Topic: Rwanda

Fly-by-night critics often miss the real Rwanda  

Standard on Sunday, 11th October 2009 

By G Mwaura

Rwanda will always have its detractors in complete disregard of the reality.

And despite the strides it has made to unite, reconcile and lead its people towards national development, it is indisputable Rwanda will always be defined by the 1994 genocide, which seemingly, was inevitable.

Andrew Wallis in Silent Accomplice: The Untold Story of France’s Role in the Rwandan Genocide details a 1992 incident when President Paul Kagame, then commander of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) liberation force, against the advice of his comrades, went to Paris, at the invitation of French officials to discuss a proposed "political solution" to Rwandan conflict.

On arrival, Kagame was ‘abducted’ by French security forces and taken to Paul Dijoud, an official at the Foreign Ministry, who told him to "stop fighting or else by the time you reach Kigali (capital of Rwanda) you will find all your people dead". He didn’t know it then — but that was an early warning of planned apocalypse by the then Rwandan regime with full awareness of French officials such as Mr Dijoud.

Complete turnaround

But observers such as Prof Yash Ghai, in his article ‘What they don’t tell you about Rwanda’ (The Standard on Sunday, October 4), have tried to appreciate how a country as devastated as Rwanda — in the immediate aftermath of genocide — has made a complete turnaround, and is registering achievements that few other countries with a similar background have.

Unfortunately, some of them often conclude — usually after a quick visit, review of literature from like-minded individuals, and conversations with the usual resident naysayers — the progress achieved so far must be a result of a combination of Western guilt, exploitation of neighbours’ resources, and oppression or abuse of citizens. They fail to point out no country in history has ever developed basing its policies on such ‘strategies’.

But steps taken by the post-genocide leadership to ensure security for Rwandans, have been a result of active engagement by Rwandans in national dialogue at every level in determining the future of their country.

For the first time in history, Rwanda has a government that aspires to embrace and bring together all its citizens. As a result, Rwanda has recovered and is making determined strides towards unity, democracy and prosperity for all.

Every shade of commentators on the definition or realities of the genocide that almost destroyed Rwanda will always have own opinions. And perhaps the world will never see the end of selective analyses by those who choose to distort the experience of a people targeted for genocide.

To get Rwanda to where it is, the Government has actively advocated "reconciliation, inclusion and coming to terms with the past", all based on the country’s history and the desire to do things differently.

It may be recalled when the international community failed to act, Rwanda pursued genocide masterminds and perpetrators into the Democratic Republic of Congo, seeing the return of over two million Rwandans held hostage in refugee camps, resettled them and restored their property.

These are the very Rwandans who are now working to rebuild their country and contributing to its increasingly positive reputation.

—Mwaura co-authored the book, The Resilience of a Nation: A History of the Military in Rwanda (Fountain Publishers, 2009)

Rwandan Press has come of age
Topic: Rwanda

IT IS PARMEHUTU IDEOLOGY, NOT GENOCIDE IDEOLOGY, BUT WHERE TO PLACE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY?
Topic: Rwanda
The New Times, 22-23 August, 2005

By Gitura Mwaura

An unheralded meeting of minds quietly took place last July. This was at the behest of the Rwanda Defense Forces (RDF) during a seminar for its Commanders, in which it brought together some of the foremost of Rwandan intellectuals today.

These included the academically uncompromising Jos? Kagabo, professor of African history in both Europe and America and visiting lecturer at the National University of Rwanda (UNR); the subtly incisive and thoughtful Josias Semujanga, Associate Professor of literature at the University of Montreal and UNR, and visiting professor at other universities in the US and Canada; and the dapper Dr Anastase Shyaka, a much sought after consultant on conflict issues, who also teaches at UNR and heads the Centre for Conflict Management at the university.

The fourth was Brig. Gen. Frank Rusagara, Commandant, Rwanda Military Academy at Nyakinama, notable for his thought provoking insights on Rwanda and the region through the media and public lectures.

With this collection of academics the RDF engaged in the ever compelling national debate on “The History of the Rwandan Genocide and its Consequences,” which was the theme for the seminar.

As it warmed to the subject, the Commanders Seminar would exhibit not only of the depth of the RDF’s considerable intellectual muscle, but its earnest strife to remain the enlightened guardian of peace and security.

Thus, under the moderation of the polished Army Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Charles Kayonga, it emerged at the seminar that (among other notable issues) there was a misunderstanding about the term genocide ideology, and gave rise to a sobering question about the issue of moral responsibility.

This question, as it would turn out, came out of an expressed concern about a fear or shame many “Hutu” apparently must be living with for their role either as perpetrators or bystanders. They seem not to feel absolved despite the law taking its course, and seem to expect a certain undefined form of retribution now or in the future.

Though there was an assurance that this fear is misplaced, that penalty is based on individual culpability, and that it is in the law that such unreasoned retribution is unacceptable other than through due process as is currently happening, the issue of moral responsibility caught fire and generated quite some debate.

