Rwanda abolishes its death penalty

Recently, the government of Rwanda has legally abolished the death penalty. This has been lauded by international human rights organisations and activists as proof of "... the political and democratic commitment of the country towards national reconciliation" (statement made by European commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Louis Michel).

I remain troubled by the unabashed international enthusiasm for Rwanda's "impressive progress". And the continued uncritical gaze of international actors combined with impressive amounts of moral and financial support for the reconstitution of the Rwandan state. The EU, for example, holds that Rwanda is back on track. Remember that Rwanda was the darling of the international donor community in the 1970s and 1980s. Recall also that it was, in part, international fervour for democratisation and multi-partyism that provoked the genocide. If these statements ring hollow, see for example, Straus (2005), The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda, and Uvin (1998). Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda). The current government is playing to international audiences when it abolishes the death penalty, particularly given the overall lack of security for most Rwandans. And while I would love to believe that prisoners accused of crimes that attract the death penalty will receive a fair trial and balanced justice, the abolition rings hollow when Human Rights Watch reports that deaths while in police custody are on the rise. Surely, just as before the genocide, the international community knows about the contradictions and abuses of the current government.

The EU statement lists what it considers to be Rwanda's impressive gains: "National and local elections were held in 2003 and 2006 respectively. Basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are formally protected by the 2003 constitution, which also provides for institutions to monitor and protect these rights. Unity and reconciliation activities have increased with the nationwide roll-out of the Gacaca process in 2006 and the acceleration of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Both are scheduled for completion in 2008. Rwanda's improving governance environment is reflected in its recent African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report, endorsed by African Heads of State in 2006".

Um, ok. But we know that the 2003 and 2006 were not secret ballot, that intimidation practices were rife, campaigning was restricted, and anything amounting to disloyalty to the ruling RPF was a one-way ticket to prison. (see for example the reports of the International Crisis Group as well as the report of the Mission d’observation électorale de l’Union Européene).

Basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected by the 003 constitution, but access to the courts is limited to those with the ability to mount a case. The cost, as well as the fear of reprisal make a trip to the courtroom to provide those rights out of the reach of virtually all Rwandans.

New institutions, like the Ombudsman, the Rwandan Human Rights Commission and the Legal and Constitutional Commission, do exist. But virtually nothing is known about their functioning. How can we assert they are upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms without more insider knowledge. Why is the word of the Rwandan government sufficient when we know that governments are more likely to harm their citizens in times of 'peace' than in periods of crisis; democide is more prevalent phenomenon around the world than is genocide or politicide.

And on the APRM, Rwanda actually received a caution from the NEPAD secretariat, particularly on human rights, political disappearances and the lack of autonomous civil society. I tried to get a copy of Rwanda's APRM review when I was in Rwanda in 2006; I was told repeatedly that it was an internal government document. How is that for transparency and accountability, two alleged pillars of democratic societies? And Rwanda's review is endorsed by African Heads of States. Are those the same Heads of State that have, for example, left Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to wreak havoc on his people?

The most worrying comment of the EU commissioner is the presence of ethnic unity and reconciliation through the gacaca and ICTR trials. It is well known that the Rwandan government has no time for UN justice. As for gacaca, acts of unity and reconciliation have indeed been performed but do we know anything about the actual presence of reconciliation between ordinary Rwandans?

Justice is forced upon ordinary Rwandans in the name of national unity and reconciliation. Individuals are constantly and consistently reminded of the need to reconcile to consolidate present peace and future security. The gacaca process resolves the case officially at the level of the individual while at the same time re-inforces the image of the post-genocide state as one that at least tries to treat its citizens fairly in the pursuit of national unity and reconciliation. Long after the decision has been rendered however, ordinary Rwandans are left with the everyday, lived realities of “unity” and of “reconciliation” in a social context that remains for most participants one of fear and insecurity. The security of state trumps individual processes of reconciliation.

Rwanda. Africa's Past and Present?

David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party, is currently in Rwanda. Yesterday, he spoke to the Rwanda's Lower Chamber where he called for increased trade between "Rich" and "Poor" Countries (See, for example, http://allafrica.com/stories/200707250331.html). I won't even comment on this as his arguments for increased aid transparency and a reduction in conditionality not only ring hollow, but are also age-old. There is nothing new in his language. The standard critique applies: It really doesn't matter what politicians say they are going to do, it matters what effects their words have on the ground. Or, as I like to say, where does the rubber hit the pavement...? Cameron, who launched his parties' report on their global poverty policy, called on European and other "rich" nations to drop their trade barriers to "poorer" nations by 2013. As if....

The more interesting bit of Cameron's speech was when he said that Rwanda was the best place to launch his global poverty report because "it represents both the tragedy of Africa's past and hope for the future". What does he mean by this? Is he not aware that the state apparatus that allowed for the mass mobilisation of Hutu civilians to kill their Tutsi family, friends and neighbours is the same one that is forcibly 'asking' them to do so through new state practices of, for example, ingando (citizenship re-education) and gacaca (community-based courts). Has he stopped to notice that when a government goes from the decimation of genocide to a neat and well-ordered society that the power of the state is obviously behind such order? Would you not stop and think that the order might be forced, or even worse, oppressive?

