1

A Critical Analysis of the role of the process of genocide commemoration in the

transformation of ethnic conflict in Rwanda Through the lens of the understanding

that remembering violence is preventing the society from renewed violence

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2

2 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS AND CONTEXTUALISATION ......... 5

2.1 Genocide Commemoration ............................................................................ 5

2.2 The process of genocide commemoration ..................................................... 6

2.3Transformation (of conflict) ........................................................................... 7

2.4. Ethnic group ................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Ethnic conflict ................................................................................................. 9

3 THE ROLE OF THE PROCESS OF GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION

IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF ETHNIC CONFLICT IN RWANDA .....10

3.1 Positive impact of genocide commemoration .............................................10

3.2 Challenges of genocide commemoration ....................................................12

4 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................14

5 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................16

5.1 Books and Journals .......................................................................................16

5.2 Electronic Sources .........................................................................................17

2

1 INTRODUCTION

Extreme violence between groups affects people who are exposed to it at various levels ranging

from physical, psychological, economical, and social levels. In a post-violence society, victims

and survivors of past acts of violence feel deeply wounded due to the persecutions they went

through, so healing is required in order for them to fit again in the society. As for the

perpetrators, though not as deeply as for the victims, they also feel traumatized because of their

wrongdoings. The perpetrators’ stigma is even magnified due to how they are perceived in the

post-violence society, thus they, too, need healing. This paper will seek to deeply examine the

role of the process of genocide commemoration in the transformation of ethnic conflict in

Rwanda going by the saying that remembering violence is preventing the society from renewed

violence.

In fact, as explained by Ervin Staub (2003:798), people who have been victims of intense

persecution or violence, especially if they are survivors of mass killings or genocide, are usually

deeply wounded. Victims of such atrocities will mistrust people and see the world as a dangerous

place. With regard to perpetrators, Staub further states that perpetrators are also wounded as a

result of engaging in great violence against others; although in many cases they tend to shield

themselves from feelings of empathy and guilt, often by continuing to devalue the victims and

clinging to their belief in the destructive ideology that has guided them. In line with perpetrators’

wounds, Staub argues that they equally need healing, as the process would open them both to

their own pain and to the pain of others. The latter would then increase the possibility of

reconciliation.

In relation to healing, it is argued that one of the processes to achieve true healing is by

remembering the past violence. Memory serves not only the purpose of honouring the victims

and healing survivors, but also the purpose of preventing renewed violence from reoccurring.

This is confirmed by Auerhahn and Laub (1984) who explain that after a genocide or war,

remembering is essential to healing in the sense that reconnection with pre-traumatic positive

imagery is necessary for the reconstitution of the individual's inner world. In the same line, Oren

Baruch Stier (2009:2) refers to memory, in the context of remembering the Holocaust, as, among

3

other forms, an intensely personal quest for narrative, for an ability to tell a story and, thereby, to

alleviate a burden.

From the statements made by the above authors regarding the function of genocide remembrance

as one of the ways to heal and alleviate the burden of past sufferings, it can be argued that, to

some extent, the survivors may reach a relative state of ease of their pain, which constitutes a

substantial step towards reconciliation between the groups involved in the genocide, namely

survivors and perpetrators. By extension, this move also benefit those related to the two groups,

such as the victims’/perpetrators’ relatives, irrespective of the fact that the latter might have or

might have not been closely affected by the genocide. However, it is also as important to note

that this reconciliation possibility applies most to societies that share at least the same country,

which implies that they would still have to share the same country even in the post-genocide era.

Thus this explains the necessity for reconciliation, especially in the case of post-genocide

Rwanda.

The above described situation applies to the context of Rwanda in the sense that in the 1994-

genocide, that claimed the lives of around 800, 000 people according to the United Nations and

more than 1,000,000 people according to estimates by the Government of Rwanda, was

perpetrated against Tutsis by extremist Hutus. Both groups shared and still share the same

country, provinces, and villages. Similarly, the Government of Rwanda also adopted the yearly

commemoration of genocide as a way to prevent its reoccurrence, but also as a means of

facilitating the transformation of “ethnic conflict” in Rwanda by upholding the international

slogan “never again”.

