social science paper

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 1

Understanding the Rwandan Genocide

Introduction to the Genocide:

In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations formally adopted the Convention on

the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG) which, among other

provisions, defined the term genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a

national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such : (a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately

inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction

in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (United Nations 1948:

280)

Although it was predominantly the 1915 Armenian genocide that inspired the efforts by Raphael

Lemkin to draft and campaign for the adoption of the UNCG, the 1994 Rwandan Genocide was

the first event that used the stipulations outlined in the Convention. The International Criminal

Tribunal for Rwanda, a court system created in 1998 to prosecute leaders of the genocide,

enforced the UNCG almost fifty years after the original convention had been drafted and

approved by the United Nations (Powell 2011).

This historical significance of the Rwandan Genocide is underscored by the sheer level of

destruction and violence witnessed during the conflict. Over a span of approximately one

hundred days, the Rwandan state witnessed the killing of about eight hundred thousand Rwandan

citizens, most of which identified as members of the Tutsi group. Hutu individuals, typically

those who were more moderate or those with powerful political adversaries were also targeted

and murdered (Scheffer 2004).

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 2

Although the atrocities associated with the Rwandan Genocide cannot be erased, lessons

from the event can be used to better understand and respond to future crises. Genocide, as

observed from an outsider perspective, can be misunderstood as mass killings perpetrated by

isolated instances of horrible people. Law professor Janine Clark (2009) writes that “While it

may be comforting to believe that genocide is only carried out by monsters and psychopaths – by

people ‘not like us’ – the reality is that it is ordinary people who, under certain circumstances,

commit genocide.” Better understanding the Rwandan genocide and the factors that led to the

conflicts that predated the genocide are important for analyzing what conditions transform

normal people into individuals who support or actually carry out mass killings (Clark 2009).

According the American Sociological Association, sociology is defined as:

The scientific study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences

of human behavior. Since all human behavior is social, the subject matter of sociology

ranges from the intimate family to the hostile mob; from organized crime to religious

cults; from the divisions of race, gender, and social class to the shared beliefs of a

common culture; and from the sociology of work to the sociology of sports. (Ballantine

and Roberts 2011: 6).

In essence, sociology studies group patterns and behaviors (Ballantine and Roberts 2011). The

Rwandan genocide is interesting to examine from a variety of psychological and historical

perspectives, but sociologically it is of fundamental importance because the conflict was between

two groups, the Hutu and the Tutsi, that manifested into genocide. What is especially fascinating

about the Rwandan genocide from a sociological perspective is how these two groups were

structured and created prior to 1994. Furthermore, the lack of immediate response to the conflict

from the U.N and world powers can also be examined as a sociological issue.

Literature on the Rwandan Genocide:

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 3

Justifiably there has been a colossal growth in amount of academic writing on Rwanda

since 1994. The genocide marks a horrific and significant moment in Rwandan history and, on a

broader scale, in Africa’s development as well. Professor Peter Uvin (2001) writes that most

academic analysis has come from outside Rwanda (particularly from researchers from Europe

and the United States). According to Uvin (2001: 6), Rwandan examination is limited by the fact

that “the issues are too fresh, the society too divided, the community of scholars too small, and

the political situation too tense” to foster scholarly inquiry.

There are several models that attempt to explain the origin of the Rwandan Genocide.

One of the most common explanations places blame on the Rwandan elites (Uvin 2001).

Research that explains the conflict through this paradigm argues that the violence seen during the

genocide was an instrument used by the powerful Hutu elite to maintain their authority,

especially under growing pressure to bring a more moderate democratic structure to Rwanda

(Fearon and Laitin 2000). The Rwandan elites promoted and strengthened the division between

the Hutu and Tutsi in order to ensure their own political power (Prunier 1995; Fearon and Latin

2000). Historian Gérard Prunier also uses this perspective to characterize the conflicts prior to

the genocide as ‘shows of power’ by Hutu extremists towards moderate Hutus (Prunier 1995).

A second explanation for the genocide in Rwanda argues that Rwanda’s enormous (and

rapidly increasing) population combined with the nations lack of ecological resources led to the

genocide (Uvin 2001) .This explanation is supported by two different justifications for the

relationship between ecological resource insufficiency and the severe social conflict seen during

the Rwandan genocide. The first justification contends that “overpopulation and land scarcity

unavoidably lead to social conflict and communal violence” because “when countries have

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 4

exceeded their “carrying capacity,” there is no other outcome possible than famine and/or

conflict, allowing nature to restore ecological equilibrium” (Uvin 2001: 82). A second

justification for the ecological explanation of the Rwandan genocide, notably supported by

Prunier, argued that although resource and land scarcity played a significant role in the genocide,

it is not a complete explanation for the origin of the conflict (Uvin 2001; Prunier 1995).