I wonder also if he knows that Rwanda, lauded by Cameron and others, for its impressive return to the rule of law is aware of the increase in the death of detainees at the hands Rwanda prison authorities? (see, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/23/rwanda16455.htm). I hate to be the eternal pessimist here but when international figures like Cameron lend credibility to the self-legitimising practices of a repressive government in saying things like "Rwanda is representative of both Africa's past and present" based on little to no knowledge of that past, and only aspirational, and non-descript, hopes for the future, who wins and who loses?

I think those in state power 'win' while the population 'loses'....

A smart, if sarcastic, blog on Rwanda

i am bloody sick and tired of all these so-called Rwanda experts (what self-respecting expert uses the title expert anyway?) who say the country is back on track and doing it right. They fail to define 'it'. If they mean oppressive and authoritarian practices that piggy back the so-called success of the government in restoring peace, generating social harmony and reconciliation and promoting economic development, then maybe they are doing 'it' right. If they mean the actual presence of peace, social harmony and reconciliation and economic development, they mean for the elite of the elite -- the anglophone state class -- then they have 'it' ass-backwards.

i like the no-holds-barred musings of this plastic toy:

http://ugandascarlettlion.blogspot.com/2007/07/rwanda-ict-hub-really.html

and

http://ugandascarlettlion.blogspot.com/2007/07/less-than-1-of-rwanda-just-like.html

i wish she was writing for Vanity Fair....

Rwandan President Kagame and Quincy Jones....

So, the recent issue of Vanity Fair magazine has done a full feature issue on Africa. The general theme of the issue is a celebrity bonanza of what is being done to save Africa. My pessimistic feelings about celebrity activism aside, who is kidding who in this arrangement? Bono as the guest editor. Really? Brad Pitt interviewing Desmond Tutu. Strange combination as Pitt clearly used someone else's crib notes to hold up his end of the conversation... David Bowie is an African. Hmmmm. Quincy Jones counts Rwandan President Paul Kagame as one of his heros?

The trouble I have with this is the umbrella theme of celebrity activism: We can save Africa. All they need is the right kind of support. Private-public partnerships in form of ideas and money from foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation are the wave of the future and celebrities can steer these resources to good use. This is the same logic that the development enterprise accorded to the civil society and NGOs in the 1980s and 1990s. So suffice it to say that public-private partnerships are not the latest and greatest thing; nor is celebrity activism.

Despite their good intentions, when celebrities lend their star-power to African projects, there is considerable room for things to go sour for the very people they are hoping to support. The project is not vastly different that the modernising approach to Africa that swept the continent at the time of independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The playing field is somewhat different than it was then, what with China able to circumvent development assistance budgets in one fell swoop of 'incentives' that pad their multi-million dollar 'development' projects. In Rwanda, for example, Chinese money is far outstripping what aid dollars can and will do.

What does this mean for celebrities with big hearts and even bigger wallets? I think it means that in all their efforts to save Africa, they are in fact pushing things backwards for ordinary people. Political and economic elites, known among Africanist academics, as the state class (those who benefit from the resources of the state) get richer and the poor get poorer. Celebrities, despite their good intentions, are unaware of the complex political situations into which they enter when they lend their good name to a government or a cause. At least China is more realistic about it aspirations for Africa; it wants to get as much access the raw materials needed to fuel its domestic economy for the least amount of social and economic capital. China is knowingly feeding the state class in the countries it engages, while celebrities are riding a wave of feel-good activism. To paraphrase The Gap advertisement in Vanity Fair, you CAN be a good-looking Samaritan. At the end of the day, both China and celebrity activism is about consumption. More production in China means cheaper (and safer?) goods for markets across the globe, while Westerners can feel good about consuming more celebrity-approved or -endorsed products that are designed to get us to consume more while saving Africa. An interesting configuration of social justice to be sure....

Vab

Gacaca reconciliation in Rwanda?

I am increasingly concerned about growing rifts between the Rwandan government and critics of the gacaca process. Gacaca courts were established by the government to clear the backlog of individuals detained on charges of crimes committed during the 1994 genocide. Suspects are judged by a panel of twelve judges in their home community courts. All participants in the process, the judges, the witnesses and the audience, are members of the community where the killers allegedly killed. The rationale is that this community-centric process will not only reveal the truth about who did what to whom during the genocide, but will also give survivors of the genocide a chance to forgive those who killed their loved ones. The core assumption is that after the gacaca encounter, the survivor and the accused will reconcile, and once the accused has returned home to his community, national unity will inevitably ensue. (I purposively say 'his' as the government has basically accused all male adult Hutu with crimes of genocide -- they allege 1 million guilty of genocide. Academic research estimates more like 200,000 killers.)