This objective can be also observed through the 2013 theme of one of the genocide

commemoration activities known as “walk to remember”: Remember, Honor, Rebuild; as

published on the website of the National Commission for Fight against Genocide (CNLG). It is

stated that the walk would allow participants to have the opportunity to take an active stance

against genocide while sending a message of unity, hope and solidarity with survivors. The walk

also aimed at engaging the youth in the fight against genocide ideology, fostering unity and

reconciliation, protesting against all forms of discrimination and creating a sustainable platform

for peace building. (www.cnlg.gov.rw).

4

From the assertion above, it is obvious that reconciliation is one of the key objectives of the

genocide commemoration in Rwanda. Moreover,, the national identity policy, which fosters the

eradication of reference to “ethnic” groups, has been promoted by the Rwandan State as the way

forward towards reconciliation, sustainable peace and development. One could wonder whether

there is no incongruity in the two instances, in the sense that remembering implies constant

mentioning of Tutsis, as victims or target of the genocide and perpetrators as mostly Hutus,

which is in disparity with the national identity policy. In this perspective, a question arises as to

whether the genocide commemoration really helps in fostering the transformation of “ethnic”

conflicts in Rwanda and to what extent.

To comprehensively answer this question, ample research is required. However, in an attempt to

understand this conundrum, it is important to consider the context of Rwanda and the uniqueness

of the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994. Thus, as mentioned earlier, this paper seeks to

critically analyse the role of the process of genocide commemoration in the transformation of

“ethnic” conflict in Rwanda.

The word ethnic will be kept in inventive commas, because this concept is contested in the

context of Rwanda. This will be thoroughly discussed in the following sections. To achieve the

key objectives of the paper, key concepts will be defined first, followed by the discussion of the

role of the process of genocide commemoration in the transformation of ethnic conflict in

Rwanda alongside achievements and challenges, and lastly concluding remarks will end the

paper.

5

2 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS AND CONTEXTUALISATION

2.1 Genocide Commemoration

The word commemoration is defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (7th

Edition,

2006) as an action or a ceremony that makes people remember and show respect for an important

person or event that occurred in the past.

In the context of genocide, not only does commemoration involve remembering for the healing

of survivors and honouring of the victims, but also includes learning from the past in order to

prevent similar atrocities by enhancing human rights worldwide. This can be understood from

the message of the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon during one of the

commemoration service of the Holocaust, an event that usually takes place each year on 27

January, when he stated that:

“The International Day in memory of the victims of the Holocaust is thus a day on which we

must reassert our commitment to human rights. [...] We must also go beyond remembrance,

and make sure that new generations know this history. We must apply the lessons of the

Holocaust to today’s world. And we must do our utmost so that all peoples must enjoy the

protections and rights for which the United Nations stands." (www.un.org).

In the same line, the United Nations (UN) has named April 7 as the “Day of Remembrance of the

Victims of the Rwanda Genocide”. Though not a public holiday, the Day of Remembrance of the

Victims of the Rwanda Genocide is an official UN observance day. Thus, at a commemoration

event on April 7th

2013, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon stated that “Out of the ashes of

the genocide, Rwanda has forged a new path, progressing towards a more peaceful and just

society. I encourage the people and Government of Rwanda to continue promoting the inclusive

spirit and dialogue necessary for healing, reconciliation and reconstruction” (http://www.un.org)

and (http://www.timeanddate.com). It is in the same spirit that the genocide against the Tutsis is

also commemorated in Rwanda and around the world.

As a matter of fact, in Rwanda, every year from 7 to 13 April, a week of commemoration of the

Genocide is organized by the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide in

6

collaboration (CNLG) in partnership with the umbrella of survivor organisations IBUKA, and

the week is observed countrywide. The commemoration of genocide against the Tutsis, as stated

by Jean de Dieu Mucyo, the Executive Secretary of CNLG, is a policy of the Rwandan

government, which under its social dimension, aims at unity, reconciliation and rehabilitation of

the Rwandan people and the country in general as well as the fight against negationism and

revisionism. (http://www.neveragainrwanda.org).

Genocide commemoration will be used in this context throughout the paper.