It may be summarized thus:

If the genocide was committed by the Hutu on behalf of all its members, wasn’t the entire group morally responsible (though not necessarily to be penalized), if only for doing nothing about it?

But, it is in the law that Hutu, Tutsi and Twa identities are not officially recognized in Rwanda, and that Rwandans are one and the same people. Who, therefore, is to take the moral responsibility? Perhaps the Government? How?

The seminar was reminded that the former German Chancellor Willy Brandt apologized to Israel on behalf of the entire German nation for the Nazi atrocities on the Jews decades after the Holocaust.

Doesn’t the Rwandan Government, therefore, in its capacity as an institution since independence, hold a similar responsibility to Rwandans as victims of a tragedy they have to collectively own and live with?

What about the moral responsibility of individuals so far adversely mentioned?

There’s no doubt that the Government has taken its due responsibilities, but this tangled moral question is largely subjective and, in all fairness, must be left to whom it may concern. It was however clear that the fear expressed needs to be addressed as a vital aspect of the pervasive sense of latent conflict in Rwanda, as noted in the resultant ten-point seminar resolutions that also suggested a follow-up to the forum.

To come to the genocide ideology, Prof Semujanga demonstrated that, other than believed by many Rwandans, the term “genocide ideology” as applied in the country is not plausible. Though the genocide occurred, it is, by definition, more a result than an ideology. Instead, the Rwandan genocide was driven by the Parmehutu ideology.

The Parti du Mouvement pour l’Emancipation Hutu (PARMEHUTU), it may be recalled, was the most influential of the earliest political parties in Rwanda that capitalized on the false colonial division between Rwandans to gain power.

The Rwandan tragedy, therefore, was not informed by some general creed about genocide, but by a particular, consciously directed and sectarian ideology espoused by the Parmehutu party to marginalize and eliminate. This ideology was given form and action by Gitera’s 1959 Ten Hutu Commandments, and again by Kangura’s 1990 Ten Commandments of the Bahutu, which have been subconsciously internalized and unquestioned over time. And thus the Parmehutu ideology continues to dog the country and the region.

The seminar brought out many notable issues, which it however may not be within this space to delve into, and was characterized by illuminating presentations and frank discussions.

Remarking that “not all Rwandan history is bad, and neither was it only about the genocide,” Prof Kagabo lengthily elaborated on the dubious colonial scholarship that justified a divided Rwanda. He presented a knowledgeable analysis of a list of scholars, singling out the French historian Herni and Belgian Jean-Claude Willame as some of the most recent and notorious in the distortion of Rwanda’s history. With this he was able to furnish a compelling argument for a multi-disciplinary approach to the study and analysis of the Rwandan history and the root causes of the genocide.

As understanding the issues of the Rwandan conflict was the key thing, it was most appropriate therefore when Brig. Gen. Rusagara, painting an all-too-real scenario, quoted conflict management scholar, Michael Banks, observing that “[w]e live in a world in which conflict is rarely understood and often mismanaged.” In this light he demonstrated RDF’s awareness to its responsibilities in peace and development, and dwelled on the Gacaca as “a creative problem-solving [way] of redefining and transcending the Rwandan conflict” that no one could escape in the momentum it has generated.

On his part Dr Shyaka observed that conflict is not only destructive but is also a powerful motivation for post-conflict peace building. Rwanda is proof of such motivation, in which, among other examples, European countries emerged as peaceful and prosperous after World War Two. He however cautioned that there must be a change of attitudes and behaviour among Rwandans, as negative attitudes can destroy any positive political and ideological initiatives in the country.

On the whole, the RDF seminar was a candid reflection on issues as they are currently playing on the ground. But, with such as the “Hutu question”, it was also testament that a nation, despite all it may hold as its values and have them enshrined in a constitution, is not an end in itself but something that continually has to be worked at.

This must be what Abraham Lincoln meant when, commenting on the Declaration of (the US) Independence, he observed that constitutional principles of democratic nationhood are “a standard maxim for free society…constantly looked to, constantly laboured for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated.”

Just like no individual is perfect, therefore, so is a nation, and the seminar was an earnest RDF attempt at the approximation of a more ideal Rwanda.

Shame and disgust, and the fallacy of difference in Rwanda
Topic: Rwanda
Shame and disgust, and the fallacy of difference in Rwanda

The New Times, July 11-12, 2005

By Gitura Mwaura

There is a persistent fallacy of an incurable difference in Rwanda that may be remarked in AMANI Forum’s just concluded Regional Conference on the Causes and Consequences of the Rwanda Genocide in Kigali.

It is in a proposed recommendation by the Forum to review the term ‘Rwandan Genocide’ and replace it with ‘The Genocide of the Rwandan Tutsi’. In this tone was informed all the conference’s recommendations, urging Parliamentarians and governments to be more sensitive to the realities of the genocide locally and regionally.

With this, however, it may seem the AMANI Forum, which brings together Members of Parliament from the Great Lakes Region on conflict issues, may not have been paying attention, despite inviting knowledgeable experts on the Conference’s admitted objective to enlighten the honorable MPs on the various aspects of the genocide and its history.

