Rwanda is a country torn by deeply-rooted ethnic conflict between Hutu (85% of the population) and Tutsi (14% of the population) despite the fact that the Hutu and Tutsi communities share a common culture and common religious beliefs. Cyclical mass killings against the Tutsi community started in 1959 and culminated in the recent genocide in which up to one million Tutsi perished in only one hundred days between April and July of 1994.(1) Soon after the genocide, the Hutu-led government responsible for the genocide was overthrown by the Tutsi-dominated Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) amidst killings of innocent Hutu. These killings continued after the new government was in place.(2)

The new government established in July 1994 appeared to be a government of national unity with the stated goal of promoting reconciliation and eradicating impunity. That is why the new govenment set up a National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation (NCUR) as well as a traditional institution of justice, called Gacaca, to deal with the huge number of the perpetrators of the genocide of Tutsi. Unfortunately, these important initiatives came to be more window-dressing than effective endeavors of reconciliation between the two communities. In this article, I explain why reconciliation is crucially needed and how it is normally achieved. I then propose a new approach to achieve sustainable reconciliation between Hutu and Tutsi.

2. Why Reconciliation in Rwanda?

Reconciliation in Rwanda is an absolute necessity. The genocide of the Tutsi in 1994 requires, in itself, some process of reconciliation between the victims and the perpetrators. This state-sponsored genocide was "a well planned and massively executed genocide, which led to the brutal slaughter of up to one million defenseless children, women, and men."(3.) The 1994 genocide was in fact a culmination of cyclical mass killings that started in 1959 when the Tutsi no longer had power. In addition, the former Hutu army and militia launched several mortal attacks on Rwanda from the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997 and 1998 in which they "slaughtered members of the Tutsi minority, government officials, and others who refused to support the rebellion."(4) During the raids, hundreds of Tutsi soldiers were killed and hundreds others injured. All these injuries to the Tutsi community created deep wounds, hatred, and fear that now constitute serious obstacles to a peaceful coexistence between the two communities.

The Tutsi-led government in place since July 1994 itself has been responsible for several waves of violence against the Hutu community. There are persistent accusations of mass killings against Hutu refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The United Nations Security Council has discussed massacres and other atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, especially in the Eastern provinces, including crimes against humanity.(5) Also, during the Hutu rebellion in Northern Rwanda in 1997 and 1998, soldiers of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) killed unarmed civilians, sometimes in pursuit of insurgents, but also in places or at times in which no rebels were present but where the soldiers suspected the population of supporting them.(6) These soldiers may have caused the deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands of persons who had sought refuge in caves at Kanama in 1997.(7) In addition, several other cases of unexplained killings and disappearances of Hutu have been reported, most notably, the scandalous methods used to close the camp of Kibeho in 1995 in Southern Rwanda.(8) These experiences have fostered anger and fear within the Hutu community that, in turn, impede the possibility of peaceful inter-ethnic relations.

When I talk about the genocide against the Tutsi, and the mass killings against the Hutu, I have no intention of equating the genocide to other crimes. As a survivor of the genocide, I know what genocide means.(9) However, a reconciliation process is needed to resolve the different contentions of the various parties involved. For the victims, the most pressing need is the truth, healing, and prevention of future violent conflict that a successful reconciliation process could provide.

Each past regime, be it Hutu-dominated or Tutsi-dominated, established a structural violence against the other ethnic group that operated through exclusion, humiliation, and inequality. The structural violence led not only to physical violence, but also to trauma and to enemy images in both communities. That is why reconciliation is a crucial necessity to heal psychologically the victims of past violence and to break the cycle of violence. If the process of reconciliation does not happen soon, the situation might deteriorate, resulting in other inter-ethnic catastrophes.