2.2 The process of genocide commemoration

The process of genocide commemoration in Rwanda involves a number of activities organized

by the CNLG and IBUKA during the one week official commemoration period from 7 to 13

April, and the continuation up to a hundred days long period observed by different survivors’

organizations. In line with this, Ibreck (2010) asserts that the extension of the commemoration

period to 100 days by the survivors, as a period through which the genocide against the Tutsis

lasted, shows how survivors’ commitment to commemoration exceeds that of the state. Ibreck

further argues that the original motivation of survivors is to have a platform to grieve, since

commemoration began as a response to loss and as first and foremost an expression of grief and

a practice of mourning. Arguably, Ibreck also highlights some critiques about the Rwandan state

for politicizing the memory (commemoration), which led to the shift from “Rwandan” to “Tutsi”

genocide in 2008 (Irbeck, 2010:16).

Some of the commemoration activities include:

The walk to remember where the youth walks distances as a symbol of the long distances

survivors had to walk to escape hunting,

Night vigils where survivors give testimonies about the horror they went through during

genocide,

Talk shows on the Rwandan TV and on various radios and several other activities aimed

at helping the very needy among genocide survivors in different areas across Rwanda.

Organized visits to genocide memorial sites are also activities done as part of the

commemoration process.

7

Another important activity is the decent burial of genocide victims’ remains in memorials.

During the genocide, the deceased people were thrown in pits and rivers in different places that

remained unknown for so long. Today, 19 years later, new remains are still being found in the

different places where they had been thrown.

During the genocide commemoration period, courageous acts of moderate Hutus who rescued

Tutsis during the genocide are also mentioned and commended. This is well illustrated by the

declaration on April 7th

2004 by His Excellency Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda, as

stressed by Rosoux (2007), that such people showed a great gesture of humanity by risking their

own life so as to save others’. The President referred to these people as “just” people and as the

reason for the country’s hope. This endeavor by the President played a role in appeasing the

feelings of survivors and at the same time avoiding a collective stigmatization of Hutus through

differentiating the role of killing played by some, to that of rescuing Tutsis played by others

during the 100 days of genocide. This act, as Rosoux further argues (although she later shows

contention in the argument), was based upon the assumption that commemoration should help to

create links among groups.

These links refer to reconciliation, which happens as a result of positive transformation of the

conflict.

2.3Transformation (of conflict)

Transformation, according to John Paul Lederach and Michelle Maiese, is about a way of

looking and seeing, and it provides a set of lenses through which we make sense of social

conflict. The two authors further explain that first; we need a lens to see the immediate situation.

Second, we also need a lens to see past the immediate problems and view the deeper relationship

patterns that form the context of the conflict. Third, we need a lens that helps us envision a

framework that holds these together and creates a platform to address the content, the context,

and the structure of the relationship. They finally assure that from this platform, parties can begin

to find creative responses and solutions to their conflict (Lederach and Maiese, 2009).

8

In the same line, Paula Dijk (2009) argues that there are three closely interlinked main

dimensions of conflict transformation namely: the perceptions and attitudes of people, the

context in which people live as well as the behavior of people.

From the above definitions by different authors, it can be argued that conflict transformation is a

process that expands the efforts from addressing root causes of conflict through fixing parties

attitudes and behaviors during conflict resolution process to repairing and restoring the broken

relationships between parties up to putting into place structures favoring long term and

sustainable peace.

In the context of Rwanda, those efforts towards conflict transformation include starting

organizations such as the National Unity and Reconciliation, as well as setting up the

participatory and innovative justice system known as Gacaca. Other efforts from the state

comprise the promotion of equal access to education including the 12 years basic education

system, the promotion of national identity on the detriment of ethnic tags, various poverty

reduction schemes such as the famous one cow per poor household “gira inka” program, and the

“ubudehe” program among others, as well as other development policies like the celebrated land

consolidation for greater production.

All these transformational efforts are aimed at addressing the consequences of the previous

“ethnic conflict” and genocide as well as putting in place mechanisms of prevention of any

reoccurrence of similar conflicts that resulted from instrumentalisation of “ethnic” groups, which

are going to be defined in our next point.

2.4. Ethnic group

Narroll (1964) provides an anthropological definition of an ethnic group, as being composed of

four interrelated criteria:

1) A shared pattern of beliefs, behavior patterns, cultural values, etc.

