Organización como enfoques de procesos

Throughout the twentieth century, the field of peace building focussed mainly on the two initial phases of solving violent conflicts. The first phase is the pre- negotiation phase, which concentrates on strategies to get the conflicting parties around the table. The second phase is the negotiation and mediation phase in which the main focus is on ending the conflict itself.65 However, negotiation and mediation alone are not sufficient to resolve most contemporary conflicts. One of the most important characteristics of the wars of the last decades is that they do not take place between states, but within country borders. J. Goodhand and D. Hulme, for instance, mentioned that of all the 83 wars that raged between 1989

65

Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ‘Introduction’, in: Abu-Nimer, Reconciliation, justice, and coexistence, ix- xiii, there ix.

and 1992, no less than 80 were intra-state.66 This observation has important consequences for the way contemporary conflicts can be resolved. Whereas in inter-state conflicts the ending of hostilities and the separation of the fighting parties may be sufficient, in intra-state wars this is not the case. The fact that after a peace accord, former enemies have often to become neighbours again makes establishing sustainable peace after a civil war a complex matter. As a consequence, since 1945, only one third of all negotiated peace settlements of ethnic conflicts have resulted in long-lasting peace.67

Over the last few years there has been a tendency among scholars in conflict studies to stress the importance of reconciliation in post-conflict situations. They often mention examples of places where the absence or failure of a reconciliation process burdened the population with disastrous consequences. Summarising these examples, Louis Kriesberg concludes:

“The lack of reconciliation efforts have been followed by destructive violence, long-lasting antagonism, or at best a mutually mistrusting and hostile accommodation.”68

When there is indeed such a causal link between, to put it positively, the achievement of reconciliation and the prevalence of peace, reconciliation should receive a high place on political and academic agendas. But is reconciliation that vital? Or is it just a fashionable concept that is being floated about in books, articles and conferences for a couple of years? And even if reconciliation has proved to have a very positive outcome in some countries, why should it be important in all post-conflict societies? Up to now, statements on the importance of reconciliation have never been backed by any strong evidence, which makes some researchers rightfully suspicious.

Considering the increased attention the concept has received, it is apparent that reconciliation will become a future backbone of reconstruction policies after war has ceased. Although this shift of attention to what happens after a conflict has ended is very welcome, research should also focus on the relevance of reconciliation. In my interviews, the importance of reconciliation has often been discussed and I encountered four different attitudes, which are presented in Table 3.1 and clarified below with quotations of interviewees that serve as examples.

66 _{J. Goodhand and D. Hulme, ‘From wars to complex political emergencies’, in: Third World quarterly} 1 (1999) 13-26, there 13.

67 _{Wendy Lambourne, ‘Justice and reconciliation: postconflict peace building in Cambodia and} Rwanda’, in: Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, justice, and coexistence, 311-337, there 311.

68

Louis Kriesberg, ‘Changing forms of coexistence’, in: Abu-Nimer (ed.), Reconciliation, justice, and coexistence, 47-64, there 61.

Table 3.1: Importance of reconciliation according to the different stakeholders69

For peace For harmony For government Not important Total

Survivors 4 1 2 2 9

Accused 5 5 1 0 11

Population 5 4 1 0 10

Total 14 10 4 2 30

A woman puts the first attitude in words as follows:

“For me, reconciliation is a very important matter. In my life, I have seen many wars wherein I did not notice anything positive. I say we need reconciliation, because it is the only way to stop the killings and the wars.”70

The view that reconciliation is a necessity for peace was offered by almost half of the interviewees who I discussed this matter with and was shared by survivors of the genocide, the accused and the rest of the population. Among ordinary Rwandans there is a strong wish that war should not return, and many believe that reconciliation is the way to ensure this.

