• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

R econciliation in P o st-g en o c id e R w a n d a D is c o u r s e a n d P r a c t ic e A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Development Studies The copyright o f this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent o f the author. Eugenia Zorbas Development Studies Institute (DESTIN) London School of Economics and Political Science University of London UMI Number: U615485 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615485 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 V' ■ J -+ - Signed Declaration (a) I authorise that the thesis presented by me in 2007 for examination for the PhD degree of the University of London shall, if a degree is awarded, be deposited in the library of the appropriate College and in the University of London Library and that, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph (d) below, my thesis be made available for public reference, inter-library loan and copying. (b) I authorise the College or University authorities as appropriate to supply a copy of the abstract of my thesis for inclusion in any published list of theses offered for higher degrees in British universities or in any supplement thereto, or for consultation in any central file of abstracts of such theses. (c) I authorise the College and the University of London Libraries or their designated agents to make a microform or digital copy of my thesis for the purposes of inter- library loan and the supply of copies. (d) I understand that before my thesis is made available for public reference, inter- library loan and copying, the following statement will have been included at the beginning of my thesis: The copyright o f this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent o f the author. (e) I authorise the College and/or the University of London to make a microform or digital copy of my thesis in due course as the archival copy for permanent retention in substitution for the original copy. (f) I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. (g) I understand that in the event of my thesis not being approved by the examiners, this declaration will become void. Eugenia Zorbas Eugenia Zorbas, Reconciliation in Post-genocide Rwanda 2 Ahabaye inkovu hadasubirana. A wound does not heal completely. - Rwandan proverb (quoted in Longman and Rutagengwa, 2004) Eugenia Zorbas, Reconciliation in Post-genocide Rwanda 3 Ton « ethnie », c ’est la pauvrete. Your “ethnicity” is poverty. - RPF representative (Kigali, 8 August 2005, my translation) Eugenia Zorbas, Reconciliation in Post-genocide Rwanda 4 Abstract Many government (and donor) policies in post-genocide Rwanda have been justified in the name of “reconciliation”. Yet, reconciliation is almost never defined - in the Rwandan context, or in the literature. This thesis unpacks this nebulous concept by analysing the discourses and expectations of different constituencies - the RPF government, a group of non-government elites, the Top Five donors to the country, and respondents from two rural communities. Despite great variance in personal circumstance, significant areas of consensus are found. For example, establishing degrees of responsibility - and punishment - for the genocide was broadly welcomed. However, one way in which this was implemented, through a government prisoner release programme that amounted to “institutionalised forgiveness”, was not widely supported. An in-depth study of the rural communities is also undertaken to unearth what factors had an impact on the reconciliation process. Based on these data, three explanatory factors are posited for patterns of reconciliation and non-reconciliation, or, as per the definition of grassroots respondents, for coexistence and non-coexistence. First, at the individual level, life stories since 1994 mattered more in explaining behaviours and attitudes today than experiences during the genocide. Second, the level, depth, breadth and type of social interactions were equally influential, reinforcing the validity of Sociology’s “Contact hypothesis”. Third, the RPF’s top-down style is associated with a negative impact, suggesting the government’s strategy is self-defeating. Indeed, the imposition of “mandatory” reconciliation behaviours contradicted one of the pillars of the RPF reconciliation strategy, i.e. the promotion of independent thinking in order to rout out an alleged Rwandan tradition of obedience. Overall, the thesis debunks several misconceptions about reconciliation and about Rwandan politics and society. For example, ethnic heritage did not have an explanatory or predictive quality; more important were class distinctions or, as respondents put it, distinctions between “high” and “low people”. Keywords: Rwanda, reconciliation, coexistence, ethnicity, Rwandan Patriotic Front, post­ genocide Eugenia Zorbas, Reconciliation in Post-genocide Rwanda 5 Acknowledgements This PhD project has been a four and a half year long, tumultuous journey that has taken me between London, Kigali, Montreal, and Washington DC. I could not have embarked on, or survived, this project without the love, support, and encouragement of family and friends. My parents, Maria and Efthymios Zorbas, gave me the confidence and security to not be afraid of challenges, and when I fail, they have taught me to stand up, dust myself off, and try again. I can not adequately express what their unqualified love and support, even as I headed off to remote comers of central Africa, has meant to me. Beatrice Alain and Jaideep Mukerji proved tireless editors of too many draft chapters, sending me detailed comments and encouragements via email and in person for months and years on end. Michael Khouri, Ken Pippin and Eve Naftalin provided shelter and much needed moral sustenance during my trips to London in 2006 and 2007. I am also grateful to a growing group of fellow pupils of Rwanda, many of whom have become cherished personal friends during the course of this PhD project. I want to single out the insights, research tips, and sympathetic ear of Lars Waldorf, Lee Ann Fujii and Elizabeth Levy Paluck in particular. Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Nathalie Wlodarczyk and Rene Lemarchand read the final draft of the thesis as I prepared for my oral defence (known as the viva voce in the British system); their careful comments and detailed feedback were a treasured pleasure to receive in what has intellectually often been a solitary trip. In Kigali, Jean Charles Paras, Nadege Degris and Veronique Geoffroy provided not only friendship (and occasionally, a roof!) but also demonstrated incredible insight and humility in the face of the complex social, economic and political processes going on in Rwanda. At the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), I am grateful to my lead supervisor, Dr. James Putzel. My second supervisor, Dr Nigel Eltringham, an anthropologist and Rwanda scholar based at Sussex University, has been an enthusiastic and meticulous reader of all my work. His published work and his comments on my drafts have had a big influence on my thinking and writing. During the upgrade process from MPhil to PhD status, Dr Dennis Rodgers and Dr David Keen, two of my reviewers, were tough but exceedingly fair and generous, eventually helping me to hone a research project that was not only “do-able”, but also one that I enjoyed carrying out. During the preparatory pre-fieldwork period, my fellow PhD students at the LSE’s Development Studies Institute, Claire Q. Smith, Bettina Woll, and Lauren Flejzor, with whom I shared an office (the much missed “H504 girls”) gave me more strength and determination to persevere than they know. Peter Uvin and Mark Hoffman, my examiners during the viva voce, proved to be by far the most relentlessly critical audience I have yet to face. From them I learned that as much vigour and determination is required to defend one’s positions as there is in crafting them to begin with. This dissertation was made possible through generous grants from the Fonds Quebecois de recherche sur la societe et la culture (Quebec government) and the London School of Economics. Fieldwork funding was provided by the Crisis States Programme at the LSE, the Central Research Fund at the University of London, and by Goodenough College. I am grateful to the Rwandan Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, the Service National des Juridictions Gacaca (SNJG), and the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) for research permissions in Rwanda. I wish to thank Eugenia Zorbas, Reconciliation in Post-genocide Rwanda 6 the NURC staff, in particular the Executive Secretary Fatuma Ndangiza and her assistant Agnes Mukamazimpaka, who were both encouraging and exceptionally helpful. In Maraba, where I spent the second half of my fieldwork period, the district office staff were among the most energetic and good natured people I met in Rwanda: they worked extremely hard with virtually no resources - and frequently went unpaid - yet they never lost their good cheer. They were accommodating from the beginning, patiently answering all my questions.

Load more

  321

Copy Link