3. What Is Reconciliation?

Reconciliation is a complex process between individuals or groups that involves a public accounting of the truth about past violations of human rights, followed by apologies and forgiveness, and hopefully, the willingness to envision positive relationships. Hizkias Assefa gives us the core elements of reconciliation: (a) an honest acknowledgement of the harm/ injury each party has inflicted on the other; (b) sincere regrets and remorse for the injury done; (c) readiness to apologize for one's role in inflicting the injury; (d) readiness of the conflicting parties to "let go" of the anger and bitterness caused by the conflict and the injury; (e) commitment by the offender to not repeat the injury; (f) sincere effort to redress past grievances that caused the conflict and compensate the damage caused to the extent possible; and (g) entrance into a new mutually enriching relationship.(10) The Hutu and Tutsi need to go through all these processes. The most difficult but crucial step would be the honest acknowledgement of the harm each party has inflicted on the other, as well as a dialogue to generate change and transformation for a peaceful future. John Paul Lederach says: "Reconciliation is the point of encounter where concerns about both the past and the future can meet. Reconciliation as encounter, suggests that space for the acknowledging of the past and envisioning of the future is the necessary ingredient for reframing the present. For this to happen, people must find ways to encounter themselves and their enemies, their hopes and their fears."(11) The Hutu and Tutsi need the courage to begin this reconciliation process. It will not be easy but a dialogue about the past as well as about the needs and the fears of each community is the key to a peaceful future coexistence.

4. Problems of Reconciliation in Rwanda?

The way reconciliation is conducted in Rwanda now does not meet the criteria listed above. First, the NCUR had deliberately avoided fulfilling its prime objective, which is to organize an in-depth national debate on unity and national reconciliation. The spirit behind the national debate was to facilitate truth telling between Hutu and Tutsi and to set in motion a process of sustainable coexistence between the two communities. This has not yet happened and apparently there is no political will to organize such a delicate but useful exercise. What the national commission does is to sensitize the population about unity and reconciliation and the monstrosity of the genocide of Tutsi, especially to expose the failures of past regimes. Nothing is said about the mass killings against the Hutu community, which is also denied the opportunity to bury, mourn, and remember their loved ones who perished in the violence.

Second, the traditional form of justice put in place is irrelevant to the complexity of the situation since it is a one-way process and it prosecutes and punishes instead of rehabilitating relationships between the two ethnic groups. Genocide suspects are the only focus on this institution, whereas the original intent was to establish an institution to look into human rights violations committed by both communities. Of course one should not equate the genocide to other crimes, but in a reconciliation process all grievances must be addressed, and reparations must be provided in a restorative and equitable manner. Traditionally, the Gacaca dealt only with minor cases; it neither handled criminal cases nor required judges or jail terms. The Gacaca has little to do with Rwandan culture, especially since the genocide and other crimes against humanity and their collateral effects have destroyed the fundamental value structure that formed the basis of the Gacaca.(12) Third, Gacaca will obviously speed up the trials of more than 120,000 genocide suspects, but it "may be subject to political pressures, and lacks some basic internationally recognized safeguards, such as the right to legal counsel."(13) Fourth, the Gacaca has little to do with reconciliation between the perpetrators and the victims and does not seek to repair the social relationships that the conflict affected.

It seems to me that there will be no reconciliation in Rwanda unless the truth about the past human rights abuses are disclosed and acknowledged. The past human rights abuses should be handled not through retributive justice but rather through restorative justice, which provides an opportunity to both the victims and the perpetrators to take part in the reconciliation process. Restorative justice can be achieved in the framework of a truth and reconciliation commission similar to the South African one.

5. The Need for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Truth commissions are official bodies that investigate, within a limited time frame, past human rights violations in order to paint the overall picture of abuses that occurred in a particular country over a specific period of time.(14) For the last fifteen years, truth commissions have been effective in addressing the past wrongs and contributing to the peaceful coexistence between communities around the world. Through the core elements of reconciliation mentioned earlier, truth commissions can be valuable in their own right, because of their broad scope of inquiry, inclusive character, impact on victims, and their forward-looking nature.(15)

In order for the truth to be revealed, perpetrators need to be encouraged to participate; if they face prosecution and punishment- that is retributive justice- they will not tell the truth. Thus, given the crucial importance of the truth for not only the victims but also for the prevention of future catastrophes, it is important to think about the structure of incentives for Rwandan perpetrators. In South Africa, the perpetrators were granted amnesty in exchange for full disclosure of their crimes. That is restorative justice that embodies a recognition of the humanity of both offender and victim, and holds as the primary goal to heal old wounds.(16) Furthermore, retributive justice in Rwanda is not possible because many people on both sides were involved in the genocide or in the mass killings, and most of them are at the same time victims. The genocide of the Tutsi, for example, involved such a large number of Hutu to commit the crimes, convinced that no judicial action could be taken against them under the principle that if everybody is guilty, then nobody can be individually condemned.