A third explanation for the genocide argues that the traditional dynamics and

sociopsychological characteristics of Rwandan society paved the way for the conflict. Supporters

of this explanation often reference the concept of obedience as being an intrinsic characteristic of

Rwandan culture. Research supporting this perspective argues that the Rwandan ‘mindset’ made

them very receptive to orders by powerful officials; even if the orders involved targeted killings

(Uvin 2001: 82). Researcher Omar McDoom (2005:4) rejects this perspective that “popular

participation was simply the product of a longstanding tradition of obedience to state authority”

by arguing that like in most societies under ordinary circumstances, many Rwandans act in ways

that go against the prescribed ‘rules’ or laws of Rwandan leaders (Uvin 2001; McDoom 2005).

Still, according to Uvin, “Probably the most convincing sociopsychological explanatory

contribution resides in an understanding of the dynamics set in motion by past occurrences of

violence…Once a serious episode of violent conflict occurs, it leaves a persistent residue in

people’s collective memories and attitudes. This is more acute if the violence is ethnic, thus

amounting to massive hate crimes” (Uvin 2001:86).

The Rwandan Genocide:

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 5

Even prior to 19th century European colonization and establishment of the Rwandan state,

people living in the area shared a “common membership within a set of state structures”

(Newbury 1995: 12). However, it was after the Berlin Conference during which the territory of

Rwanda was given to Germany, that the demarcations of a nation became pronounced. In 1919,

after World War II Rwanda came under Belgium’s leadership. Although one language is spoken

by most Rwandans (Kinyarwanda) the Rwandan society is normally broken up into three

different groups: the majority Hutu group and the minority Tutsi and Twa groups (Newbury

1995). Prior to colonization these groups were generally related to class rather than ethnicity. It

was also possible to move between the two major groups: the Tutsi and the Hutu (Fearon and

Laitin 2000). When the European colonizers came to Rwanda, members of the Tutsi minority

had a majority of the power (Newbury 1995). The European colonizers helped to promote the

Tutsi leadership and simultaneously deepened the divide between the Tutsi and Hutu people by

“Inscribing “ethnic” identification on identity cards,…relegating the vast majority of Hutus to

particularly onerous forms of forced cultivation and corvée, and actively favoring Tutsi in access

to administrative posts, education, and jobs in the modern sector” (Newbury 1995: 12).

Throughout colonial rule most of the rich and influential people were Tutsi (Newbury 1995).

In 1959 a revolution brought the Hutu group into power. The violence and conflict

associated with the revolution forced hundreds of thousands of Tutsi to escape to other countries

like Zarie and Tanzania for asylum. However, it was the Presidency of Juvenal Habyarimana that

triggered the events that would later be considered the Rwandan Genocide. Habyarimana’s

regime faced significant threats from the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a political and military

organization created by Tutsi refugees in Uganda (Newbury 1995). Habyarimana responded with

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 6

a “growing militarization of state and society” (Newbury 1995: 12). The conflict between the

RPF and the Rwandan government turned into war after a serious 1990 attack by the RPF. By

1993, there was pressure on the Rwandan government to negotiate an agreement to end the war.

Eventually, the Arusha Peace Accords were signed and the RPF was to gain representation in

both the transitional government and the Rwandan army (Newbury 1995).

Even during the signing of the Arusha accords, “the real issue-growing political and

ethnic tension-remained untended” (Scheffer 2004: 127). Signs like increasing militia strength

and extremist propaganda and rallies were ignored. However, it wasn’t until April 6th, 1994

when President Habyarimana was killed after the plane that he was travelling on was shot that

the Rwandan Genocide officially began (Scheffer 2004). After the assassination of Habyarimana,

both the RPF and Hutu extremists blamed the attack on each other with no clear indication of

who was really to blame. Almost instantly, killings began with the rapid murder of Tutsi and

moderate Hutu individuals. The genocide went on for a hundred days and death toll estimates

range from five hundred thousand to one million people (Newbury 1995).

The killings themselves were carried out with “meticulous organization” (BBC News

Africa 2014). Opponents of the extremist agenda including some prominent Hutu politicians

were targeted and militants were given specific orders to find and kill them. A large portion of

the genocide was committed by members of the Interahamwe, a paramilitary youth wing of the

Rwandan government. These militants set up “roadblocks” where they could use the ID card

system to identify and then kill Tutsis. Typically, machetes were used as the murder weapons

(BBC News Africa 2014). This exceedingly successful low tech mechanism of killing was

shockingly used to kill, on average, eight thousand people a day (Scheffer 2004). Crimes against

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 7

women were very common with many captured Tutsi women being raped and forced to work as

sex slaves. Furthermore, radio stations and other media outlets were utilized by the Hutu

extremists as a means of encouraging Hutus to find and kill Tutsis (BBC News Africa 2014).

Although there were U.N., Belgian, and French troops in Rwanda during the genocide, no

party was able to stop the conflict. The U.N. peacekeepers in the area never received a mandate

allowing them to take action to stop the genocide and most of the peacekeepers actually left

Rwanda while the conflict was still going on. The genocide did come to an end on July 4th, 1994

when the RPF was able to capture the Rwandan capital. (BBC News Africa 2014).The

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was later held in Tanzania to prosecute the leaders

of the genocide (Powell 2011).