2) An awareness of the group's own distinctiveness which is partially reflected in a “we” feeling.

3) A group which makes up a field of communication and interaction.

4) The tendency to maintain generational continuity by marriage within the group.

9

Fredrik Barth, on the other hand, mentions the traditional proposition, which, he argues, is not

very different in content from Narroll’s definition, that a race- or an ethnic group- equals a

culture, a culture implies a language and that a society equals a unit which rejects or

discriminates against others (Barth, 1969).

In the same perspective, Cynthia Enloe (1973) agrees that the content of the bond that unites an

ethnic group is shared culture; while Peter I. Rose (1981) argues that groups whose members

share a unique social and cultural heritage passed on from one generation to the next are known

as ethnic groups, and that these groups are frequently identified by distinctive patterns of family

life, language, recreation, religion and other customs that cause them to be differentiated from

others.

Considering the above definitions of an ethnic group by various scholars, it can be deduced that

there are no different ethnic groups in Rwanda, as all the distinctive characteristics that

contribute to the nomenclature of an ethnic group as such - like culture, religion, and language-

are all shared by all Rwandans. Thus, one can argue that these “ethnic” labels were indeed

constructed by European colonizers against scientific explanations only for political purposes. As

a result, all conflicts that occurred in Rwanda since the ousting of King Kigeri IV Ndahindurwa

in 1959 and subsequent massacres of Tutsis leading many of them into exile through the killings

of 1963 to 1972 until the peak in 1994- that unfolded into the genocide against the Tutsis- were

erroneously referred to as ethnic conflicts.

2.5 Ethnic conflict

According to Karl Cordell and Stefan Wolff, an ethnic conflict is one particular form of a

situation in which two or more actors pursue incompatible, yet from their individual

perspectives, entirely just goals, in which the goals of at least one party are defined in

exclusively ethnic terms, and in which the primary fault line of confrontation is one of ethnic

distinctions. In this regard, it is a group conflict in which one of the parties involved interprets

the conflict, its causes, and potential remedies along an actual or perceived discriminating divide

(Cordell & Wolff, 2009). In this line, the conflict itself is not ethnic, but rather at least one of its

participants, who are organised around the ethnic identity of its members.

10

Basing on the definition of an ethnic conflict and the description of an ethnic group provided

earlier on, it cannot be maintained that conflicts that occurred in Rwanda leading to genocide

were ethnic conflicts if, scientifically speaking, there were no distinctive ethnic groups in

Rwanda. However, it is important to acknowledge the weight and identification of Rwandans

along these constructed ethnic groups. Thus, perpetrators were killing in the name of their Hutu

“ethnic” group, while targeted victims were being killed for belonging to the Tutsi “ethnic”

group. Therefore, however socially or politically constructed the Rwandan ethnic groups might

have been, the fact remains, the genocide was perpetrated along ethnic groups with Hutu

perpetrators on one side and Tutsi victims (with their sympathisers, moderate Hutus) on the

other.

This remains a historical fact that must always be preserved through memory and that can never

be altered, to the peril of promoting revisionism. As a matter of fact, here lies the challenge of

preserving a memory reviving ethnic labels on one hand, and striving to build a national identity

that eradicates any use of ethnic identification on the other hand.

3 THE ROLE OF THE PROCESS OF GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION IN THE

TRANSFORMATION OF ETHNIC CONFLICT IN RWANDA

The process of genocide commemoration played and still plays a role in transformation of the

ethnic conflict in Rwanda, as it is going to be highlighted in the section of positive impact of

commemoration. However, there are different views that suggest a negative contribution by

mentioning a counterproductive aspect of the yearly commemoration that can arguably hinder

the efforts to transform ethnic conflict. That is going to be explored in the section under

challenges to genocide commemoration.

3.1 Positive impact of genocide commemoration

Literature shows that commemoration facilitates the healing process, which in turn can enhance

peaceful coexistence of communities that were affected and cleaved by extreme violence. Thus,

Pearlman (2013:118,119) states that healing from trauma, recovering from the psychological

wounds that result from being the object of violence -and also from perpetrating or passively

11

witnessing the violence- enable people to lead better lives and contribute to building and

maintaining a peaceful society in the aftermath of mass violence. Here the author clearly makes a

link between healing and conflict transformation.