Like South Africans, Rwandans should come up, through dialogue, with a settlement about how to deal with the past and about appropriate mechanisms to prevent future violent conflict. There is no doubt that a truth and reconciliation approach could be of great importance.

6. Conclusion

The reconciliation efforts in Rwanda have thus far had fundamental problems due to the inappropriate approaches taken. The fact that the genocide was a horrendous crime against humanity perpetrated by the Hutu does not excuse the mass killings committed by the Tutsi. Although the two kinds of crimes are totally different, the reconciliation process requires establishing a complete picture of all crimes, especially the gross human rights violations. Also, since the restorative justice has the benefit of reconciling the victims and perpetrators as well as creating new relationships between the two communities, the current Gacaca form of justice should tackle the crimes committed by both sides, and should include the healing and reconciling aspects of restorative justice.
The appropriate approach to promote a sustainable reconciliation is a truth commission similar to the one in South Africa, known to be one of the best conceived and the most ambitious commission to date.(17) Otherwise, the Hutu and the Tutsi are closed up and could explode again in the future.(18) Of course, this process requires some prerequisites such as a democratic and representative government since "democracy is a prime peace builder and an effective confidence building measure."(19)

1. The year 1959 was the beginning of violent interethnic conflict and the fall of the long- standing Tutsi monarchy system.
2. The RPF, now the ruling party in Rwanda, was a military movement launched in October 1990 from Uganda.
3. See Peter Uvin, Aiding Violence: The development enterprise in Rwanda, (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1998), 1.
4. See Human Rights Watch Report on Rwanda in 1999.
5. See UN Security Council Statement S/PRST/1998/20 of 13 July 1998.
6. RPA is the former rebel army of the Rwandese Patriotic Front. The same denomination is used for the current national army.
7. See Human Rights Watch Report on Rwanda in 1999.
8. See Amnesty International reports on the issue and Andre Sibomana, Hope for Rwanda, (London; Sterling, VA: Pluto Press; Dar Es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers, 1999), 139-151.
9. See Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
10. Hizkias Assefa, "The Meaning of Reconciliation," in People Building Peace, (Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, in cooperation with the International Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Coexistence Initiative of State of the World Forum, 1999), 42.
11. John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 27.
12. Filip Reyntjens and Stef Vandeginste, "Traditional Approaches to Negotiation and Mediation: Examples from Africa. Burundi, Rwanda and Congo," in Peace Building: A Field Guide, ed. Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz, (Boulder-London: Lynne Riener, 2001) 130.
13. See the declaration of Alison Desforges, Senior Adviser to the African Division of Human Rights Watch, (October 2001).
14. Michelle Parleviliet, "Telling the Truth in the Wake of Mass Violence," in People Building Peace, 48.
15. Ibid.
16. See Desmond Mpilo Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness, (New York: Doubleday, 1999).
17. See Dorothy C. Shea, The South African Truth Commission: The Politics of Reconciliation, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2000), 5.
18. See Wendy Lambourne, "Justice and reconciliation. Postconflict Peacebuilding in Cambodia and Rwanda, in Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice," ed. Mohammed Abu-Nimer, (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 327.
19. See Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz, eds., Read Peace Building: A Field Guide, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001).

Joseph K. Sebarenzi is the former Speaker of Rwandan Parliament (1997-2000). He is a sociologist currently working with the School for International Training in Vermont, in the field of Conflict Transformation. He holds an honorary doctorate in Law from Marlboro College in Vermont. Before he entered politics, he worked with civil society organizations in Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.