The recommendation to stress on “Tutsi’ was nevertheless not unexpected, and only served to emphasize the widespread but misplaced notion of difference in Rwanda.

Consider some of the reasons why the recommendation (which, incidentally, was presumptively drawn without involving the honorable and other participants in its formulation) cannot bode well.

First, to emphasize on the ‘Tutsi’ is to assert a distinct group and the Hutu as a distinct other, which is not a fact. If we recall the colonial racial paradigm, it’s all in the looks and there are many supposed Hutu who ‘look’ like Tutsi and vice versa.

It is also a matter of socio-cultural and historical logic that, with shared clans, for instance, no Rwandan whatsoever can confidently claim not to have ‘Hutu’ or ‘Tutsi’ blood in him. These terms, as has often been stressed, merely denoted mobile social (and economic) categories in traditional Rwanda that were politicized to disastrous consequences. Indeed, to emphasize Tutsi or Hutu is to cling to a spurious identity in 21st Century Rwanda.

Second, in emphasizing this ‘otherness’ the recommendation may be deemed to flatly state that it is one side and not the other that lives the pain and trauma, and that it is not Rwanda and Rwandans as a homogenous people that daily live the tragedy.

Third, as a considered Government policy (not just the government of the day, but any responsible government anywhere in the world faced with a similar situation), it is imperative that the term ‘Rwandan Genocide’ be because it is about collective responsibility drawing from the tortured history of the nation and a people falsely opposed to each other, and because it is all-inclusive, non-discriminatory and based on restorative justice and equality before the law.

There is some irony on this third point, to appreciate that we are remarking on a forum of lawmakers. The gravity of the equality imperative in jurisprudence is worth considering, therefore, if we borrow from the study of shame and disgust and illuminate on an aspect in the complexity of post-Rwandan genocide.

Drawing from the recommendation, there can be inferred a knowing or unknowing (unconscious) motive underlying the ‘Tutsi’ assertion, not just by the lawmakers who drew it, but by many individually affected Rwandans:

This, as psychology may attest, may be in emotive sentiments such as anger and fear, but more so shame and disgust. It is the human and understandable, but instinctive and deep-seated rage of many of those traumatized to want to put to shame and point fingers of disgust at the despicable acts of genocide.

The problem, however, is that these two emotions aim to separate and distance. The social reflex for disgust and shame, according to Martha C. Nussbaum and others who have written on moral psychology and emotion, is to keep away in the wish to separate from a source of contamination or pollution.

When you put somebody to shame you are distancing yourself from his actions, if not from him, which, as often is the case, is to humiliate if denigrate than to punish. A dehumanizing example has been given of a cow thief not long ago somewhere in Kibungo who was bound hand and foot in a squatting position at a village square, and whose wounds were painfully and filthily being showered with urine by boys at the urging of on-looking adults. There are more dignified ways of meting out justice than such public shaming.

But consider disgust as a human being, and especially through the eyes of the survivors of the genocide, whose loved ones perished in atrocities difficult to comprehend. The unusually sordid and indescribable acts of genocide, such as shoving sharpened sticks up mothers’ and girls’ genitals or splitting open their pregnancies, are disgusting to the extreme and painful to even apprehend. The basic instinct is to keep away from such a person or ‘people’ who could do such a thing.

For the strong emotions such acts can evoke, it is acknowledged that, if unchecked, disgust ultimately grows from a mere emotion into an anti-social attitude. To reach this point, it may involve a projection of one’s personal fears and anxieties onto to others, and therefore a shrinking from the despised person (or group) for his despicable habits, or for ‘being an animal.’

Recall the Tutsi reference as inyenzi (coackroaches) during the genocide, the process of which also all the perceived ills, socio-economic or otherwise were blamed on them. By branding the supposed Tutsi inyenzi and internalizing it over generations it was possible to distance one’s sense of humanity and in disgust brutally ‘exterminate’ them like ‘vermin’.

Scholars like Nussbaum show that shame and disgust are not only divisive, but inherently hierarchical by setting up ranks between people based on the perception of inferiority of those directed with the emotions. The two emotions tend to concretize on humiliation and dehumanization, which is untenable if the society must also emphasize human dignity and have it in a bill of rights enshrined in the law.

However, it should be recognized that it is emotions that form the bedrock of law and public principles of justice. These include, for instance, anger (at wrongdoing), fear (for our safety), or compassion (for the pain of others).

Anger is thus shown to be constructive by emphasizing that harm should not have occurred and the imbalance should be righted, as opposed to, however justifiable, the impulse to also keep away and separate from. The same for fear, as security for one’s objective fears must be guaranteed; and for compassion as we must feel for others as they may for us.

It is in the foregoing that it may be appreciated the equality imperative in jurisprudence and the essence of Gacaca in restorative justice.

It therefore cannot be emphasized enough that, in emphasizing difference in a volatile socio-scape such as with the AMANI recommendation, it is easy to whip up emotions, or cultivate them to disastrous consequences as happened during the process that led to the 1994 Rwanda genocide.