Toward An Inclusive Inter-Rwandan Dialogue: Lessons from Other Conflicts
AFRICA, 2 Sep 2013
Pierre Bakunda – TRANSCEND Media Service
From their exile in Uganda in October 1990, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, RPF, killed indistinctively people and emptied the entire Province of Byumba (North-West). After three years of war, the displaced survivors were somewhat gathered around Kigali the Capital, just into the sheeting shelters without food, safe drinking water, etc. Those poor people had fled their home becoming homeless and were expecting that the Arusha agreement would put an end to their misery. This agreement attributed 60% of power-sharing to Hutu representing 85% and 40% to Tutsi representing 14% of the population. However, even though those rebels had been granted enough sits, i.e. 40% rather than 14% they wanted 100% since they did not accept sharing power with the rest of their opponents. During the Rwandan war, the Rwandan Patriotic Front fighters claimed to bring democracy, but one can wonder at what extent the country is now in democracy when the president is elected with 93%. What is democracy anyway? You cannot be a democrat if you do not aim for free elections, multiparty, separation of powers, civil society, freedom of the press, etc. Democracy is the way people can own the right to rule their affairs through their elected representatives. Justice is one of the essential components of democracy and peace implementation is the real warrant of a stable society. One of the three South African pillars of democracy Nelson Mandela showed a good example of tolerance when he preached to banish white privileges and a black revenge.
Taking note of Julian Edelstein, (2007), concerning – Mandela’s humility, he wrote the following declaration from Mandela in court: “During my lifetime, I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”. Nelson Mandela has been one of the three pillars of peace of whom Desmond Tutu and Frederic de Clerk from whom followers got peace instructions to slow down their disputes and opt for peaceful coexistence as declared Mandela in the statement above; humility is the best way to boost confidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8CTOw5A5Xg. From my point of view, without justice a society is condemned and exposed to dictatorship and people cannot develop themselves if they are under pressure. There is no peace without development and there is no development without peace as declared Mr John Kerry in a speech last July at the UN Conference about peace building in African Grate Lakes Region. Because of lack of peace in South Africa, Nelson Mandela was unjustly imprisoned for 27 years but his dream was not revenge, rather he focused on a united South Africa where all people could live peacefully regardless of their skin colour. The question that is stirring me to bringing – Rwandans around a negotiation table for talks is as follows: “How and why should Rwandans carry out an “Inclusive Inter-Rwandan dialogue” in order to build a state-nation where people would coexist peacefully?”
To tentatively answer this question I have to make an assumption, which is an anticipatory response to the above question. In other words my assumption is an operative hypothesis, which is formulated as follows: “Through a long lasting war from 1990 to 1994, the present Rwandan politicians took power by force from their predecessors leaving behind themselves mass killings in Byumba, and Ruhengeri provinces and the 1994 genocide. The latter was triggered by the shooting down of the jet where two presidents of Rwanda and Burundi as well as their delegations perished. However, the Arusha agreement of power-sharing had been signed in August 1993 by both the government and the rebellion. This situation brought about institutional chaos, genocides, mass killings, reprisals, insecurity due to fear of losing power by the rebellion if democratic principles would have been the achievement of that so called Arusha Agreement.” The main question and the assumption will be the core elements of my study and will guide my reflections.
In my past research conclusion about the « Implicit Rules of the Rwandan Society and their Impact on Social, Political and Economic Development from 1898 to 1994 », I expressed a will of reconciliation amongst Rwandan ethnic groups. Their conflict of power-sharing started in the 1950s and until now one can say that they haven’t wanted to solve it peacefully. Pursuing my research, I have been inspired by two societies, i.e. South Africa and Northern Ireland where on one hand Whites and Blacks in South Africa resolved their differences, and on the other Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland found a solution to their problems. According to Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004, p.83, reconciliation requires some conditions, they state: “The reconciliation process begins when psychological changes begin to take place. That is, reconciliation begins when the parties in conflict start to change their beliefs, goals – and motivations about the conflict.” I believe Rwandans need to be psychologically prepared to accept such a process without which the country could turn into a failed state such as Somalia, which is why Rwandan elite should be committed to prevent this sad situation but will they succeed to contribute to that? Actually, dialogue and reconciliation are initiated by the government to build durable peace and good understandings amongst the population. From time to time government accept dialogue because they are forced by a war that is justified by a group of individuals claiming their rights. In Rwanda, there doesn’t exist any combatant forces to constrain the government to deal with this imperative matter unless International Community obligates the Rwandan authority to change their mind and opt for a consensual mechanism of conflict resolution. South Africa made it using the mechanism known as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, TRC.