Sociological Perspectives on the Rwandan Genocide:

From a Marxist perspective in a capitalistic society, labor is considered “a commodity

that is bought and sold on the market” (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2013: 165). Thus, human laborers

are essentially expendable (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2013). From a Marxist perspective, the lack of

global intervention in the Rwandan genocide can be explained by understanding that the

Rwandans (as well as the limited resources that Rwanda had) were considered basically as

expendable laborers and not worth much traditional monetary value to nations that had the ability

to get involved in the conflict (Dooley 2015).

Furthermore, a Marxist would probably argue that the initial colonization of Africa by

mainly European powers resulted in a continent that was split by artificial borders that failed to

consider any existing historic, religious, or tribal relationships between people living on the

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 8

continent. Prior to colonization the African continent was generally considered by Europeans to

be underdeveloped, however post-colonization the continent also became erroneously

“fragmented” which led to a great degree of conflict and inequality. In Rwanda, this led to the

“destruction of Rwandan culture on the basis of race” (Dooley 2015:274). Consequently, when

colonization started to end in Rwanda and the new national government attempted to, according

to Dooley (2015: 274), “enact policies designed to enhance their stabilities” it was impossible for

the government to ameliorate the violence and chaos caused by existing poverty and warfare.

On the other hand, one of the major themes in the work of Emile Durkheim is the idea

that in sociological study the individual is less important than the collective society (Ritzer and

Stepnisky 2013). Stemming from this concept, from Durkheim’s perspective, the state is

responsible for the foundation of social thought. Individual initiative or opinion really plays a

minimal role in the understanding of events from this perspective because the needs of a

particular society matter the most. In this sense, the Durkheimian perspective could almost be

used as a justification for the Rwandan genocide by the genocides perpetrators who could have

seen the genocide as necessary for the good of the collective society. From a Durkheimian

perspective, the Rwandan genocide could probably be explained as an ultranationalist movement

in which the Hutu majority aimed to promote an ‘ethnic cleansing’ as a means of guaranteeing

Hutu nationalism (Powell 2011).

Personally, I find myself leaning towards the Marxist perspective. I especially agree with

the Marxist explanation for why powerful and wealthy foreign countries like the United States

elected not to get involved in the conflict early on. Although it seems harsh, the consideration of

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 9

Rwandan lives to be expendable commodities by the international community probably allowed

the genocide to continue far longer than it ever should have.

Conclusion:

Genocide, by definition, is a social atrocity. During the Rwandan Genocide the conflict

between the Hutu and Tutsi people resulted in the deaths of at least five hundred thousand people

(Scheffer 2004). The response to the genocide by the international community and the origins of

the conflict can both be examined through different theoretical perspectives. A Marxist

perspective might point to the division of Africa by European colonizers as the source of social

unrest on the continent (Dooley 2015). A Durkehemian perspective might have understood the

genocide as an ultranationalist movement that used violence and murder as a means of promoting

a common social opinion (Powell 2011; Ritzer and Stepnisky 2013). Literature on the Rwandan

genocide, although plentiful, lacks clear consensus on the event. Something as quantitative as the

number of deaths associated with the genocide is still heavily debated and it is unlikely that there

will ever be agreed upon death toll (Scheffer 2004). The wounds from the genocide are still very

fresh and continue to impact Rwanda and its neighboring countries (BBC News Africa 2014). It

will most likely take several more generations of study into the Rwandan genocide before

sociological perspectives on the event can be accurately supported.

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 10

References

Ballantine, Jeanne H., and Keith A. Roberts. 2011. Our Social World: Introduction to Sociology.

2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

BBC News Africa. 2014. Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter. April 10.

Clark, Janine. 2009. “Learning from the Past: Three Lessons from the Rwandan Genocide.”

African Studies 68(1):1-28

Dooley, Kevin. 2015. Why Politics Matters: An Introduction to Political Science, 2nd Edition.

Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Fearon, James D., and David D. Laitin. 2000. “Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic

Identity.” International Organization 54(4):845-77.

McDoom, Omar. 2005. “Rwanda’s Ordinary Killers: Interpreting Popular Participation in the

Rwandan Genocide.” Working Paper, Crisis States Programme, Development Destin

Studies Institute, London, UK.

Newbury, Catharine. 1995. “Background to Genocide: Rwanda.” Issue: A Journal of Opinion

23:12-17.

Powell, Christopher. 2011. Barbaric Civilization: A Critical Sociology of Genocide. Montreal:

McGill-Queens University Press.

Niharika Dar

SOC 101-001

Winter Term 2015 11

Prunier, Gerard. 1995. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Ritzer, George and Jeff Stepnisky. 2013. Sociological Theory, 9th Edition. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill Publishing

Scheffer, David. 2004. “Lessons from the Rwandan Genocide.” Georgetown Journal of

International Affairs 5(2):125-132

United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime

of Genocide, 1948. Retrieved March 14, 2015 (https://treaties.un.org).

Uvin, Peter. 2001. “Reading the Rwandan Genocide.” International Studies Review 3:75-99.