To incorporate the role of commemoration in promoting the above needed end state, Staub

(2013:190) provides a number of situations where healing can take place; some being in small

groups where people talk about their experiences and provide support to each other, in larger

groups where people offer testimonials describing their experience to others who provide

support, and in the course of commemoration activities where outsiders join victims thus

providing acknowledgment and emotional support. He further suggests that, as the time passes

and healing lessens the pain, even former perpetrators should join in the commemoration, as this

may be helpful.

In fact, the arguments put forward by Ervin Staub reflect the practice of what takes place during

the commemoration of genocide in Rwanda. In line with this understanding, the Rwandan

Government has owned the process by making the commemoration official through establishing

a one-week national memorial period. This fact proves the political will of the Rwandan State to

address the consequences of genocide by applying all possible positive scholarly suggestions

alongside other home-grown approaches to bring about the transformation of ethnic conflict.

In the same line, however, Staub (2011) warns about the importance of not only focusing on the

injuries and pain of the past, and on the continued psychological distress that resulted from it,

because such singular focus on pain might turn the events of the past into a persisting group

trauma and shape a group identity of woundedness. He rather suggests the inclusion in

commemorations, especially after some time, of a hopeful vision of the future, ideally a joint

peaceful future for all the different subgroups in society.

Here again, there is a visible example of application of scholarly researched suggestions by the

Government of Rwanda, as this has been the practice in Rwanda to commemorate under a theme

that bears a message of hope. In fact, the 19th

commemoration of genocide in 2013 was themed:

remembering while “Striving for Self-Reliance”, whereas the 18th

commemoration in 2012 had

the theme of "Learning from our history to build a bright future".

12

Indeed, as Ibreck (2010:17) ascertains through research, some survivors described their efforts to

overcome fear and hostility, and to recognise suffering of others. They did this in the

understanding that transforming relations among Rwandans and them and the state also required

personal change.

Taking into account the above explanations about the contribution of commemoration in the

healing process for both the victims and former perpetrators, it can be argued that

commemoration has helped the affected persons to achieve partial or complete self-recovery,

thus enhancing a situation of peaceful coexistence, which on a longer term can lead to

comprehensive transformation of perceptions of former enmity as a result of genocide.

Among policies put in place by the Rwandan Government that can facilitate the achievement of

the above, as suggested by Staub (2003:795), is the need for humanizing “the other”, in this case

giving Hutus a more human image in the eyes of Tutsis. One of the ways of doing so implied that

Hutus who had saved the lives of Tutsis during the genocide, and in some cases were killed as a

result, be acknowledged and included in the yearly commemoration of those tragic events. These

good people are referred to as “rescuers”. This suggestion was implemented for the first time in

the commemoration events of April 2003.

It is also important to note that other organs and institutions contribute in creating a conducive

environment to the peaceful practice of commemoration. These include security organs that

maintain safety of people as well as local authorities who sensitize communities to own and

participate in the efforts to pursue this healing and transformation of ethnic conflict championed

by the state and other stakeholders like genocide survivors’ organisations and the Rwandan

people in general. Nevertheless, not every individual or group does see the above efforts of

commemoration as a positive endeavour towards conflict transformation. Thus, some counter

arguments criticising the process of commemoration as a whole or its procedure are next in this

discussion below.

3.2 Challenges of genocide commemoration

One of the major challenges of genocide memory in Rwanda is finding a positive link between

memory of genocide alongside the recognition of victims as Tutsis and perpetrators as Hutus on

13

one hand, and the upholding of macro-nationalism and efforts to build a national identity as

Rwandans, thus overshadowing ethnic belonging. The complex aspect of this situation is that

memory per se implies a constant reference to ethnic groups.

This is visible in the Ibreck’s observation that survivors’ lives have been defined by their Tutsi

identity. As confirmed by a survivor “they have in effect been persecuted for having been born

Tutsi... failure to recognise that is to erase memory... not mentioning their Tutsi identity is

equivalent to being dispossessed of their history” (Ibreck, 2010). This fact constitutes a

hindrance to efforts towards trivialisation of ethnic labels “Tutsi” and “Hutu” on the advantage

of Rwanda identity. Although, it can be agreed that these labels are a construct, the fact that over

a million people were brutally executed due to being Tutsi, only strengthens one’s identification

with that label. Therefore, it can be argued that ethnic belonging in itself constitutes a core

reference in memory.

