Search results

Since taking power in July 1994, the RPF government has strived to eliminate the Hutu/Tutsi identities from public discourse, replacing the previous divisive identities with a unified nationalist one. For those who use Hutu/Tutsi identities outside the context of the genocide, they are considered genocidaire sympathisers, negationists and spreading divisionism. However, within the context of the genocide, the role of “ethnicity” is being reinforced and reaffirming ethnic divisions. In 2008, the Rwandan parliament officially changed the 1994 Rwandan genocide to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. Based on ethnographic data collected from March until October 2008, this paper will argue that within the public discourse on the genocide, the victim/perpetrator dichotomy has become intertwined with the Tutsi/Hutu identities, creating a hierarchy of victimhood. It will explore how through the process of reconciliation and in particular through gacaca the Hutu and Tutsi identities are imbued with collective guilt and victimization.

This chapter explores the dual, contentions spaces of consciousness the Rwandan diaspora communities navigate. First of which was created through the stories of trauma and displacement since the Rwandan genocide and is influenced by the current Rwandan government's control over narratives of identities and remembrance both socially and politically. The second originated from the younger generations' attempt to assimilate to the only country they have never lived in and personally known. In this second space, the younger generations were forced, consciously or unconsciously, to choose between their communities' attachment to the past or creating a new path or future. Most importantly, being in diaspora means accepting that the different generations will often remain at the periphery of the new country, like outsiders looking inward. This phenomenon of social exclusion is a result of different factors, such as social categorisation, collective trauma and the narratives of otherness, which shape the different generations' identity shifts and sense of belonging. Using a phenomenological research method, this study analysed how one event, the 1994 Rwandan genocide, changed the meaning of diaspora consciousness and divided the communities into social categories such as ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’. Using the experiences of Rwandan American diaspora communities, I explored the impact of the labels of ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ and how they have not only created specific narratives around remembrance and accountability but also crystallised the normative ideas of who was harmed and who was responsible for inflicting that harm. This chapter analysed the Rwandan communities' social development and assimilation, their understanding of their pasts and their members' social and political engagements in addressing their roles in their communities and nations.

Reports and studies conducted in Rwanda and in the region (East Africa) reveal trending impetus in empowerment of marginalized citizens, but expose controversies in policy implementation and outcomes. The present paper thus departs from an overview of the African socio-political landscape, and delves into an investigation of Rwanda's five year inclusive education policy (2019–2024) strategies. It interrogates its implementation in the country's 9 Year Basic Education (9YBE) program that worn the Common Wealth award for its accommodation of youths with disabilities and other educationally disadvantaged groups. The study design combines both literature and field surveys by drawing from documented legal frameworks, reports and field data to generate triangulated or reliable findings. Respondents were identified through dependable informants and predetermined criteria. Purposively designed observation check lists and interview protocols were employed to systematically draw data from both central (Ministry of Education) and local levels (schools, communities and families). The study findings reveal little explored research avenues, and a blend of both international and local perspectives that are important to disability and inclusive education orientations in the African sub-region.

The social categories “Hutu” and “Tutsi” have long been central to Rwandan politics, though never more so than during the 1994 genocide, when they formed the ultimate divide: kill (Hutu) or be killed (Tutsi). Since then, the Rwandan government has sought to eliminate these categories and replace them with a new, national identity category of “Rwandan.” This chapter draws on theories of state symbolic power and legibility to analyze how top-down projects of remaking Rwandans are being received from below. Specifically, we examine ordinary Rwandans' responses to gacaca, a community justice practice central to the state's National Unity and Reconciliation Program, and find Rwandans resent efforts to “unmake race” in favor of “nation” because the state's account of genocide in gacaca does not allow them to sincerely express their experiences; it activates traumatic pasts for what they feel is superficial national reconciliation; and it detracts from their material needs. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between compliance and conviction in research on state efforts to transform civilian subjectivities. They also suggest directions for further research. Namely, future research on state symbolic power should attend to how individual experiences with violence mediate top-down efforts at remaking civilian subjectivities, to how different forms of governance shape civilian resistance to state categorization and classification projects, and to what kinds of interests are likely to motivate people to alter their self-perceptions. We conclude by arguing for more work on state race and nation-making from the perspectives of its targets.

Capacity development in fragile environments in Africa has often proven to be a complex undertaking. This has largely been because of existing knowledge gaps on what exactly causes fragility of states, the economy and society. The liberal peace development model that generally informs post‐conflict reconstruction and capacity development has a limited conception of fragility by narrowly focusing on the national dimensions of the problem, promoting donor‐driven solutions, emphasizing minimal participation of beneficiary actors in the identification and prioritization of capacity development needs, and by subcontracting the design and management of projects and programs. The resulting capacity development impact has generally been disappointing. In the absence of homegrown strategic plans, stakeholder participation and ownership, international development partners have all too often addressed capacity gaps by financing training, supply of equipment and professional exchanges of parliamentarians and parliamentary staffers. These efforts usually achieved their presumed number targets but tended to ignore addressing the larger issues of political economy within which capacity development take place. However, the recent re‐conceptualization of parliamentary capacity development as a development of nationally owned, coordinated, harmonized, and aligned development activities seems to be gaining growing attention in Africa. As the experience of Rwanda eloquently demonstrates, capacity development is essentially about politics, economics and power, institutions and incentives, habits and attitudes – factors that are only partly susceptible to technical fixes and quantitative specifications. These structural factors have to be negotiated carefully and tactfully.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Rwandan government’s anti-corruption strategy and identify lessons for policymakers in other countries.

This paper relies on materials obtained from the Rwandan government, from websites, research reports, press articles and publications as well as interviews with scholars, with Rwandan government officials, and the staff of non-governmental organizations.

The Rwandan government formulates and implements its anti-corruption efforts via donors’ governance support and homegrown initiatives. Corruption has been minimized by eradicating opportunities for misconduct and by focusing on governance reforms and maintaining a zero-tolerance policy against corruption. Political will and strong leadership, the active role played by the anti-corruption agency, and effective governance reform have made Rwanda’s anti-corruption activities successful.

This paper is a scholarly examination of the Rwandan government’s anti-corruption strategy.

This article explores the concept of “heritage futures”, the role of heritage in managing relations between present and future societies. It assesses how thinking strategically about the future changes, complicates and contextualises practices of heritage. What might an attention to the future bring to work in heritage, and simultaneously, what challenges—both practical and ethical—arise?

This article takes the form of a conversation about the nature of heritage futures and how such a project may be implemented in both heritage practice and field research in heritage studies. The two authors are heritage scholars who integrate heritage futures questions into their research in different ways, and their conversation uncovers potentialities and difficulties in the heritage futures project.

The discussion covers the particular ethical issues that arise when the dimension of time is added to heritage research and practice, including questions of continuism, presentism and specificity. The conversation argues for the importance of considering the future in heritage studies and heritage practice and that this forms a key part of understanding how heritage may be part of building a sustainable present and future.

The future is an under-examined concept within heritage studies, even as heritage is often framed as something to be preserved “for future generations”. But what impact might it have on heritage practice to really consider what this means, beyond the platitude? This article suggests that heritage scholars and practitioners direct their attention to this often-neglected facet of heritage.