide the population along ethnic lines instead of promoting reconciliation (Jessee, n.d.). In this regard, McCully (2012) is also sceptical about using a multi-perspective approach to examine a recent contentious past still characterised by trauma and resentment. In the case of Rwanda, some people may take the law on the crime of genocide ideology as a pretext to not talk about the Genocide so as to avoid
105
committing an unintended crime. The law states that “negation of genocide shall be any deliberate act committed in public aiming at:
1) Stating that genocide is not genocide;
2) Deliberately misconstruing the facts about the genocide for the purpose of misleading the public;
3) Supporting a double genocide theory for Rwanda;
4) Stating or explaining that genocide against the Tutsi was not planned”
(Republic of Rwanda, 2013, pp. 38-39).
The 2001 conference held in Kigali on the teaching of the Genocide also found that it was challenging to know how to teach the Genocide in a society where, on the one hand some people did not want to talk about it, or on the other some did not want to hear about the violence experienced. Another identified challenge was to know how to teach the Genocide without revivifying socio-political tensions among learners and teachers. Moreover, some people thought that teaching the Genocide could not prevent atrocities in the future. The doubt about the success of teaching the Genocide was discouraging any effort to make a change (Masabo, 2014;
Rutembesa, 2011a).
Despite these doubts, Rutembesa (2011a) notes that teaching about and against the Genocide has to go beyond acquiring factual knowledge. He places emphasis on citizenship education which should help people to know their rights, the fostering of a democratic culture which implies conflict resolution and the restoration of national cohesion. The latter does not mean that citizens have to live in isolation rather it has to be open to the outside world. A look at Rwandan history reveals that Rwandan citizenship was available to the Hutu ethnic group and the Tutsi were denied their rights. Thus, Rutembesa (2011a) argues that people should be taught that they are equal and free to live in harmony.
Alongside the conceptualisation of the Genocide and its poor representation in history textbooks as will be discussed below, there is a range of controversies related to the Genocide against the Tutsi. Some are related to the naming of the Genocide as explained in the first chapter as well as the causes of the Genocide amid the grounding of the presidential jet. Other controversies are related, for
106
instance, to the number of perpetrators and victims, the role of different actors, such as the international community, as well as controversies related to teaching resources. Some of these controversies are due to different factors, including lack of enough evidence on the recent past and the denial of the Genocide (Fierens &
Frère, 2009; Gasanabo, Simon, & Ensign, 2014) as well as the promotion of an official history.
One of the controversies is about the statistics related to the Genocide against the Tutsi. The statistics related to the Genocide and the number of victims varies according to different scholars. For example either 500 000 people (Newbury, 1998);
at least 800 000 persons (Chrétien, 2005); while an official source mentions 1 074 017 declared victims and 934 218 actually counted (République Rwandaise, 2002).
Out of the 800 000 to 1 000 000 victims more than half were, according to Davenport and Stam (2009), Hutu. Considering that more Hutu than Tutsi died, minimising the number of Tutsi victims is viewed as Genocide denial (IRDP, 2008). For Clark (2009), by considering the figure of 800 000 implies that five and half-lives were terminated every minute or 3 333 murders each hour. Amongst other controversies is the reference to the number of perpetrators. For instance, some authors such as Des Forges (1999) claim that hundreds of thousands who chose to participate did so unwillingly out of fear for their lives and tens of thousands of others out of fear, hatred or hope of profit. In terms of the latter perspective, Jones (2001) estimates the number of perpetrators at between 20 000 and 100 000. On the other hand, Rwandan government officials estimate the number of perpetrators at 3 000 000 out of a population of 2 813 232 composed of citizens between the ages of 18 and 54.
This is based on the 2001 census (Straus, 2004). These discrepancies are mainly due to the different categorisation of who were perpetrators as some were either direct perpetrators, accomplices, informers, supporters or leaders.
Regarding actors, the literature on the Genocide against the Tutsi points out the role of akazu, a group formed in the late 1980s by senior officers of the Rwandan army which comprised of civilians from north-western Rwanda supporting the Hutu power ideology and relatives of Habyarimana’s wife (Des Forges, 1999). But the akazu is considered by Musabyimana (2008) as a created concept for propaganda purposes aimed at demeaning the Habyarimana regime.
