Nation, culture, Identity and democracy in Rwanda

Introduction.

Coming from the part of Africa in turmoil (1)called "GREAT LAKES" ( Democratic Rep of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi), each time I came across the concepts " nation, culture, identity and democracy" , I couldn’t avoid to wonder their significance for a country like Rwanda. What means "nation", "culture", "identity" and "democracy" in Rwanda and how should we understand the Rwandan society? Even though these concepts could be applied to Rwanda, the fact is that since the 1994 genocide of Tutsis, each concept has changed its meaning for an average Rwandan. If democracy is the rule of the people, by and for the people ( taking in account the will of the majority), Rwanda deserves to be treated as an exception. An exception because the notions of " nation, culture, identity" have a very Rwandan meaning. This essay will concentrate on a brief history of Rwanda; the Rwandan notion of nation, culture and identity; and finally, what democracy for which

Rwanda? A short conclusion will end the whole.

Chap 1. A Brief Rwandan history.

According to various writers and historians, Rwandan kingdom goes back to the 13th century, when people coming from the North East Africa (the cattleman or Tutsi) settled on the land called today "Thousand hills" . Depending on feeling of writers Rwandan history is very falsified and extremist propaganda is very high (2)), the land belonged to a small population of hunters ( the Twa) who, later on, were joined by migrants from Western Africa (the Hutu) and around the 13th century arrived the cattleman who invaded the hills and pactised with kingdoms in place before dominating them and imposing monarchies. In fact, as elsewhere on earth, since the Middle-Ages, the same feudal system that dominated the world, existed in Rwanda( 3): there were kind of patron (Shebuja) for whom worked people to whom he distributed land and who owed him everything while he guaranteed them protection ( a system called ubuhake). The patron was a wealthier man featured by number of cattle. He was a Tutsi : a social class of cattle owners which could comprise Hutu as well. (4 Occupation of land had proceeded the same way every where: the right of the first occupier on the portion he settles on. And Africa was then a vast empty area where herds moved as they could. Even when colonizers arrived, large space of land that they occupied belonged to no one except the fact that these spaces were comprised in traced territory that owed them). In1884- 1885 at the Berlin conference, Rwanda and Burundi become German colonies but at the end of first world war , Germany lost its colonies: Rwanda and Burundi become Belgian colonies along with the democratic republic of Congo. When first German arrived in Rwanda, they discovered a highly organised society. There was a king (the "Mwami " who was a Tutsi born), there were civil servants, military… As most Africans’ social organisation, oral tradition was the use and written records will be introduced by the missionary (mostly roman catholic) with the institution of schools. In Rwanda, the social organisation and the division of work were not questioned: life was easy and the social cohesion was strong. As soon as schools were organised, Rwandan children learnt that some were Tutsi and others were Hutu. Colonizers relied on this structure to sit their authority. Tutsi were taught that they were superior and that they deserved "commanding post" while Hutu were inferior and were born for the "execution job". In 1933, the Belgian imposed an identity card mentioning ethnicity. After the WW2, with the 1950s independence movements, the Tutsi elite joined in and started to claim the right to autonomy. Then the Belgians woke up in Hutu the feeling that they were enslaved by Tutsi and that being the majority the Belgian poll was 85% Hutu for 14% Tutsi (records that since never changed! never questioned!), they deserved better life: Tutsis were just strangers who stole Hutu’s happiness, their land,their work, their culture… The independence (1962) was preceded by violence between Tutsi and Hutu and proclamation of Rwandan republic with a first Hutu leader ended up with the death of Tutsi’s ruling monarchy, massacre of thousand of Tutsi and thousands of exiles. Since then, with successive Hutu ruling, Tutsi lived whether in exile, whether inside Rwanda where for any reason they were massacred. In 1990s with the end of the cold war, the democratisation movement brought in the claim of Tutsi refugees who wanted to come back in Rwanda and play a political role. The extremist Hutu’s refusal of the Tutsi’s right to return had as consequence the attack of Tutsi’s guerrilla from southern Uganda. The guerrilla aborted because Mobutu (DR Congo) and Mitterand (France) came to rescue the power in place. Suddenly in 1993, when in Burundi, the first Hutu president was assassinated because of his explosive speeches, then Rwandan Hutu extremism strengthened: there was no place for Tutsi on the Rwandan political scene. But with international pressure, the president in place (Habyarimana) agreed on the principle of Tutsi’s return. In April 1994 hard line Hutu, with the cooperation of his own brother -in -law, attempted to his life and killed him in an air crash. Then the extremist Hutu with the help of French army went on with their plan Few Tutsi escaped the killings. Rwandan wound is still open (5). A wound that spreads to all neighbouring countries where Tutsi and Hutu live: the DR Congo, Burundi, Tanzania ,Uganda, Kenya (6). Even in the Western Diaspora (in Europe and America), virulent Hutu propaganda of hatred and lies are still circulating on internet and all kind of media.

