Prospective from Leadership Positions in Rwanda

On Monday, Andrea slept in, still trying to get over the jet lag from the travel. Ebralie and I took the opportunity to visit with some friends she had worked with prior to leaving Rwanda. She had worked with the Presbyterian Church prior to joining the Protestant Council of Rwanda, known by its French acronym for Conseil Protestant du Rwanda, or CPR. Many of her friends were still working with the CPR to help the people of Rwanda. We first went to a conference and met Francois. Francois is director of Education for the CPR. He talked about the challenge facing the education establishment now that English was the official language. While everyone seemed to understand the long-term benefit of the change, it presented an immediate challenge. There are just not enough English-speaking teachers that are fluent in Kinyarwanda to meet the needs of the people.

Francois took us to a cooperative that had originally been established to benefit the widows after the genocide. The cooperative taught sewing and fabric making to a number of ladies, trying to give them a skill and a trade that could help them make a living. I was struck by the equipment they had. The small house used by the cooperative was full of old Singer sewing machines, the ones powered by a foot pedal. Unfortunately, only a few of the machines were in use. Francois explained that while the women could learn a trade, the market for their products were limited. They had hoped to establish distribution for the fabrics and products in Europe, but were generally unable to do so. Their products were too expensive for most Rwandans, and without a distribution network in Europe, the cooperative was unable to be self-sustaining. As a result, it now could support only a fraction of the women it once had. This fact illustrated an important lesson. It is important to be charitable, but to be sustaining these type projects needed to be economically sound on their own.

Before we left, we found three more ladies working behind the building. They were working on some brightly-colored fabrics. It was fascinating to see how they did it. One lady was “drawing” intricate patterns on fabric with glue. When the glue dried, they would stain the fabric with selected bright colors. Then, once the color stain had dried, they would peel the glue off by hand to reveal the intricate patterns left on the fabric. We were given a set of place mats made in this manner when we left as a gift.

Francois then took us to the headquarters of the CPR. As the name implies, CPR is an organization that coordinates church-based projects throughout Rwanda for all member churches. We were fortunate to meet with the director of CPR, Tharcisse. He had just taken the position a week earlier, yet he still took the time to meet with us for almost an hour. It helped that he and Ebralie had worked together for many years in the Presbyterian Church, and had even gone to secondary school together.

Much of the funding for CPR comes from donations from sister churches in Europe. Amazingly to me, none of their funding comes from the United States, neither from churches or the government. Tharcisse said that US churches provide significant aid to churches in Rwanda on a direct church to church basis, much like First Presbyterian Church in Nashville had partnered with the Kanombe church in Kigali. Tharcisse said that while the direct aid was helpful, he lamented the fact that many of those individual projects duplicated efforts and did not maximize the benefits to the people of Rwanda. From his point of view, the aid received from US churches would be better utilized if the projects would at least be coordinated by the CPR. As Tharcisse put it, the CPR is in every village and knows the needs of the people of Rwanda. I suggested that perhaps the inhibiting factor was that it was easier for local US churches to identify with the personal feel of an individual church in Rwanda, where they could send their members and place a plaque where a church was built. Tharcisse said that individual connection could still exist if such projects were coordinated with CPR. He said CPR did not want the money or the plaque – all CPR wanted was to identify worthy and needed projects, and assist in the coordination of the project.

One confusing aspect of the work of CPR to me was the fact that they helped build schools and hospitals in Rwanda. Given the poverty of the people, I did not think that they could afford private schools or private healthcare. I asked Tharcisse about this, and he said the schools and churches built with the efforts of CPR were public and not private, with government money used for the staffing of the facilities. I then asked him about the issue of separation of church and state, and how that was resolved in Rwanda. Tharcisse laughed, and explained that in Rwanda, there would be no state without the church. In fact, he said, by law all bills that are passed by committee in the Rwandan parliament must be reviewed by CPR for its input before becoming law. I asked how the politicians viewed this rule. He explained that CPR is operating in every village in Rwanda through all of its member churches. The government knows that CPR knows the needs of the people better than anyone, and it better understands the impact any laws would have on the people. Also, the government knows that the people trust the church more than they trust the government, so if bills have been reviewed by CPR they are likely to hold more public support. I thought to myself, could you imagine if bills in the US had to be reviewed by a church body before passing?