107
The reviewed literature also revealed the controversial role of the international community. One example is Opération Turquoise (Berdal, 2005; Gouteux, 2002;
Melvern, 2000; Prunier, 1997; de Saint-Exupéry, 2004; Tauzin, 2011). With the 929 Resolution, the United Nations authorized French forces to intervene in Rwanda through Opération Turquoise. The aims of Opération Turquoise were mixed. On one hand, it was considered a humanitarian intervention because some well-equipped elite French forces saved between 15 000 and 17 000 lives (Des Forges, 1999). But, according to Berdal (2005), this French intervention was seen by the United Nations’
commander, Romeo Dallaire, as a cynical exercise in furthering French self-interest at the expense of ongoing Genocide (Berdal, 2005). Firstly, French diplomats wanted to have a French controlled zone in the West and South of Rwanda, apparently to back the interim Rwandan government. But, this was opposed by the Rwandese Patriotic Front (Rutembesa, 2011b). In addition, French troops took some measures against the militia but they permitted genocidal officials to continue exercising their functions. The literature reviewed reveals that France had also continued supplying weapons to the interim government; took no action against genocidal authorities and in some cases assisted them to flee the country or failed to rescue victims in some areas (Des Forges, 1999; Morel, 2014; Rutembesa, 2011b).
Chrétien (2005) goes further and points to the French government position regarding the Rwandan situation which supported the double genocide thesis as proposed during the Biarritz Summit between France and French speaking African countries in November 1994.
There are also controversies about teaching resources. For instance, research reported that due to lack of resources, a controversial feature film, Hotel Rwanda,2 was used in a British school to teach such a complex topic (Lawrence, 2012).
Apparently, teachers use such commercial films as a tool to provoke some kind of empathetic response on the part of the learners. This film minimises the importance of the United Nations forces, which were protecting Hȏtel des Mille Collines, for
2 As with the German Schindler who saved Polish-Jewish during the Holocaust by employing them in his factories, Hotel Rwanda is a historical drama film directed by Terry George based on real life events related to Paul Rusesabagina’s courage to save people in besieged Hôtel des Mille Collines during the Genocide against the Tutsi. Rusesabagina’s efforts became controversial when some rescued people testified that he was driven by financial interests not philanthropy (Kayihura & Zukus, 2014).
108
dissuading killers. The interim government used survivors from this hotel as a bargaining power with the Rwandese Patriotic Front (Beloff, 2014). Moreover, this feature film shows an atypical story because it does not really present the real situation of the Genocide. In fact, the film shows a happy ending where the central character with his wife and children were safe. This happy situation contrasts with that of many targeted persons (Lawrence, 2012). Some words used are also considered as atypical while talking about the Genocide against the Tutsi. In this regard, the Media High Council initiated a project that put in place guidelines on appropriate journalistic language while reporting about the Genocide against the Tutsi (Uwimana, Mfurankunda, & Mbungiramihigo, 2011).
There are also controversies related to the Genocide which are discussed in history textbooks. In his publication, Gasanabo (2010) identifies controversial issues in history textbooks used from 1962 up to 1994 such as “ethnic” identities, the role of clientship, ubuhake, in Rwandans’ relationships, the ‘1959 revolution’ and the role of colonisation. A deep analysis of these textbooks points out their role in the construction of “they” or exclusive identities. In post-Genocide Rwanda, some authors address the problem of what version of the history of Rwanda should be taught, what methods should be used, and how should textbooks be written that impartially presents events (Freedman et al. 2008). Within recent history textbooks (2010), the use of Twa, Hutu and Tutsi identities is done with circumspection. The literature notes that “the overriding message of these post-Genocide textbooks, in stark contrast to those pre-Genocide, is one of positivity despite the darkness of the past” (Gasanabo, 2014, p. 117). However, despite the caution of using the terms Twa, Hutu and Tutsi in the current textbooks, recent textbooks explain the prejudices against Tutsi mainly in the post-colonial period.
Even if dehumanisation was removed from current textbooks, the History of Rwanda Secondary School Teacher’s Guide (2010) or the New Junior History Book written by Bamusananire and Ntege (n.d.), Duruz (2012) points out a series of shortcomings in these publications. The mentioned 2010 history textbooks “give out well established narratives of the history of Rwanda and left out controversial issues … thus eluded from the teachers’ and students’ sphere of intelligibility, over-summarized or presented with unbalanced and coarse arguments” (Duruz, 2012, p.92). Some topics
109
pointed out are the settlement of the population, as earlier stated the Hutu/Tutsi and Twa categories and their socio-political significations in precolonial Rwanda, the
“1959 Revolution”, the Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 and other related atrocities. One striking example of an over-summarised topic is the Genocide against the Tutsi. In the History of Rwanda. A participatory approach. Teacher’s guide for secondary school (2010) it is presented only in two pages (Duruz, 2012). For McCully (2012) textbooks’ shortcomings can be alleviated by other available sources. Relying only on the textbook is indicative of a more traditional mind-set toward history teaching. In addition, teachers may require freedom to adapt their teaching to meet the needs of certain groups (McCully, 2012).