Another challenge to genocide commemoration is nourished by scholars with a negationist

tendency who put forward the controversial argument of a double genocide, one of Tutsis

perpetrated by Hutus and another one of Hutus perpetrated by former Rwanda Patriotic Army

(RPA) soldiers. As asserted by Rosoux (2007), when she highlights the former Giti commune

where no Tutsi died, a town that could have symbolised reconciliation, if on the other hand, she

argues, 200 Hutus were not killed there by RPA soldiers. Arguably, just like genocide survivors,

traumatised survivors of those reprisal killings need healing through memory and justice in order

for transformation of ethnic conflict and subsequent attempts for reconciliation to happen. It is a

right to mourn lost ones and to seek justice by any individual or groups who lost their dear ones,

and this applies, Rosoux argues, to Hutus who lost their loved ones as a result of the alleged

reprisal killings by some RPA soldiers.

In fact, judicial institutions in Rwanda are there for providing justice to all the citizens

impartially. However, putting the genocide memory alongside the memory of other killings is a

trivialization of genocide. It is important to de-link the memory of any killings with the memory

of genocide, as genocide is legally different from other killings, be it reprisals or revenge in order

not to fall under the trap of denial.

14

Unfortunately, some scholars, like René Le Marchand, refer to efforts to separate the

commemoration of Genocide against Tutsis from any other memory as the “assassination of

Hutu memory”. He argues that this restriction institutionalizes the control thinking, a fact that is

profoundly contrary to any form of interethnic dialogue that would lead to respect and

forgiveness (Le Marchand, 2006). In what he calls “ambivalence of guilt”, Le Marchand argues

that, as much as there would have been no genocide without the killing machine put in place by

the Habyalimana government, there would not be a genocide either without the October 1990

invasion by the RPF. One may continue Le Marchand’s cyclic thinking by adding that nor would

have the wanton murders and acts of torture committed by some RPA soldiers happened, if the

genocide did not happen.

This kind of ideology tends to trivialize the genocide against Tutsis by associating it with

individual crimes committed by some members of the former RPA. Scholarly materials of this

kind contribute to the promotion of genocide denial as advocated by members of the former

government that masterminded the genocide, but who are living unworriedly in western capitals

and around the world. Such a growing phenomenon constitutes a threat to the transformation of

ethnic conflict in Rwanda; as new generations, particularly the youth of the Hutu identity both

internally and in the diaspora, are being intoxicated ideologically by this revisionism and

genocide denial through indoctrination of resentment feelings towards genocide memory, and

consolidation of genocide ideology.

This fact is counterproductive to the national efforts towards collective memory and national

identity, which would constitute a major ingredient in achieving reconciliation.

4 CONCLUSION

Commemoration of genocide is one of the factors that foster healing of victims on one hand, and

that of perpetrators on the other. Healing requires that people face up to their painful

experiences, under supportive conditions. This also applies to Hutus who happened to be passive

bystanders during the genocide and who were not perpetrators, as well as the Tutsi returnees who

had fled the country in 1959 and were not in Rwanda during genocide, hence not victims.

15

The presence of other people who are empathic and caring can help, as can that of people who

have suffered in a similar manner. In Rwanda, we had people in mixed groups of survivors and

members of the perpetrator group (who presumably were not perpetrators themselves) confront

their experiences during the genocide. The empathic presence of others can help with another

important aspect of healing — regaining trust in people and reconnecting with them. The

presence of both groups may have contributed to the more positive attitude of Hutus and Tutsis

towards each other. Empathy by members of the perpetrator group may also have furthered both

the healing of survivors of violence and their openness to reconciliation (Staub 2003:799).