Using appropriate mechanisms to solving Conflict
One can understand how both South Africa and Northern Ireland managed to put forward two different mechanisms such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, TRC in South Africa and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland to put an end to their conflicts. At present, both countries reached such a stage that, for example, South Africa has been admitted into BRICS as one of the 5 emerging countries due to its social, political and economic stability. In Northern Ireland both sides applied the accord, which was a must to achieve a cease fire and now weapons have been silenced. This topic ”Toward an Inclusive Inter-Rwandan Dialogue, lessons from other conflicts” underlines the fact that Rwandans should learn from others’ experiences, which seem to be a way to engage in fruitful dialogue amongst two communities divided for centuries. The Rwandan Mechanism called “Gacaca” was a failure to reconcile Rwandans; it rather was a tool of deepening hate and misunderstanding between the survivors of genocide and the so called perpetrators. This type of mechanism was a shameful manipulation since the judges had no competence to apply the law fairly due to their ignorance. How can an individual without law knowledge handle an issue which must be dealt with by qualified lawyers because they have the ability in that field?
Indeed, in terms of applying the will of the government the rule of law was not put into account and observers may have thought that it was a real way to solve the problem. Even though some foreign people believe in the outcome of “Gacaca”, I maintain my opinion that lawyers are the only ones to apply the law and not people who don’t even have the required knowledge in dealing with law. “Gacaca” Courts originate from the traditional system of conflict resolution. The system dealt mainly with civil and social conflicts between members of the community. It referred to a physical green space where people used to meet; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaYzwXcso48. Primarily, this traditional court was to handle simple issues before they could be sent to formal courts, it was a way of reconciliation attempt. In case the compromise was not reached, then the person who could feel that the conclusions were unjust could say that the best way was to go to formal court. This mechanism, after the genocide, had been granted a mandate to punish perpetrators according to constructed story-telling. The real mission of “Gacaca” was then deviated willingly to silence undesirable so-called genocidaires. Furthermore, it omitted to trial the other party of the regime that committed atrocities against local populations.
This mechanism was a tool of the Rwandan government to manipulate donors in order to grant aids that have been taken into other affairs. That is why many people fled “Gacaca” injustice to neighbouring Burundi or Uganda. It was not a fair institution, and unfortunately the truth was not put forward to create a justly conducive environment; victims became perpetrators through arranged accusations. When the objective is to mediate people, organizers must be transparent and avoid lies and manipulation to engage into a process of truth-telling. “Truths are an important part of reconciliation, since on different sides of a conflict or an oppressive relationship have different experiences and understandings,” Kriesberg, p.83. Without such a transparency, no one can pretend to build a strong society like in South Africa.
If reconciliation is the real aim, it will be as an operational method for bolstering the process of conflict resolution as says Tamar Herman, p. 45. From my point of view,if reconciliation is a fair process, it must aim at reparation and forgiveness. As Albia Sachs suggests “the greatest reparation can be given to the most traumatised of our people and has to guarantee them full equal citizenship, and assure them the dignity of being acknowledged as human beings.” He continues saying that “rights relate to how we see ourselves and how we connect with others. However, I believe that each case has its own criteria connected to its history. These wise lessons are inevitable to Rwandans if they really want to look forward and leave the gloomy past behind and concentrate on peace building for younger generations.
Fear of Being Persecuted and Insecurity in Rwanda and DR Congo
A lot of Rwandans either Hutu or Tutsi flee their country and live elsewhere around the world; they actually need to contribute to peace-building through talks so that there could be reconciliation. They are aware of the danger that can be faced by younger generations if any effort is not engaged to solve this long lasting conflict. Those people fled and are even fleeing their own country now because they felt and feel insecurity given the illicit imprisonment of the political opposition leaders either eliminated or missed; journalists have been murdered or put into prison, political opponents have been killed, etc. The Rwandan insecurity has been spread into neighbouring countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo where Rwandan authorities have been creating chaos through well-organized wars targeting civilians using military groups such as RCD, CNDP, M23, etc. The problem of insecurity in the sub region is due to the fact that Rwanda continues to have military influence in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, arguing that Hutu militias are settled there. The latter claim an open inter-Rwandan dialogue aiming at Reconciliation and consensual democracy. Rwandan Refugees around the world support such an initiative and claim to want a Peace process through which the Truth should be told.
