Guest Column

Rwanda and SA: Truth not enough to set you free

2017-04-09 06:13
A woman consoles Bizimana Emmanuel (22) at the 20th anniversary comme-moration of the 1994 genocide in Kigali, Rwanda. Picture: Getty Images

A woman consoles Bizimana Emmanuel (22) at the 20th anniversary comme-moration of the 1994 genocide in Kigali, Rwanda. Picture: Getty Images

Multimedia   ·   User Galleries   ·   News in Pictures Send us your pictures  ·  Send us your stories

Cori Wielenga

The year 1994 was significant for Africa. South ­Africa made a peaceful transition to democracy.

But on a darker note, Rwanda experienced a ­tragic and violent genocide.

Both countries initiated national reconciliation processes that captured the world’s attention.

South Africa had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); Rwanda set up the Gacaca Community Courts.

The TRC was tasked with bearing witness to and recording – and in some cases granting amnesty to – the perpetrators of crimes related to human rights violations during apartheid.

The Gacaca Community Courts, based on a precolonial ­Rwandan approach to justice, were asked to establish what ­happened to the Tutsi during the genocide.

Their job was to expedite the cases of those accused of genocide-related crimes.

Both processes were meant to contribute to interpersonal and national reconciliation.

But in both countries it’s become clear that the road to reconciliation doesn’t begin or end with commissions or trials. It’s much more complex.

Reconciliation goes hand in hand with many other factors and generates many difficult questions. Who needs to be reconciled with whom?

Who should initiate the process? Who should facilitate it? What should it look like? How do national and interpersonal movements towards reconciliation intersect, if at all?

Can you reconcile when there’s no freedom? Justice? Equality? Redress?

Post-apartheid South Africa

South Africa’s reconciliation process began with an unusual generosity of spirit on the part of those who could rightly have been classified as victims.

Telling the story of what happened as truthfully as possible was the central tenet at the start of South Africa’s post-1994 reconciliation journey.

But early on, concern was expressed that the country was trading justice for truth.

In response to those criticisms the Institute for Justice and ­Reconciliation, an organisation that grew out of the work of the TRC, began focusing on equity and fairness as a central ­component to reconciliation.

Through its annual “reconciliation barometer”, the organisation found that economic justice has become ­increasingly important to South Africans.

You only have to pay attention to current affairs to see the truth in this finding.

The Economic Freedom Fighters are calling for land and resources to be redistributed. Students have also protested about equal access to ­education.

What seems to be coming out clearly is that telling the truth isn’t enough. ­Social justice and equity must remain front and centre of the ­reconciliation agenda.

The TRC was important. But little follow-up work was done by the government. And the policies it pursued left many South Africans feeling cheated.

Reflecting on Rwanda

Rwanda took a different path. It focused on establishing ­individual perpetrators’ accountability for genocide crimes. Many were unsettled by this rigorous quest.

There were calls for Rwanda to mimic South Africa and take the route of amnesty in exchange for truth.

That would have assumed the wounds of the violent massacre of possibly a million people in three months were identical to the wounds of apartheid.

I don’t want to suggest for a moment that wounds left by Rwanda’s genocide were harder to heal than those left by apartheid.

But it’s critical to understand that they left behind different kinds of devastations.

In Rwanda, once the genocide ended, the entire country had been stripped of all of its resources.

Dead bodies littered the streets. Perpetrators and survivors had to start rebuilding their lives side by side.

The compulsion for revenge was strong, and there was an ­urgent need to deal as quickly as possible with the relationships between individual perpetrators and survivors within their ­communities.

The Gacaca trials took place in every community across the country and were presided over by judges from the communities.

Perpetrators were identified and community members could speak out about the crimes that had been committed.

Perpetrators then had to do community service, which involved ­rebuilding roads and homes, among other things.

This allowed some healing to begin.

These trials have been heavily criticised by international ­observers, researchers and academics for not following due ­process and being vulnerable to manipulation.

Some people were accused of crimes they never committed: when evidence was lacking, it became one person’s word against that of another and some people were wrongly accused.

Judges were not always impartial and the record of events was sometimes inaccurate.

More than that, the reconciliation process has been criticised for being a top-down affair that was micromanaged by the Rwandan government.

Because of this, nongovernmental and religious organisations have been anxious not to criticise the government’s reconciliation agenda.

This has limited their impact.

Rwanda is often lauded for the incredible progress it’s making in terms of development. But this progress seems to have been at the expense of political freedom and citizens’ participation.

The question remains whether these are necessary for reconciliation to take place.

Rebuilding relationships

One of the challenges every reconciliation initiative faces is the struggle to understand where and how national and ­interpersonal interests intersect.

Reconciliation is about restoring relationships between wounded people and communities. It also extends to the healing of entire nations.

Some 23 years after apartheid ended in South Africa and Rwanda was torn apart by genocide, it’s clear there has been some healing.

Often, this is most visible in the interpersonal relationships ­between victim and perpetrator.

The Forgiveness Project shares many of these stories in the South African context.

In Rwanda this is evident in the way in which widows from both sides of the genocide divide work together on entrepreneurial projects or in self-help cooperatives to build a shared livelihood.

In these glimpses, we’re reminded that reconciliation does not begin or end with commissions or trials.

It requires change and transformation at the systemic level. Governments must commit to policies and strategies that bring about greater freedom and equality.

And individuals and communities must commit to the hard work of building – and rebuilding – relationships every day.

Wielenga is a senior postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation, University of Pretoria. This article first appeared in The Conversation

Read more on:    rwanda  |  democracy


Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.