Others, though they say that Rwanda needs reconciliation, do not see reconciliation as an absolute requirement to prevent another war. The importance that they attach to it is that the process will enable them to live in harmony with the other groups in society. As someone explained:

“I find that reconciliation is a positive thing, of course. If ever people were reconciled, they can once again live in harmony. They will help each other cultivating and share beer again.”71

It is not surprising that it is almost exclusively the Hutu population who long for the situation as it was before the war. They often tend to idealise the pre-war situation as a period when the Rwandans cohabitated in peace and harmony. However, although that period was not as violent as 1994, many Tutsi remember the massacres of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1990s too well to be nostalgic about old times.72

69

In relation to gacaca and reconciliation, I identified three different stakeholder groups that all have their own background and interests. Firstly, there are the survivors of the genocide. They are mainly Tutsi but can also be Hutu who were married to a Tutsi and have accordingly lost close relatives. Secondly, there are those accused of genocide. This group contains mostly prisoners but also includes people who are accused of genocide but have not (yet) been imprisoned. Thirdly, as “population” one should understand every other inhabitant of a community, that is neither a survivor nor someone accused of genocide.

70

Marguerite, interviewed in Gasarenda, Gikongoro province, 7 March 2003. 71

Colette, interviewed in Gatovu, Gikongoro province, 10 February 2003. 72

For a history of the massacres in the run-up to the genocide, see Organisation of African Unity, The preventable genocide. Report of the international panel of seven eminent personalities to investigate the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the surrounding events (July 2000); United Nations, Report of the independent inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda

The number of interviewees who reacted less positively to the importance of reconciliation was quite small. However, among the survivors there are some who do not agree with the general opinion. Some people have an indifferent attitude towards reconciliation. They do not see the need for it themselves but have nevertheless supported it because the government tells them to do so. The Rwandan population is known for its obedience to the authorities. The population will accept whatever its leaders propose, This argument is often used to explain why so many people participated in the genocide, and might be applicable to the present reconciliation policy as well.73 A typical example of this attitude was the response of a female survivor. When she was asked what importance she attached to reconciliation, she responded:

“What does it matter what I think? You know, a peasant has nothing to do, except to follow as a lamb what the authorities impose. Do not forget that to reconcile is an order of the high authorities, so what else can I do?”74

Finally, among some survivors there is opposition to the idea of reconciliation with those who executed the genocide, presumably due to persisting bitterness about events. Consequently, they attach no importance at all to reconciliation. One survivor said:

“Reconciliation? Will you reconcile with someone who killed your people to the extent that you are left all alone? How will you reconcile? How can that be important to me? Not at all I tell you. It is nonsense.”75

Notwithstanding these criticisms, most interviewees gave the impression that reconciliation was indeed, as more and more authors claim, very important, if not vital, for preventing the recurrence of war. Nevertheless, more research needs to be done to be sure if this goes for Rwanda as a whole or even for most post- conflict situations in the world.

As mentioned earlier, it has only been in the last few years that the idea of the need for reconciliation after war has come to be embraced. However, this insight has not yet been combined with a picture of exactly what reconciliation is and how it can be accomplished. The whole concept of reconciliation is still mostly unexplored and relatively few authors have attempted to fill this gap.76 Considering the increasing number of intra-state wars since the end of World War II, this lack of knowledge about reconciliation is problematic. However,

(1999); Andre Sibomana, Hope for Rwanda: Conversations with Laure Guilbert and Herve Deguine

(Sterling: Pluto Press, 1999) xv-xix and Section 5.3 of this thesis. 73

For a more detailed discussion on the reconciliation policy of the government, see Chapter Three. 74

Berthe, interviewed in Gasarenda, 15 December 2002. 75

Priscille, interviewed in Nyamigina, Gikongoro Province, 1 February 2003. 76

The most important attempts to form a theoretical framework were conducted by Lederach, Building peace and IDEA, Reconciliation after violent conflict.

there are signs that the tide is turning. The flow of scientific literature on reconciliation has started, and more international organizations are supporting reconciliation processes in war-torn societies around the world. In the course of writing this thesis, for example, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) published a handbook on reconciliation after violent conflict in which the different elements of reconciliation are explored.77 Likewise, it is the intention of this study to extend the understanding of the concept of reconciliation. There is, however, still a long way to go.