Peace talks are essential at this stage because political space has been closed. One can say without any doubt that people in Rwanda have been oppressed since there is no rule of law. A highly and inclusively inter-Rwandan dialogue would debate about a new constitution in order to definitely abolish privileges and consider a new society that needs strong and viable institutions for all. Dialogue contributes to healing and acknowledgement of wrong doings, hence forgiveness. People would need to disclose the burdens they have been carrying from the 1990-1994 war until now to close this sad chapter once and for all. Among wrong doings one can talk about the Hutu mass killings from the beginning of the war in 1990, the Tutsi genocide and its reprisals amongst which the Gakurazo priests’ elimination, the Kibeho mass killings, the Hutu refugees’ mass killings in the DRC, the Congolese mass killings and other grievances related to the Rwandan chaos. The UN Mapping Report considers that around 6 million Congolese and Hutu refugees have been slaughtered by the Rwandan Army at the extent that such killings could be accounted as genocide if investigations were carried out.
As Allan G. Johnson, 2000, p. 11 says: “Understand how to bring dominant groups into the conversation and the solution is the biggest challenge we face. My work is to help find a way to meet that challenge. It is to identify tools for understanding what is going on and what’s got to do with us without being swallowed up in a sea of guilt and blame or rushing into denial and angry self-defence.” It is important to notice in this process that the government has the role to initiate such talks because external actors cannot act on the behalf of the concerned local authorities. Allan G. Johnson goes further and adds: “It is to open windows to new ways of thinking about difference and what’s being made of it in this society. It is to remove barriers that stand between us and serious, long-term conversation across difference and effective action for change that can make a difference.” If Rwandans do not take the opportunity to rethink their society, it will be too late to build peace in the future because talks amongst them seem to be a must in order to prevent any other chaotic situation that would cause desolations.
Rwanda experienced both external and internal conflicts, which are not easy to manage since the stakeholders from outside may have a hidden agenda shared with their internal accomplices. For Rwanda and former Zaire, their invasions by the Rwandan Patriotic Front, RPF, were as a result of well-planned acts from Uganda and other foreign Western nations because they wanted to reach the DR Congolese enormous natural resources. Rwanda, being the bridge to reach these resources, it was then sacrificed no matter who would be killed or what will be damaged in terms of environment, etc. The great harm caused by the war destroyed social fabric in Rwanda and DR Congo. With this in mind, organizing talks in Rwanda would be a long and inescapable process since people are fed up of those hidden stakeholders’ agendas whose aim is to oppose them in the principle of “divide and rule.”
The Failure of the Rwanda’s Arusha Agreement
The Arusha Agreementcould have absorbed this long lasting conflict between Hutu and Tutsi, but it was such a lie that people thought they were going to live peacefully whereas the reality was to face the chaos. One could wonder how such an agreement supervised by the United Nations wasn’t implemented for the sake of positive peace if the real objective was to help Rwandans coexist in a respectful manner. Should we compare the Rwandan Arusha Agreement to the Belfast /Good Friday Agreement, we may make a mistake because one was successful whereas the other was a shameful failure followed by the 1994 genocide. Indeed, the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was carried out with no hidden agenda whereas in the case of Rwanda, outsiders had their eye on the DR Congo’s potential mineral resources. Here is the link of the root causes of the Rwandan tragedy, which brought about severe consequences that affect both Rwanda and the DR Congo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bRJbPL1d3Y. Who ordered the terrorist act which was the trigger factor of the genocide in Rwanda? The search of power and privilege was motivated by egocentric interests but who could benefit from such an act? The link below gives us some avenues about who profited from that act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgCMG_X68wQ.