Another controversial aspect of current teaching history related to the Genocide pointed out by other scholars is the use of one narrative while teaching about the precolonial period and the role of colonisation in dividing the Rwandan society (Bentrovato, 2013; Buckley-Zistel, 2009; Duruz, 2012; Freedman, et al., 2008;
McCully, 2012). Thus, multi-perspectivity is problematic in some aspects.
Commenting on the use of a single narrative, different scholars point to the official intention on one hand and the danger it represents for history teaching and the society on the other. Regarding the government intention, one scholar notes that “the purpose of which [government narrative] is to generate national unity by blaming colonialism for creating the ethnic tension which eventually led to the atrocities of 1994” McCully (2012, p.147). The government goal of promoting a sense of a unified Rwandan national identity is laudable because Hutu and Tutsi labels denoted a person’s status, wealth or place of origin but stabilised by the colonial power (Hilker, 2009; Straus, 2006).
On the other hand, some authors present a pessimistic view regarding the teaching of Rwandan history by avoiding talk about ethnicity. The strategy to “de-ethnicise”
Rwandan society is not working in as much as ethnicity is taboo in public it continues in private (Hilker, 2009). Gasanabo (2014) also recognises the ineluctability of talking about ‘ethnic groups’ for any in-depth study of the Genocide: “It is impossible to completely ignore the terms Hutu, Tutsi and Twa … Its causes and effects, necessitates a thorough understanding of the ethnic that lie at the heart of the matter” (Gasanabo, 2014, p. 115).
110
The selection of some memories and repressing of others is also seen as a hindrance to sustainable peace (Freedman, et al., 2008; King, 2010) and a way to a flawed history (Freedman et al., 2008). However, silencing other narratives becomes difficult in an electronic age and what is more important is that school history should provide “a framework for pupils to discuss polemical and contentious issues within academic canons of reliability, explanation and justification” (Haydn, 2011, p.36). It is also important to note with Cole and Barsalou (2006) the difficulties of talking openly about recent violence:
… the history of a conflict can be taught one way when the conflict is only recently “over” and another way when half-a-century has passed. Even five or ten years can make a difference. In the first five years after the conflict, the students, together with their teachers and parents probably have direct experience of violence. Ten years after, students entering high school may have vague memories of the conflict in which their teachers and parents were involved; fifteen years after, students may find the conflict practically irrelevant to their own lives. This reality shaped history education programs and the extent to which they can tackle contentious events (Cole & Barsalou, 2006, p.7).
In the case of Rwanda, the reviewed literature on the use of textbooks does not focus on the teachers’ perceptions about the teaching of the Genocide against the Tutsi and its related controversial issues. Few authors write about teaching methods used to offer the history of Rwanda. Writers who mentioned the problem of teaching the history of Rwanda revealed the prevalence of teacher-centredness (Buhigiro, 2012; Duruz, 2012; Freedman et al., 2008) or an unchallenged official version of history as earlier stated. However, the 2008 and 2010 history curricula emphasise participatory approaches (National Curriculum Development Centre, 2008; 2010).
In conclusion, the three countries presented here as vignettes Rwanda, Northern Ireland and Cambodia, have been characterised by bloody conflicts. In the case of Rwanda, its conflicts were mainly based on intergroup relationships which led to the Genocide whereas in Cambodia they were due to an authoritarian regime which wanted to create a pure society not influenced by communist and western influence.
For Northern Ireland, the conflict has many ramifications including for instance religious aspects, the future of the country meaning on one hand the supporters of the union between Northern Ireland and Britain and the independence of the country on the other hand and the role of paramilitary groups and the police. The context
111
was not only a civil war as Straus (2001) posits, but also facilitated by discriminatory policies and practices against Tutsi and other groups put into place after independence. The primary perpetrator objective was a total military defeat in Rwanda while it was ideological in Cambodia. As in Rwanda, throughout Cambodia, victims and perpetrators of the atrocities live in the same vicinity (Bockers, Stammel,
& Knaevelsrud, 2011; Kissi, 2004).
Regarding history teaching in the post-conflict period, Rwanda and Cambodia are striving to deal with the immediate past while in Northern Ireland the immediate past is only discussed with a few mature learners due to the sensitivity and controversy of it all. In Cambodia, political leaders whose party was involved in past atrocities do their best not to allow talk about the conflictual period in history classes. In Rwanda, there is an effort to talk about the Genocide against the Tutsi which is still fresh in the minds of people. In Rwanda and Cambodia, the Genocide against the Tutsi and the Khmer Rouge period are given less attention in history textbooks probably for different reasons in the two countries. In these two countries, Rwanda and Cambodia, the use of multi-perspectivity unlike in Northern Ireland, is still a challenge. In all, the Holocaust is taken as a template in different countries to teach controversial issues including genocides. In the next section, I present a range of approaches used to teach controversial issues and genocides.
3.7 Approaches, methods and strategies of teaching controversial issues and