SAME PEOPLE MIGHT BE TOO HURT OR DAMAGED TO DO THE NECESSARy WORK
UN PHOTO/MARIE FRECHON
appears in the mind’s eye as a board game with multiple players. Many moves are happening simultaneously, pushing some of the pieces closer to the finish and others further apart and sometimes off the board. The rules are not clear, often being made as the game proceeds. At certain times, one can move freely, but at others, movement is restricted. We know that winning the game is not simply a matter of linear progression from one side of the board to the other; that is, from intractable divisions to blissful coexistence and reconciliation. Agendas change over time (as do the rules of engagement), and priorities are reordered in the light of new experiences. But if we take a snapshot of the game in motion, we can see progress in specific encounters. And by focusing attention, and an analytical eye, on encounters across the full dimension of the playing field, the nature of the trajectory (as well as the ultimate goals of each party) come more clearly into focus.
In my analysis of the many interventions and initiatives currently in play in Rwanda, I begin with the proposition that their success will be determined by three factors. First, there must be a desire or an interest by the various parties.
Second, the people involved must have the personal capacity to do the work of reconciliation. Finally, there has to be an opportunity to reconcile. The door must be opened for meaningful interactions to occur, injustices to be addressed, and lives lived to their fullest potential.
A majority of the population may desire reconciliation, but these same people might be too hurt or damaged to do
the necessary work. They lack the personal capacity. Or the opportunity might be there for reconciliation and the people might have the personal capacity, but they do not desire it, for whatever reason. The injustices might be too grave or the pain too deep. All three aspects – desire, capacity and opportunity – need to be in sync for there to be any real progress. This is why we cannot rely solely on surveys as a guide in agenda-setting. Like an image in a distorting mirror, surveys can provide a less-than-perfect reflection of reconciliation’s trajectory. Equally important is to examine how reconciliation is played out day by day in public spaces, on the airwaves, in classrooms and coffee shops, and how those public spaces or ‘contact zones’ are impacted by the many interventions that are being employed.
The raw materials for this analysis, then, are the full range of initiatives enacted as part of an agenda of reconciliation. Drawing inspiration from ‘theory of change’,8 this methodology provides an opportunity to review the underlying assumptions regarding expectations of how we move from a current less-than-satisfactory state of minimal coexistence along a continuum to a more reconciled state, as a result of these initiatives. How well enunciated and understood are these stages of progression? What are the preconditions for moving from one stage to another?
For example, if the goal of a Rwanda that is free from the politics of identity is a priority, what actual laws, physical Wooden statues telling the history of Rwanda are
displayed inside the Gisozi memorial in kigali.
A photographic exhibition, entitled “Through the Eyes of Children: The Rwanda Project”. Using disposable cameras, the children of Rwanda took pictures, exploring their own vision as the country struggled to rebuild (April 2004).
UN PHOTO/ESKINDER DEBEBE
REUTERS / THE BIGGER PICTURE
UN PHOTO/ESKINDER DEBEBE
structures and actions are required, and how will these be evaluated for their effectiveness?
The challenge is to open one’s mind to see the full range of gestures in operation, both large and small, that we often don’t see or acknowledge. This might be in the form of both ‘hardware’ and ‘software’, namely physical developments like housing or schools, or the non-physical, like those gestures relating to the changing of values or beliefs associated with a conflict. There might be a school curriculum that highlights issues of social justice, a sculpture or memorial that brings into focus an historical truth, a landmark handshake between people on different sides of the political spectrum, a television advertisement that promotes a vision of unity and social inclusion, a comedy routine that makes people laugh at themselves and each other, a trial that sends a message that impunity is not to be tolerated, an admission of guilt and a confession by a perpetrator of genocide who bucks the trend of denial, and so on. In a sense, all of these gestures are in themselves
‘tipping points’. They all represent the culmination of a certain series of decisions, actions, compromises and victories. In the case of Radio La Benevolencija, for example, we see the constraints under which it has to operate.
Reviewing Assumptions and Evaluating Capacity The process that is being advocated for measuring reconciliation is based on:
• reviewing the assumptions that underlie the belief that a specific agenda of reconciliation will succeed
• evaluating the strength of the will or desire for reconciliation by different segments of a society, the comprehensiveness of the plan, and how various interventions are changing the nature of interactions in the public arena and the life outcomes of citizens.
Are Rwandans availing themselves of the chance to transform their nation in the manner prescribed by the government? Do they all have equal access to education, employment, essential services and opportunities for advancement?
In an ideal situation, of course, parties to a conflict will have negotiated a pathway towards a well-defined destination, with progress marked by social indicators. In such instances, monitoring progress towards reconciliation is straightforward. But in the vast majority of cases around the globe, there is no such convergence of interests, no roadmap for what lies ahead or how to move the process Joseph Nsengimana (left), Permanent Representative of Rwanda to the United Nations, speaks at the opening ceremony of the exhibition entitled “Lessons from the Rwanda Genocide - The 13th Anniversary of the Rwanda Genocide”
(April 2007).
forward in a manner that keeps with the wishes of the various constituencies.
Widely displayed in Rwandan public spaces, like museums and memorials, are the horrifying ‘10 Hutu Commandments’9 developed in the late 1950s, which correspond in large part with the equally well-publicised eight stages of genocide, namely (1) Classification, (2) Symbolisation, (3) Dehumanisation, (4) Organisation, (5) Polarisation, (6) Preparation, (7) Extermination and (8) Denial.
But it is as important for Rwandans to publicise the negotiated and anticipated stages of reconciliation in the public arena. In Sri Lanka, for example, there are the 5Rs:
(1) Reconstruction + (2) Resettlement + (3) Rehabilitation + (4) Reintegration = (5) Reconciliation.
The degree to which there is clarity with regard to these stages of reconciliation is in itself an indicator of the extent of a convergence of interests. In Rwanda, however, there is no such clarity.
Rwanda is not regarded as deficient. There is no uncontested formula for reconciliation in any global setting, unless it is between countries – for example, France and Germany, or between Poland and Russia. Within countries like Australia, where there is also a strong focus on reconciliation, there are distinct divisions between what non-Aborigines see as the cornerstone of reconciliation, namely ‘closing the gap’ on Aboriginal disadvantage, whereas Aborigines consider symbolic measures like treaties, changes to the constitution and apologies as essential stepping stones.
Rwandan President Paul kagame speaks to members of the press about reconciliation progress in the country (May 2006).