Taking note of Christine Bell, p.122, about the protocol of agreement between the Government of Rwanda and Rwandan Patriotic Front on the Integration of the Armed Forces of the political parties, 3 August 1993, she states that: “The protocol consisted of three chapters: Chapter I and chapter II outlined missions and principles; size, structure, and organization; types of service and discipline procedures; and process for the formation of the National Army and the National Gendarmerie. Chapter III provided details on the demobilization process.” This agreement was signed by both parties but did not produce any positive effect. Indeed, it was sabotaged by some politicians who had a plan B, just to let the agreement be signed and thereafter to operate deep changes using chaos by sacrificing internal Tutsi with Hutu democrats.
The British and Irish governments in relationship with Northern Ireland held a meeting in order to reach a compromise. “In February 1995 the two governments produced a joint report entitled “Framework for the future” that intended to help “carry the Talks forward,” Christine Bell, 2002. What can stop Rwandans following such an example if they are committed to peace? Why do some of them refuse to sit around a negotiation table and settle their differences? The government should be active and encourage such an initiative so as to look forward to solving the problems that undermine the Rwandan relationship to building a long lasting peace. As says Bar-Siman-Tov, p.65: “Mutual satisfaction with a peace agreement is a crucial condition required for stabilising peace and a precondition for the transition toward stable peace.” From my point of view, all concerned parties must find a compromise i.e. they have to be fully committed to carry out positive change for the sake of their communities.
Bar-Siman also thinks that mutual satisfaction is the first and the immediate precondition in the long process of stable peace and is necessary for development of two others. Without mutual satisfaction with the peace agreement both sides probably will fail to maintain peace. Quoting both Kacowicz and Rothstein pp. 50-55, they consider that: “Both sides should be aware that the degree of mutual satisfaction influences the prospects for stable peace relations; thus, any agreement that satisfies only one side may foil the process of implementation of the agreement. Satisfaction should not be limited only to the decision makers’ echelon or the ruling political or military elites, but should also include most of the political, economic, and social elites as well as other sectors of the population. Wide satisfaction with the agreement will legitimise the peace agreement and minimise the influence of those who are less or not satisfied with the agreement.” When one looks at the Rwandan Arusha agreement and its failure, one can conclude that both parties were not convinced of its importance. It was like an imposition and the fact is that once it came to be implemented, political frictions occurred. In fact, the opposition parties did not want to swear in as the former president had done it publicly. This was the pogrom of the 1994 tragedy.
What about South Africa? The South African way of conflict resolution focused on establishing justice and unity trough the mechanism known as the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” TRC. The objective of the TRC was to address the legacy of the past by promoting national unity and reconciliation, to contribute to the healing of the nation, Albia Sachs, p.146. For Rwanda, I think peace-builders would identify the real root causes of the conflict, nature and extent of the gross violation of human rights from for example the 1st October 1990 to 1998. Concerned peace-builders would examine if amnesty would be granted to persons from both sides that would make a full disclosure of all the facts they have been involved in. Another step would be to get to know where victims have been slaughtered in order to build a second Memorial that should be for both Hutu and Tutsi for the sake of their human and civil dignity. This would enable survivors to appropriately remember their lost relatives. Each mechanism of conflict transformation has to deal with the country’s reality, i.e. its culture, constitution, history. In Rwanda, people should imagine a way to engage in a constructive dialogue that can be specific to the context of their disunity. Dealing with a complex problem such as the Rwandan one, which is internal and external, needs to define a strong framework that should be based on compromising objectives to avoid any technical failure.
Quoting Christine Bell, (2000: 37), on internal conflict, she states: “The conflicts and peace process in South Africa and Northern Ireland were both largely internal in the sense that the international community did not directly intervene to limit the conflict or to negotiate an overall settlement.” Indeed, the international community did not take positions in both conflicts, rather international individuals and groups played time-limited roles in negotiating discrete issues. She argues that: “the process in South Africa lasted several years and followed a ‘step-break-gesture-step’ pattern. Concessions were made by both sides in stages, punctuated by high levels of violence and instability which at times brought public negotiations to a standstill, although behind-the-scenes negotiations often continued until a new set of compromises was reached”. I believe that compromises are possible when all parties in conflict are willing to cope with an issue that concern them and their younger generations because the legacy of bad governance can be seen as lack of responsibility by those ones who inherit it. In any case, if both parties in Rwanda refuse to discuss the matter fairly, a neutral organization or individual can be agreed to play the role of a mediator.
