Having recently returned from a four-day visit to Rwanda – specifically its capital, Kigali, and the surrounding area – I find it difficult to write a comprehensive report and draw balanced conclusions on my trip. Over the past years, I have read several books and many articles in newspapers and magazines about Rwanda’s recent history. I even met its long-time president Paul Kagame – before he became president – with my then-group leader, Pauline Greene, in the European Parliament. Most publications in the West, while praising Kagame’s efforts to overcome the collective trauma of the genocide and promote digital innovation and entrepreneurship in the country, criticize his authoritarian style of governance. Without a doubt, these two sometimes contradictory sides of Kagame’s leadership exist. But would any other governing style be more conducive to overcoming the country’s trauma? And what does democracy mean for the citizens of a country with such a horrible recent history?
A two-track strategy
During my recent trip, I was most impressed by the contrast between two places we visited: a drone delivery company called Zipline and a village where perpetrators and survivors of the genocide live side by side. For me, these two visits – the example of a digital company delivering valuable goods, such as blood and medical products, across the country and the example of a male perpetrator and a female survivor living in the same community – were emblematic of the two sides of this small east African country. How might they be linked?
Kagame, who was one of the military leaders who intervened in 1994 to stop the genocide orchestrated by Hutu leaders against the Tutsi population, sought to implement a two-track strategy. On the one hand, he had to deal with the effects of the genocide and push for both justice and reconciliation. Hutu animosity towards the Tutsi population did not begin in 1994. In fact, this animosity goes back much longer and was actively promoted by Belgium as a colonial power – not least by introducing racial identification in personal documents. Different Hutu leaders subsequently utilized these colonial policies for their own purposes. Discrimination, resettlement, and massacres also took place before the outbreak of the genocide, which began in April 1994 (see Stephanie Fenkart, Esther Mujawayo: Surviving the Genocide in Rwanda, IIP, November 2015). The Hutu leadership – with the support of some Catholic clergy – enabled and even forced Hutus to kidnap and kill their Tutsi neighbors.
Given that a significant part of Rwanda’s population was complicit in the genocide, the subsequent pursuit of justice could not entail the imprisonment of all those who committed crimes. Such a policy would not stop the circle of violence. Revenge by Tutsi survivors against families of Hutu perpetrators would undoubtedly take place, and Hutus would hold the Tutsi population „responsible” for being deprived of family members who, instead of being able to support their families, were imprisoned. A policy of reconciliation parallel to shortened prison sentences was necessary. Of course, this also required a policy of strict enforcement, as perpetrators were unlikely to voluntarily confess their crimes and survivors were unlikely to voluntarily agree to forgiveness.
Digital Rwanda
The other track of Kagame’s future-oriented strategy was Rwanda’s modernization. In a country with few resources beyond people, this could only happen through technological innovation. In the case of Rwanda, that meant – and continues to mean – encouraging domestic and foreign investment and digitizing public services – which are mutually reenforcing. In the framework of the “Learning Journey”* titled „Digital Rwanda,“ we met Austrian entrepreneurs who used Rwanda’s favorable investment conditions to open technology-oriented businesses. They capitalize on Rwanda’s advantageous conditions, including a well-trained local staff and cheap but efficient products from around the globe, in order to offer products and services for the Rwandan market as well as neighboring countries, especially in the East African Community (EAC). As a stable and safe country, Rwanda has sought to become a hub for investments into other countries, including the large and resource-rich yet unsafe Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). It was notable that many of the investors and experts we met put a great deal of emphasis and hope in the different African economic integration efforts. Aside from the EAC, the recently-created African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is expected to give a boost to some African economies. However, it may be a challenge to coordinate and integrate the different regional economic areas with the wider AfCFTA.