However, the commemoration of genocide that refers specifically to Tutsi and Hutu as distinct

ethnic groups during the genocide, does not support much, if not hinders, the government’s

efforts towards transformation of ethnic conflict in Rwanda through the abolition of reference to

ethnicity. Actually, considering the fact that genocide was perpetrated against the Tutsis as a

targeted ethnic group, the commemoration cannot exclude the reference to that ethnic group, as it

in fact, and the perpetrators’ ethnic group, was used as a core motivating factor during the

genocide. Consequently, reference to those ethnic groups has to be made within its

commemoration.

Therefore, in order to maintain the need to refer to ethnic identity as a core aspect of genocide

and its commemoration, and at the same time to enhance the Rwandan identity or national

identity as the best course of action towards the transformation of ethnic conflict in Rwanda,

there is a need to bear in mind that Tutsi, Hutu and Twa, as ethnic groups, were constructed by

colonizers. The advice by Mahmud Mamdani can be relevant in addressing this conundrum “[…]

while the recognition of the Bahutu and Batutsi identities needs to be the starting point for the

process of reconciliation, the point of the process must be, not to reproduce these dualities, but to

transcend them.” (Vandeginste, 2003: 257). Thus, remembering the genocide along with ethnic

identities as a classification tool that led to the killings is important for the prevention of future

manipulation of ethnicity to lead to violence. This remains healthy as long as the aim of referring

to ethnic identities is to transcend them and value national identity on the detriment of ethnicity.

16

5 REFERENCES

5.1 Books and Journals

Auerhahn, N. C. and Laub, D., 1984. Annihilation and restoration: Post-traumatic memory as

pathway and obstacle to recovery. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. Vol. 11. No 3.

pp 327-344.

Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Cordell, K., and Wolff, S. 2009. Ethnic Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Responses.

Cambridge: Polity Press

Dijk, P. 2009. Together in Conflict Transformation: Development co-operation, mission and

diacony. New Routes. Vol. 14, No 2

Enloe, H. C. 1973. Ethnic Conflict and Political Development. Boston: Little, Brown

Ibreck, R. 2010. The Politics of Mourning: Survivor contributions to memorials in post-genocide

Rwanda. Memory Studies, Vol. 3, No 4. pp 330-343. ISSN 1750-6980

Lederach, J.P., and Maiese, M. 2009. Conflict Transformation: A circular journey with a

purpose. New Routes. Vol. 14, No 2

Lemarchand, R. 2006. Genocide, Memory and Ethnic Reconciliation In Rwanda. L’Afrique des

Grands Lacs, Annuaire, 2007.

Narroll, R. 1964. Ethnic unit classification. Current Anthropology. Vol. 5, No 4. pp 283-312.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: International Student’s Edition (7th

Edition, 2006)

Pearlman, L. A. 2013. Restoring self in Community: Collective approaches to psychological

trauma after genocide. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 69 pp 111-124

Rose, I. P. 1981. They and We: Racial and Ethnic Relations in the United States. New York:

Random House

17

Rosoux, V. 2007. Rwanda, l’impossible “mémoire nationale?”. Ethnologie française. Vol. 37, p.

409-415

Staub, E. 2003. Preventing violence and generating humane values: Healing and reconciliation in

Rwanda. International Review of the Red Cross. Vol. 85 No 852. pp 791-807.

Staub, E. 2013. A world without Genocide: Prevention, Reconciliation, and the Creation of

Peaceful Societies. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 69, No 1, pp. 180-199

Stier O. B. 2009. Committed to Memory: Cultural Meditations of the Holocaust. Massachusetts:

University of Massachusetts Press. P 3.

Vandeginste, S. 2003. Rwanda: Dealing with Genocide and Crimes against Humanity in the

Context of Armed Conflict and Failed Political Transition. In: Biggar, N. ed. Burying the Past:

Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University

Press. pp 251-285

5.2 Electronic Sources

http://www.cnlg.gov.rw/Walk-to-Remember.html accessed on 02 May 2013

http://www.neveragainrwanda.org/index.php/en/news-feeds/38-never-again-rwanda-nar-hosted-

the-2nd-national-conference-on-policy-and-practice-on-genocide-commemoratio accessed on 02

May 2013

https://www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/2007/index.shtml accessed on 02 May 2013

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/un/remember-victims-rwanda-day accessed on 07 May

2013

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44581&Cr=genocide&Cr1=#.UYrLfrX-HfI

accessed on 07 May 2013