As Allan G. Johnson says p.12 about naming what’s wrong when dealing with a difficult situation, he states: “I feel like a doctor trying to help a patient without ever mentioning the body or naming what’s wrong. We can’t get anywhere that way – and we haven’t been. Our collective house is burning down and we’re tiptoeing around afraid to say fire”. Nowadays, in Rwanda, the policy is to ignore the existence of social ethnic groups such as Hutu, Tutsi and Twa, but when it comes to privileges; we know who is on the top line to benefit from good political positions, scholarships, etc. How can one talk about the consequences of social domination, subordination, inclusive Rwandan dialogue, and oppression without saying the right word? Conversely, at present, due to social difficulties, the Rwandan president dares to say that Hutu even younger generations who were born after the 1994 genocide should ask for forgiveness to Tutsi. Allan G. Johnson, p. 14 states once more: “I am going to be part of the solution to that difficult legacy, it’s important to step back from my defensive sensitivity to such language and look at the reality it points to. Then I can understand what it names and what it has to do with me and, most importantly, what I can do about it.” Before, during and after the colonial era, Rwanda experienced social differences, exclusion and exploitation from the minority and with the colonial indirect rule, “divide and rule”; Hutu and Tutsi were totally disconnected even opposed. The consequences are the present situation where they must negotiate and settle their differences in order to engage into a fruitful dialogue provided the government is willing to do so.
In Northern Ireland, according to C. Bell, “a similarly long, drawn-out, and halting process was concluded with a contrasting intense period of negotiations under pressure of a deadline imposed by US Senator George Mitchell, who had been brought in to chair the talks.” From my point of view, opposed Rwandans cannot reach any compromise without a common and agreed mediator. This is because they have such hate and contempt for one another that they want to show who is more powerful than the other. C. Bell argues that: “In both South Africa and Northern Ireland the agreement reached and produced a constitutional document which claimed to provide the way forward, but which required to be implemented through legislation and on-going negotiations.” As for South Africa, she confirms: “the roots of modern South African conflict are found in the British and Dutch colonization of South Africa, which resulted in the introduction of a white minority who soon held power in the region. The modern South African state emerged as part of a pact between the British government and the White Afrikaner minority in South Africa, creating the South African Union in 1910. Its constitution excluded all black people from Parliament and denied most of them the right to vote.” By here, one can identify the two faces of two different issues that have been treated differently to reach the same result, a peaceful coexistence amongst opposed communities. As for Rwanda, the similarities with both South Africa and Northern Ireland are that Belgian colonialists consolidated existing divisions by introducing anthropological measures and an identity card highlighting one’s ethnic group.
Can Rwandans learn from those two cases even if each case has its own particularities compared to Rwanda? Indeed, in terms of power-sharing and discrimination, Rwanda before its independency of 1July 1962, was under the control of King and Belgian colonists. That old Rwanda suggests a combination of the native Irish exclusion and the Black South African discrimination since at that time, in Rwanda, administration and education were the privilege of one ethnic group whereas the others were ignored. White colonialists implemented the principle of “divide and rule” favouring Tutsi group and considering Hutu group as subjects. Outsiders in both Northern Ireland and South Africa held all privileges excluding native ones. For instance, in Northern Ireland the problem was not really about Protestants and Catholics, it was rather an economic problem where the natives could not access public services, schools, accommodations and so forth. In South Africa, the issue was founded on racial segregation where Blacks and coloured people were excluded from all social, economic and political activities.
The modern Rwanda needs an inter-dialogue aiming at national reconciliation, which would implement a general election whose outcomes would focus on the “Truth and Reconciliation Mechanism”. This mechanism will, as in South Africa, create confidence amongst hurt people by healing moral and psychological wounds through disclosures or revelations of what they endured would be revealed. Indeed, Rwanda is divided into two parts because the power is in the hands of a click Rwandans coming from Uganda whereas political opposition was destroyed. A lot of opposition leaders are in fear and some prefer to flee abroad as said above. The real political resistance is operating in foreign countries where they try to show the social injustice that people endure in Rwanda and in neighbouring DR Congo. However, internally, the government seems to ignore that there is a major problem which might be handled properly to avoid a new overflow of violence. A good inter-Rwandan dialogue should suit all parties concerned by peace building and reflect the will of people to settle their differences around a common, fair and neutral mediator. The latter should have the capacity of being patient and tolerant to play the role of an attentive mediator who analyses the situation and provides good advice. This will possibly bring about a long lasting peace that fits both parties involved in the conflict resolution.