Chap2. Nation, culture and identity

a/ Nation

When anti colonialism movement born in Africa, people inside border traced by the Berlin conference, found themselves united by the same aim, the same feeling, the same struggle, the same hope. People who never thought beyond their ethnicity found themselves thinking about states where different Ethnics were just simple component of a single nation. This was the birth of many African nations.(7) A strong man, symbolising unity, power, culture was a big factor for the consolidation of the nation. In country like Rwanda, a tiny country with only two components, things were not complicated. Before independence wave, Rwandans had the feeling to belong to a defined society, to a kingdom led by the Mwami, symbol of power and unity. Since independence, violence, the struggle for power and exclusion were the Rwandan feature. The feeling to belong and the willing to belong were defined by ethnicity. Since then is hard to talk about Rwandan nation. There is obviously a Rwandan state, a Rwandan money, a Rwandan people but the willing to live side by side is a lost feeling. Can there be a nation where citizens don’t feel like belonging to the same family? Having the same aim? The same hope? Ethnicity, division and exclusion (negation of the other in his very essence): that is Rwanda!

b/ culture

Rwanda’s culture is an oral culture. Before colonisation wave, Rwandans were only "Banyarwanda". they belonged to Rwanda and lived side by side on the same hills, had same traditional and religious practices, they spoke the same language and had the same philosophy of life. They intermarried and " Tutsi" was mostly related to the wealthier, the cattle owner and not exclusively an ethnic group. In marriage, Tutsi were monogamic and spouses were treated with high respect therefore the importance of a unified family. Hutu could be polygamic and have incontrollable number of kids whose education he couldn’t afford. Since the missionary schools, since the colonizers’ argument and violence that erupted, Rwandans kept the same language, the same practices but the philosophy of life changed. No longer the term "Tutsi" meant something else than an ethnic group, than the enemy. The more violence and massacre went on, the more the notion of culture become an ethnical coloured label. Any act, any behaviour is interpreted

according to the ethnic group. Since the 1990s for example the Hutu’s culture was a hatred culture and the brainwashing about the humanity of Tutsi: Tutsi no longer meant human being, they could be killed without remorse. It can be said that there is no longer one Rwandan culture: there is a separate Hutu culture kept by hatred propaganda in all neighbouring countries and denying Tutsi the right to life and flourishing, justifying any kind of physical extermination of Tutsi. A culture of wait and see until another occasion occurs to finish the job. There is a separate Tutsi culture: a culture of survival, of struggling and not sit there and wait until the extermination is achieved. Today’s Rwandan culture is a culture of uncertainty and fear (8) identity In Rwanda , on the hills everyone knew everyone. You had only to mention your family name and every one knew about your lineage. In 1933 the Belgian imposed an identity card mentioning ethnicity (Tutsi, Hutu, twa). The Hutu ruling kept that philosophy: it helped the politic of exclusion. When in 1990- 1994 extreme violence occurred , these identity helped to identify people to be massacred. In Rwanda, the identity card is not the sole proof : most Tutsi are slim , tall and don’t have big nose. So the physical appearance can be a criteria. In 1994 , it was a enough criteria to be killed even though the ID attested you were not a Tutsi . In 1996 and 1998 in DR Congo, the same thing happened: only your physical aspect could decide you fate unless people knew you and your family. Today’s government in Rwanda has banished the ethnical identity card (9) but does it change anything? In the countryside, there are almost no more Tutsi and every one knows everyone. In Kigali city, neighbours know who is what… In Rwanda, people no longer identify themselves as Rwandan only: they are whether Hutu or Tutsi. To be affiliated in group, you are expected to identify yourself. Mixed persons (half Tutsi, half Hutu) have difficult to be integrated and to live in the post genocide Rwanda. Tutsi don’t reject them because somewhere they share the same wound. Hutu have difficult to accept those who are attached to their Tutsi blood mostly those with Tutsi father. Identifying (Tutsi or Hutu) the person you are talking to is essential and more securing in Rwandan society: it breaks barrier and brings in pure air.