Critics are, rightly I think, skeptical of the quality of justice that gacaca represents. The courts, they opine, is skewed against Hutu and constitutes "another form of genocide" for those who find themselves languishing in prison, awaiting trial and for those who are released, an uneasy welcome to their home communities. International commentators have focused on the human rights dynamics, pointing out that the gacaca courts did not follow standard legal practices that would protect both victim and accused. Needless to say, the criticism does not go far enough, nor is it particularly helpful in assuring an improved quality of justice for individuals in their communities.

Caught in between the growing rift between the government and its critics are ordinary Rwandans, those non-elite men and women, boys and girls who shoulder the bulk of the burden of reconciling in the ways that gacaca requires. Reconciliation is performed between survivors and perpetrators of the genocide in the presence of community-nominated and -elected judges while an audience of family, friends and neighbours looks on. Unfortunately, the actual presence of reconciliation is far from assured, although the requisite signs and stamps of someone who has passed through the process are made. Survivors are said to forgive once the perpetrator has told his truth. The truth is judged first the judges, in the presence and witness of the community. The quality of justice is less that what international human rights observers deem necessary; the justice is said to be traditional and keeping within Rwandan cultural norms says the government.

I wonder though if gacaca just isn't a spectacle of state power that the government uses to silence its critics and opposition, circumvent domestic civil society organisation while foisting some semblance of 'reconciliation' on ordinary people.

Rwanda and Burundi join the East African Community

Recently, the ECA voted to allow Rwanda and Burundi to become members. Surely big news for both countries as the official line is that membership has it rewards.

I am always bemused when these countries pony up to the big boys because they, particularly Rwanda, has a habit of punching above its weight. Yes, membership with the more economically and politically stable markets of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania may bring said stability to Rwanda and Burundi. But does it bring other forms of security, like freedom from fear, or hunger, or HIV/AIDS? Both Rwanda and Burundi are sacrificing meaningful reconciliation among individuals and communities at the expense of economic opportunities for the few. By the few, I mean those in the state class....

Does anyone see that Rwanda is laying down the same networks and structures of power that led to the 1994 genocide in the first place? Burundi? It's too early to tell given the infancy of its peace agreement but I would offer the same with the appropriate cautions at this stage in the game.

Either way, it's pretty safe to say that both the incentives and rationalisations of the state classes to make further extractions on the rural masses of Rwandans and Burundians are sure to find resonance with both regional bodies like the EAC and the international donor community.

'master of disinformation'

In March of this year, I was publicly denounced as a "master of disinformation" by the Rwandan Ambassador to Canada. He was speaking to a group of graduate students and faculty at Dalhousie University in Halifax when he mentioned my work as "very dangerous" and "not to be tolerated". After much to-ing and fro-ing with the Rwandan Embassy in Ottawa, I decided to stop posting for a while... My research on Rwanda relies heavily on the voices and perspectives of ordinary Rwandans and I wanted to put some distance between the comments of the Ambassador, and my work. So, I feel now like enough time has passed and I can get back to blogging.

In the interests of transparency, I have made most of my written work, whether draft or final form, available on my website. I would be interested in hearing from others out there who have had concerns about the impact of their research on local communities and the individuals who live there...

That said, onto the criticism. Rwanda recently celebrated its 13th independence day. So called because it is the day that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) took state power after it had successfully stopped the 1994 genocide on 1 July 1994. The Arusha Accords were to guide the transition period, and the RPF was much heralded for its instrumental role in stopping the killing.

In 1998, the RPF embarked on a programme of national unity that was designed to promote "one Rwanda for all Rwandans" and do away with once-and-for-all the divisive ethnic policies of the past. While President Kagame and his crew work the international community, selling Rwanda as a beacon of stability and prosperity in the troubled Great Lakes Region of Africa, the treatment of domestic actors has gone unnoticed, and as a result, unchallenged, by the international community. International donors, and investors, all laud Rwanda as an example of what can be done to transform a state from war to peace. The economy continues to grow at an estimated 8% per year, reconciliation and national unity are the basis of social programmes, HIV/AIDS treatment is "widely available" and the country is secure and stable.

In practice, the economy is fueling growth in the centre (read, Kigali) and for urban, educated, elites. Poverty continues to deepen as food insecurity grows. Reconciliation and national unity are but catch-phrases for an international community all-too-willing to participate in turning around a country that was "shattered" by genocide. Local elites determine who reconciles with whom on orders from central government offices. Authentic reconciliation and national unity are light-years away. HIV/AIDS is touching the lives of most Rwandans through their dense family and community ties. Only those individuals who can get to a government-sponsored health clinic can receive care; and care is decided on the basis of who did what during the genocide. Female survivors, rightfully I think, receive the lion's share; but what of other Rwandans? HIV/AIDS treatment is contingent on social networks and political alliances.... The security and prosperity of Rwanda is urban-centric. Insecurity of all types prevails in the hillsides, where 90% of Rwandans eek out a subsistence existence.

This disconnect is further reinforced by recent glowing comments about Rwandan in "Vanity Fair". Quincy Jones goes so far as to say that Rwandan President Paul Kagame is one of his heros. Celebrity accolades are far of the mark in this case.