Conclusion
What lessons have I learned so far from South Africa and North Ireland?
In South Africa self-determination provision was used both by the government to justify Bantustans and apartheid, and the ANC and the international community to oppose them. The rule of “divide and rule” is the only tool of outsiders to intrude others business so that they control their mind; this is how every system in Africa is destroyed by the lobby network from elsewhere.
In Northern Ireland self-determination law and principles could be used to support both the claims of British unionists and Irish nationalists. The gaps and lack of clarity in the international legal standards translate the issues at the heart of the conflict into abstract legal language, rather than resolving them.
Both cases
Despite these limitations both South Africa and Northern Ireland do provide a basis for arguing that international law can play a crucial role in limiting the conflict (although other factors are of course important). In both, it would seem that international illegitimacy played some role in bringing an end to the conflict, and certainly to the types of solution which were on the table at that point. In doing so, it impacted on their peace process and resulting agreements. A full demonstration of how this operated would require further treatment given above. In short, it was not through direct imposition, but through more long-term less dramatic but no less real ways; a process which Rwandans should implement to achieve their goals of creating a nation-state.
If Rwandans could get inspired by those two cases, they would definitely solve their long lasting conflict using their ability to consider the priority to build a new society. They should choose some essential elements from both South Africa and Northern Ireland to enrich their peace process and add new visions to prevent any failure by promoting the culture of mutual respect, impunity and human dignity. Learning from others is observing and analysing what has been noticed to build a new society that fits all individuals. Boulding, p.283, also suggests that an increase in the strength of the system of relations depends on a “political learning process.”Dealing with peace-building, in this particular given case, means to know the root causes, the context, and to bring positive ideas and solutions through participative processes so that individuals can be part of each resolution, hence sustain peace-building. However, once dealing with power, privilege and difference as is the case in Rwanda, every actor has to know the Rwandan society and its implicit rules; how they operate gloomy coups in order to avoid their impacts on one’s life. It is important to know the strategies of the actors involved in this matter, their resources, and legitimacy, positive and negative stakes, hidden hands, etc. Will Hutu and Tutsi overcome the legacy of social privileges, power and difference to engage into creating a nation- state for all? I wish I would be part of the actors to reconcile Rwandans to overcome their gloomy differences but being excluded, I believe it will require manoeuvres and maturity from the Rwandan government to accept the process.
Bibliography
– Albia Sachs, 1995, Truth, Reconciliation, and Nation – Building
– Allan G. Johnson, 2000, Privilege, Power, and Difference
– Bar – Tal & Bennink, 2004, From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation
– C., Bell, 1999, Minority Rights and Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland
– Julian, Edelstein, 2001, Truths and Lies
– Kriesberg, 1998a, Policies Fostering Reconciliation
– Kacowicz, 1998; Kelman, 1999 a; Kacowicz, Boulding, 1994, and Bar-Siman-Tov: Reflexion on the theoretical and Practical Utility of the term
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8CTOw5A5Xg
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaYzwXcso48
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bRJbPL1d3Y
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgCMG_X68wQ
______________________________
Prof. Dr. Pierre-Celestin Bakunda is teaching “Sociology of Africa” at EDHEC Business School, Lille – France and he is a researcher in Social Sciences. His focus is Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in African Great Lakes Region. He is a Peace Activist who attended Peace Studies Programmes at the European University Centre for Peace Studies, Schlaining, Austria, and Wold Peace Academy, Basel, Switzerland. He is the author of Rwanda, the Inferno of Implicit Rules, L’Harmattan, July 2006, Paris; and his thesis, “The implicit Rules of the Rwandan Society and their Impact on Social, Political and Economic Development from 1898 to 1994, Anrt Press, October, 2007.”
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 2 Sep 2013.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Toward An Inclusive Inter-Rwandan Dialogue: Lessons from Other Conflicts, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.