The most impressive digital demonstration we observed took place in Muhanga, a city southwest of Kigali, by the company Zipline. The delivery by land transportation of critical goods that must be stored in special conditions, such as blood and medicine, ranges from very difficult to impossible in a country with a dispersed population and weak transportation infrastructure. Drone deliveries, as organized and implemented by Zipline, are an enormous step forward in creating a more equitable supply of medical services and, thus, health conditions. The drones can fly day and night in nearly all weather conditions. Delivery destinations require no special infrastructure. The party requesting the delivery – mainly by phone or WhatsApp – is digitally informed of the time and location of the delivery, and, after dropping the requested good, the drone returns to the Zipline center and lands like a jet on an aircraft carrier – just on a smaller scale. Seeing today how many drones are used to kill and destroy, it was refreshing to see how drones can also be used to save lives.
The implementation of a fully digital Rwanda is far from complete, but there is a common effort and close cooperation between public institutions and private investors from Rwanda itself and from abroad to increase the country’s digitization. Moreover, there are considerable efforts by IREMBO – the company asked by the authorities to implement e-government tools – to reach as many Rwandans as possible. IREMBO offers many public services online, including the issuing of passports and birth corticates, in just a few days. The company also has a significant number of “digital ambassadors” across the country who “help citizens who do not have computers or digital skills to access our services.” In this way, they help to achieve “better overall digital literacy.” In countries like Austria with an aging population, such digital ambassadors would be extremely beneficial. Much of the resentment and anger among Austria’s population stems from the feeling that they are overwhelmed by new technologies in their daily lives. Many European countries could and should learn from Rwanda’s digitization efforts.
The genocide and its aftermath
Most of us started our “Learning Journey” by learning about the genocide in 1994. We visited the Genocide Memorial in the center of Kigali. We learned – or at least I learned – that the genocide stemmed from a long history of discrimination and hatred by Hutus toward Tutsis. Division and discrimination were also promoted by Belgium as Rwanda’s colonial ruler – as well as parts of the Catholic church. The 1994 genocide could have been foreseen, and even UN commander Romeo Dallaire warned that a genocide could take place. Unfortunately, the international community – especially the US and France, which supported the Hutu government – rejected a UN intervention in order to prevent the outbreak of greater violence. This is another tragic case of UN failure caused by the veto of UN Security Council members.
It is difficult to accept the reality depicted in the photos exhibited at the memorial. The slaughter of people with machetes – often by neighbors with whom they lived together in peace and harmony for years – is hard to digest. Some Hutus tried to save their Tutsi friends and neighbors by hiding them or at least helping them to flee. But many simply followed the government’s orders and the incitements of Rwanda’s Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines. To build a new and peaceful Rwanda after such a genocide between two groups is an enormous task. Kagame’s new government used the traditional community “gacaca” tribunals to solicit confessions from perpetrators and forgiveness from survivors. Were these confessions expressions of sincere remorse?
Rwandan author Beate Umubyeyi Mairesse wrote in her novel All Your Children Scattered: “I also attended the trials at the gacaca community tribunals on the hill in Ikomoko, to try and find out how my father, my brother and their families, my uncles and my aunts had been killed, who by and where and in the most horrible way. I didn’t find out much, the killers only let out very little of what they knew, in order to receive a reduction in their sentence. All I understood was that their pleas for clemency were purely administrative to pardon them; I refused to pardon them. And I found out that the scars on my heart were not about to heal.”
This is a feeling that many survivors had and still have. But there are other experiences too. I attended a meeting in one of the Reconciliation Villages organized by “Prison Fellowship Rwanda” where perpetrators and survivors live together. The confession brought forward by the Hutu man at that meeting also seemed to be mostly “administrative,” as Mairesse wrote. But he at least gave some details of his crime and underlined the forgiveness of his neighbor, who – as is tradition – gave him the first newborn calf of her cow. The report of his female neighbor was very moving, as she told her story of fleeing while pregnant through the woods to Burundi. She specifically mentioned getting some water during the first days from a neighboring Hutu family, but later she had to drink the muddy water of the forests. She explained that it took her a long time to forgive Hutus for their crimes. When her daughter told her she would like to marry a Hutu boy, it came as a shock. Only slowly was she convinced by her daughter to agree to the wedding. Today, she has two grandchildren from this couple.