Chap 3 Democracy in Rwanda

At the end of the cold war, Africans states were left with no other political option than "democratisation" of all institutions as defined by westerns: political power issued from pluralist fair elections and guaranty of human basic rights for the people who, for JJ Rousseau (10 ), remains the sovereign. Before, almost all African countries were lead by a strongman who represented the supreme political, legislative and military power. Depending

on the western allies ( communist or capitalist) and their support, this man

was not accountable to his people. Whatever he decided, the people had no choice. With the loss of interest in Africa, these leaders lost their support and were confronted to high pressure from the interior. They had to open door to democratisation: pluralism, elections, people will, human right, freedom and equality of opportunity. Since 10 years now, Africans have revealed that rational and logical principle can not do with power. Africans’ rationality and logic, when it

comes to elections, is ethnicity and regionalism. No matter who is the candidate, even a crazy cow like Mugabe (Zimbabwe), only ethnicity decides the voters’ choice! Rwanda is not an exception to the rule. The actual government says that its goal is to set "a real democracy". but which democracy for which people? Starting with election would mean the victory of the majority. It would mean the return to Hutu ruling and eventually Tutsi’s exclusion and another mass killings. Nation, culture and identity being prisoners of ethnicity, there can be no democratic election in Rwanda or Burundi. Democracy should be interpreted another way for both countries: something like the equitable sharing of power between the two ethnic group standing as 1 against 1. The idea of majority as defined by political theory doesn’t fit for both Rwanda and Burundi. Thinking of majority and minority is a wrong basis for democracy in Rwanda. Minority is a concept acceptable in a complex state society (11) like the DR Congo’s society and not in Rwanda where we have only two components that think of themselves as being ethnically and racially different. The western democracy Belgium with two separate communities could inspire and serve of model for Rwanda. But definitely, to bring Rwandan Tutsi and Hutu together remains a big deal while for victims of genocide, there has not still been a spectacular punishment to discourage forever these criminal to start again.

Conclusion.

With the end of the cold war and the debate over "democracy in Africa" in the early 1990s, there was hope that Rwanda and Burundi could fit with the new wave. Being a small and poor country, international actors mattered little what was the Rwandan society until the 1994 blow and attempt of Tutsi’s

extermination. Since then, being a Tutsi or a Hutu is the real identity, the real culture, the real nationality. Rwandan politics and international actors spend time

on hypocrite theories about reconciliation, about good governance but across the road, the wound is still open, the holes are still empty and feelings are still raw. One of the main reason is the way Rwandan and international justice dealt with the 1994 criminals. Almost three quarter of Hutus living in Rwanda in 1991- 1994 did cooperate, though at different level, in the extermination of Tutsi (12). Why since there is no justice and punishment? In Democratic Rep of Congo, in Uganda, in Tanzania, in Europe or in America, the truth behind the screens is that despite the same history, same language, same religion, same country ( and maybe the same ethnic group because the label Tutsi-Hutu are loose concept), there exist a truly Tutsi’s identity, a truly Hutu identity which dominate the concept of nation, culture, democracy… Sadly a big number of Rwandan Hutu living inside Rwanda are uneducated and have been taught that Tutsi stole their land and are their worst enemy deserving no right to life or property in Rwanda. Pretending that democracy is the rule of the majority, in Rwanda and Burundi , it may mean the massacre of Tutsi or their fleeing because one

question remains unanswered: can Hutu transcend hatred and extermination ideology (13) to become political animal in a country where Tutsi and Hutus must live together? Democracy being based on the elections and the rule of the majority, in Rwanda it is not the best choice. For Rwanda, where "nation, culture and identity" are reduced to concept of Tutsi and Hutu, democracy should be a compromising solution between both group standing like 1 against 1 on the way the country should be governed:

the rule of majority and democratic elections ( the majority ruling led to 1994 genocide )are incongruity and

empty political concepts for Rwandan society!

Bibliography

Books  

1. Gordon, April &…,(2001), understanding contemporary Africa, London, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

3. Mukagasana, Yolande, (1999), N’aie pas peur de savoir, France, J’ai Lu.

4. Norman, Barry, (1991), An introduction to modern political theory, London, MacMillan.