Reestructuraciones a la ley constitucional y las reformas financieras

The extent to which Rwanda scholars have been cast in opposition to each other is relatively rare among scholarship that pertains to specific countries. There are debates about how to view the reign of certain controversial leaders such as

186 Field notes, March 2012. Tigo was the first foreign investor to be allowed to invest in the domestic telecom sector.

187 Field notes, May 2012.

107

Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi (De Waal 2013, Lefort 2013).¹⁸⁸ However, there is rarely such sustained disagreement between groups of academics. Filip Reyntjens (2011, 2) outlined “a broad consensus” within the international scholarly community (who study Rwanda). Some exceptions were also highlighted.¹⁸⁹ The ‘consensus’ criticised the RPF for its authoritarian leadership. This group perceived most government initiatives to be aimed at extended state control and limiting political space.

Reyntjens (2013) criticised donors and ‘exceptions’ for being fooled by the RPF.¹⁹⁰ Others in ‘the consensus’ argued that the RPF government controlled the information that was accessed by researchers (Braeckman 2003, King 2009). The ‘exceptions’

differed from the consensus in arguing that the government’s policies were aimed at delivering benefits to the wider population.¹⁹¹

These divisions are complicated further since most influential academics no longer undertake fieldwork in Rwanda. This creates a danger, as Clark (2013a) writes, “of armchair critics who prefer to denounce Rwandan authoritarianism from afar but without deep empirical knowledge of conditions there.” However, these

‘armchair critics’ are still important voices to be heard within academic debates.

Many of these academics retain large networks of contacts in Rwanda. Many no longer do research in Rwanda because they have been declared persona non grata by the RPF government.¹⁹² Some are not actually ‘banned’ but fear for their safety if they return to Rwanda. Others ‘within the academic consensus’ such as Bert

Ingelaere and An Ansoms continue to conduct fieldwork in Rwanda. In reality, there is no neat correlation between choosing a side and being allowed to do fieldwork in Rwanda.¹⁹³ Those who are perceived as pro-RPF are accused by those within the

‘consensus’ of engaging in self-censorship to maintain access.

New researchers must contend with the sharp divide within the scholarly community (who study Rwanda). In a recent debate, Clark (2013a) questioned

188 De Waal lauds Meles’ developmental strategy. Lefort criticises Meles for never being able to put that strategy into practice.

189 Clark and Schabas were highlighted as exceptions.

190 Fergal Keane and Stephen Kinzer (journalists who wrote books about Rwanda) have admitted that they were ‘wrong’ about the RPF after writing their pro-RPF books.

191 Most academics retain some nuance in their arguments. However, leading Rwanda scholars frame the academic debate in an extreme way. As such, most researchers are usually pulled towards the extreme ends of this continuum.

192 Clark (2013a) identifies three senior academics among the very few who have been officially declared persona non grata: Filip Reyntjens, Gerard Prunier and Rene Lemarchand. Many other academics claim to have been blacklisted in this way.

193 Such observations have been made after attending several conferences and speaking with many Rwanda scholars (especially younger scholars).

108

whether some researchers have exaggerated the difficulties of doing research (and the surveillance they endure) in Rwanda to draw attention to their own research.¹⁹⁴ He recounts an incident where one student mentioned that she was being followed everywhere she went by the RPF. Rwanda scholars often claim that they are being watched. Researchers and expatriates (in general) who work in Kigali operate in an environment of mystery and secrecy.¹⁹⁵ Such treatment is perceived as the norm (when it is actually an exception).¹⁹⁶ Rumours about the fieldwork environment have had a political effect on the academic environment. Such outcomes may not have been intended (by older academics) but many researchers tend to assume (whether rightly or wrongly) that they are under surveillance when they arrive in Rwanda.

There is a diversity of research being undertaken in Rwanda by a varied group of researchers. Researchers have had varied success in gaining access, obtaining permits and retaining independent control of their research. Some

researchers have accused the government of using the research permit procedure to obstruct access for foreign researchers.¹⁹⁷ Some applications for research permits take six to eight months, some take a few weeks. Regardless of nationality or origin of institution, researchers have had varying experiences in obtaining these permits.¹⁹⁸ Most researchers who have had difficulty gaining research permits study local communities or ‘sensitive’ topics. Many permits are delayed because their host institution in Rwanda may have their own procedures. There are delays during ‘rush’

periods at the Ministry of Education or in holding Ethics Review Board meetings in Rwanda (if fieldwork requires ethical clearance).¹⁹⁹

Doing research in Rwanda poses difficulties. The government is sensitive about protecting its reputation and chooses to be protective given past experiences with other researchers. Researchers must be aware of the politicised environment –

194 See Clark (2013a, 2014b), De Lame et al. (2013), Jessee (2013).

195 Many expatriates said that their emails were monitored. Some claim that their phones are tapped.

There is very little evidence for either of these claims. Harsh treatment of researchers by local officials is common in other settings. FTEPR (2014) describes how a group of researchers were accused of being ‘land grabbers’ by locals in Uganda and had to leave the research site because of a threat to their lives. In Ethiopia, FTEPR (2014) cites an example of researchers being held by local police.

196 Thomson (2011, 331) had her passport confiscated and was sent to a “re-education camp.”

197 See Jessee (2013), Thomson (2013b). Clark (2014b) claims that the research permit procedure is similar to other East African countries e.g. Uganda.

198 Nationality and other factors play a role in determining perceptions about researchers. Researchers are a “plurality of selves – being male or female, gay or heterosexual, married or unmarried, western or not, young or old and so on” (Mollinga 2008, 7). However, perceptions of identity are constantly reshaped in the eyes of respondents.

199 Ethical reviews are only required for medical research or research that involves a psychological study of subjects.

109

both in Rwanda and within academia – when they are collecting and analysing their findings. Many researchers must choose whether to self-censor their work not only to gain future access to sources in Rwanda but also to protect their sources.²⁰⁰ When researchers return home and begin publishing their work, they are confronted with facing the strength of the ‘consensus’ within the scholarly community. Fisher (2015) argues that articles submitted to journals are inevitably judged by reviewers on the basis of which side they take and editors have done little to avoid such occurrences.

Thus, researchers are faced with the choice of staying within the ‘consensus’,

attacking the ‘consensus’ or avoiding any activist stance. Researchers should also be wary of fitting activist stances in the same way they should avoid giving into

temptations to self-censor their work to retain access.

The narrative presented in this thesis will inevitably anger some group.

Choices have been made with full awareness of the politicised environment within Rwanda and the international scholarly community. Self-censorship has been undertaken only to ensure that the security of sources remains protected.