Genocide Ideology Laws in Rwanda: Of what Purpose do they Serve?

 
 Children accused of genocide work at a camp in Gitagata, Rwanda


Faced with immense pressure calling for media reform, Rwanda has accepted to do so. At least that is what they say. The government has finally agreed to do away with the oppressive Media Council.

As a government imposed regulatory board, the Media Council is responsible for advancing draconian censorship measures, all targeting independent journalists. It is quite possible that Britain--which was initially funding the Media Council--might have influenced the government's decision. While many journalists remain skeptical, it can at least be said that any reform no matter how bogus is better than no reform.

However, it seems clear that the government will not abandon the genocide ideology laws, which as rights groups such as Amnesty International caution, are responsible for stifling free speech. Amnesty International makes the case that the laws are too vague that any critique of the government can be (wrongly) interpreted as violating them. The government, on their part, argue that the laws are necessary to prevent a repeat of the 1994 genocide. Should their claims be taken seriously?

First, as I have argued, the genocide ideology laws seem to have been written for another purpose other than preventing genocide. Since the government uses European countries as an example of democratic states which maintain anti-genocide laws, it is important to make clear the distinction. It seems most of the laws against holocaust denial in Europe were formulated in the early 1990s, with the lone exception of Germany where they were put into place in 1985. In Germany's case, it would be exactly 45 years after the Holocaust--presumably enough of a time for people to have deliberated on the Holocaust's history and reached some form of consensus.

In Rwanda's case, it is only been 17 years since the genocide. How can Rwandans be expected to have held a complete conversation on their history? The haste at which these laws are being implemented, reveals a hideous agenda. In actuality, the laws are a good thing. However, if the laws are being used as political arsenal, then they lose both legitimacy and meaning. At a time when Rwandans are in critical need of  dialogue, it is very premature to put a limit on it.

My second concern has to do with the motive of the laws. As stated earlier, the government argues that the laws are necessary to prevent a re-occurrence of violence. In deed, this is the same rationale advanced by the regime admirers such as Tony Blair. They argue that liberalizing Rwanda would result into chaos. In their twisted logic, Kagame is the kind of dictator that Rwanda needs.

The reality does not sit well with the above argument. It is not democracy that leads to chaos, but rather it is dictatorship that causes genocide. Neither Hitler, nor Habyarimana were democratic any credible sense of the word. They both practiced divisive politics to the detriment of minority groups. I am not sure why this is difficult to grasp. Genocide would never happen in a democratic system--especially in a place where proper mechanisms that limit both the powers of the executive and the military exist. Rather, it is the element of absolute power (which corrupts absolutely), that makes genocide a reality.

Another point is that the desire to commit genocide is not hereditary, but it is one that arises from a complex social context. In other words, people are not born with a craving for human blood or with the propensity to exterminate other ethnic groups. This might seem quite obvious of an observation, but the government of Rwanda seems to believe otherwise. The idea of collective Hutu incrimination, which sets the context for the slaughter of Hutus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has been taken to another level. This today is encapsulated in an irrational belief that are Hutus are naturally genocidal.

I am not making this stuff up! Take for instance, the government's penal code that punishes [Hutu] children as young as 12 years old for the crime of genocide ideology. How else do you account for this? Moreover, there seems to be a clear indication, at least in the speeches of the RPF leaders, that the regime view genocide ideology as a permanent trait of Hutu people. This is captured in Kagame's erratic words saying, "Umubyeyi aribyara" which means that, ("one gives birth to themselves"). In other words, the "criminal population" continues to give rise to criminals.

Although the demonization of the Hutu people seems to have worked in Kagame's favor, the claims made are completely bogus. Are Hutus always yearning for an opportunity to kill Tutsis or to "finish the job" to borrow the words of Rwandan propagandists? Actually, such claims serve the function of trivializing genocide. In international law. genocide is the crime of the crimes. It is not something that can easily be carried out, by even a child. It takes a certain level of sophistication. To accuse a 12 year old of genocide, makes genocide seem like an ordinary crime.

The majority of Hutu people have interests other than the desire to commit genocide. In fact, many Hutus (I argue wrongly) try to forget this horrible past. It is very false to claim that the same people are nostalgic of the 1994 killing fields. Besides, genocide in 1994 happened within a certain context, under the specific conditions of the time. It will not just happen today because people are angry or hateful. Even if it happened again (God forbid), it will not be a replay of 1994. I am not saying genocide cannot happen again. But is is wrong to hoodwink people, oppress and kill them while hiding under the veil of combating a future genocide.

I believe there is more proof that challenges this pessimistic view of humanity, which assumes that people are genocidal by nature. For instance, the government of Rwanda claims that most of the genocide ring leaders fled to Europe and the United States. Although the same countries have a good population of Tutsi people, I am yet to hear even one single case in which Hutus have killed Tutsis. The Rwandan diaspora might politically be very antagonized, a function of Kagame's politics, but they are by far a peaceful constituent. And we cannot argue that it is so because they lack the capacity to do kill. Guns and ammunition are quite readily available in the U.S., and criminal murders happen quite regularly. Hutus have not killed Tutsis (or vice-versa) because genocide is, first and foremost, a political crime fueled by hegemonic competition. If there is any reason to worry about genocide in Rwanda today, then Kagame must be at the center of it.

In 1994, the genocide happened because the Hutus maintained control over the entire apparatus of the state. Moreover, the civil society was also under their manipulation. Notoriously, Habyarimana had managed to infiltrated the higher ranks of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, when the slaughter started, the church could not align itself with the victims. In deed, we should be worried because Kagame seems to be repeating the same trend. The church in Rwanda is increasingly being co-apted and the military is already completely Tutsified. The claims that if a Hutu president were elected genocide would happen in Rwanda are therefore imaginary. If Victoire ingabire had been elected, for instance, we would have been more worried about her getting killed by Kagame's military.

Some may wrongly think that I am arguing that Kagame's military regime is necessary to prevent genocide in Rwanda. For the sake of clarity, my position argues for the opposite. I argue that Kagame's military regime, if unchecked, is likely to cause genocide. I also believe the fears of genocide by the "criminal population" are greatly exaggerated and used as a tool to manipulate Rwandan politics thus keeping Kagame and his brood of cronies in power. In reality, Rwandans are not genocidal maniacs as, they are often, portrayed to be. Hutu people are just as human.