One of the survivors of the genocide who actively works for reconciliation and deals specifically with the question of how to teach children about this horrible time is Claver Irakoze. In a book he co-authored with Caroline Williamson Sinalo titled Transmitting Memories in Rwanda, he writes: “While the government policies and leadership have been instrumental in fostering unity and peaceful cohabitation since the Genocide at the collective level, individually many Rwandans still need to come to terms with our country’s history and reflect on how they want to shape the future for their children and grand-children. In a society that was significantly diminished by years of hatred and discrimination, encouraged by its own government from colonial period until the Genocide against the Tutsi, healing and social cohesion will take a long time and will undoubtedly require engagement from a majority of citizens, including a commitment not to do harm, but instead to practice tolerance and respect.”
Irakoze also attended several gacaca sessions. Similar to others, he noted that “the trial did not help as the accused men denied any role and participation in the killings and no tangible information was shared by them. Gacaca sessions were so draining. I saw survivors crying and being traumatized by hearing how their families had been killed and learning that the killers were actually those who had been their friends for many years…..But still, in a way, this was an important process and a major turning point for the country’s recovery.”
Is authoritarianism necessary to heal the wounds?
Kagame’s success in moving Rwanda toward reconciliation and a new future is not in doubt. He was – and remains – a leader with a vision who led the traumatized country into a new era. But is his strictness and authoritarian style of governance a precondition for overcoming the past and preventing a return to racial strife and hatred? Several people I met expressed the opinion that increased freedom of speech could open the way to a new cycle of racial conflict. They insisted that democracy must function in a special way in a country like Rwanda. When I visited academics at the University of Rwanda, one organizer stated that “for me democracy means primarily security and some money in my pocket.” This was confirmed by the professors I met, who strongly rejected foreign criticism of Rwanda’s government. Those who are convicted for crimes, such as Paul Rusesabagina – the famous manager of the “Hotel Rwanda” who saved many during the genocide – was not a political prisoner but a criminal. According to the Rwandan authorities, Rusesabagina financed terrorist groups. After long negotiations with US government representatives, he was released and allowed to leave the country via Qatar to the US. Might he be both a savior and a supporter of terrorists? I cannot know.
Days after the New York Times reported extensively about Rusesabagina’s release, Anjan Sundaram wrote in an article that “[Paul Kagame’s] country has been reduced to tyranny.” Sundaram cited the Rwandan army’s military interventions in the DRC: “The self-styled hero who supposedly ended the Rwanda genocide was also in command of an army that the U.N. has alleged was responsible for killing ten, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Hutus and for potential acts of ‘genocide’ after twice invading the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
I am not able to evaluate Rwanda’s recent interventions in the DRC. The Rwandan authorities argue that there are rebel groups inside the DRC who continue to attack Rwanda. However, some argue that Rwanda’s real aims are to gain access to some of the DRC’s precious resources. Perhaps both goals play a role for Rwanda’s interventions in the country. Unfortunately, the region is far from at peace, and unending wars continue to generate refugees who contribute to instability. But there are no grounds to speak about a “genocide” or call today’s Rwanda a tyranny. That seems far from the truth.
The real danger lies in what University of Rwanda Professor Agee Shyaka Mugabe underlined in a discussion with me: "The problem is not the strong trust in President Kagame but the weak trust in institutions!” This is the general problem with strong leaders – that institutions are not truly independent or able to elicit the confidence or trust of citizens. This challenge will grow increasingly apparent during the eventual transition from Kagame to whoever his successor may be – whenever that happens. As with many strong leaders, Kagame probably feels that he is irreplaceable.
Needless to say, a short visit might not provide a complete picture. However, we were able to speak with many young and old representatives of today’s Rwanda, and we felt an enormous energy and willingness to overcome the past and build an innovative society that all Rwandans can be proud of. The people we met strongly supported the way Kagame is governing the country. We only can hope that the next years will see new initiatives to strengthen Rwanda’s institutions, including through increased digitization efforts, and that Kagame will help to create the conditions for the next era with a new leader who can be president of both a modern and reconciled country.
* Learning Journey, Hans Stoisser (ECOTEC) und Karin Krobath (IDENTIFIRE)
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.