Finally, I asked Tharcisse if there was some lingering mistrust of the church after the genocide, given that there were some infamous instances where pastors and priests betrayed their congregations seeking refuge in the church. I didn’t want to seem disrespectful, but the issue did seem to pose a dilemma. Tharcisse acknowledged that this was a difficult but important question. I later learned that he had written an authoritative book on this exact topic, named The Churches and Ethnic Ideology in the Rwandan Crises 1900-1994. He said he felt it was very important that the church acknowledge its shortcomings, and address the issue that was out there even if it was unspoken. There was debate in the church as to how to address the issue, and some prominent theologians did not think the issue needed to be addressed. Those clergy’s argument was that the churches were again full post-genocide. But as Tharcisse said, the churches were full before the genocide, and that did not prevent it. Clearly the church had not done all it could to prevent the atrocities. Ultimately it was decided that the church in Rwanda should address the issue head-on in an effort to get past it.

The Genocide in Rwanda

The genocide in Rwanda was something we heard of in the US, but really learned very little about. In April 1994, what had been a smoldering issue in Rwanda exploded literally overnight into one of the worst genocides in history. In just a few months, almost one million Rwandans were murdered at the hand of their countrymen. As with all genocides, the issues that led to it began decades earlier. The European settlers, lead by the early church missionaries, noted some physical differences between clans or tribes in Rwanda. Certain physical characteristics were measured and noted, and the people of Rwanda were divided into two groups by the Europeans – Tutsi and Hutu. There was no genetic or historical tribal difference in these two groups, yet the distinction had been made. The Europeans determined that family groups or clans that primarily raised and herded cattle were “Tutsi”, identified by certainly physical characteristics. The families that primarily farmed were called “Hutu”, and these Hutu families had a slightly different appearance.

The monarch who ruled the region at the time of Belgian colonization was a Tutsi. The Belgian administrators of the Rwandan protectorate continued to favor the Tutsi monarchy, and gave them administrative power. Over many decades, resentment built against the Tutsis as they benefited from the favor shown by the Belgian administration. Rwanda remained a very impoverished country, so those that were disenfranchised began to blame those in power for their troubles. Only 15% of the Rwandan population was called Tutsi, and only about 15% of those identified as Tutsi had actually benefited from the favor of the Belgian colonists (that’s only 2.25%). Nevertheless, a portion of the population identified as Hutu began to blame all of their problems on the Tutsi. Anyone labeled as a Tutsi was soon marked by a growing militant and vocal group of Hutu agitators.

An uprising in Rwanda in 1959 overthrew the Tutsi monarchy. At that time, a minority of Hutu first took militant action against some of the Tutsi clans that had been viewed as favored by the Belgians. Many of those families left Rwanda to escape persecution. The transition government led by Hutus came to power, and the issues were pushed below the surface for a period of time. However, even though the Tutsis were no longer in political power, many of the families that had benefited from the colonial rule continued to serve in business and administrative roles. Poverty continued to plague Rwanda, so the Tutsis were an easy scapegoat for the Hutu in power. It was easier to create a fictitious villain for those in political power than it was to fix the problems of the people. Sadly, the distinction used by many of those in power to villainize part of the population was created by the colonist, and had never existed before 1900. As the issues of poverty persisted, the propaganda against the Tutsi minority intensified.

After two decades of relative harmony between all groups, the situation irreversibly changed in 1990. Violence had surfaced in 1990 with armed conflict between a militant group of Tutsi exiles and Hutu nationals. Such conflicts continued unresolved, stoking fears and stereotypes in Rwanda about the power-hungry Tutsi. However, the Hutu president of Rwanda had been able to keep a lid on the boiling pot. That came to an end on April 6, 1994, when the plane carrying the president was shot down on his return to Kigali. In a matter of hours, the genocide exploded into the vicious death of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus who tried to protect them. The death of the president seemed well coordinated by the most militant faction of the Hutu, as roadblocks were thrown up in Kigali within a few hours of the president’s death. The killings quickly engulfed most of the country, as militias and renegade army units began the planned purging of Rwanda of the Tutsi minority.

The issue exploded when it did because families of the Tutsis that had been in exile since 1959 had been pushing to return. After being refused repatriation, a group of exiled Tutsi had threatened to return peacefully or by force. The exiled Tutsis had formed a militia, and in the early 1990’s there were isolated but ongoing conflicts between the Tutsi and Hutu militias. In an attempt to resolve the conflict and appease all parties, a peace accord had been drafted in August 1993 that would share power between all parties. This threat of the re-introduction of Tutsis to power was what the extremist Hutu faction needed to justify their actions. They tried to convince the Hutu population that the Tutsis would return and try to take retribution on the Hutus. Therefore, they reasoned, the Hutus must kill all remaining Tutsis so that the exiles would have nothing to return to. Many Hutus were not militant, and did not feel this way. However, those who opposed the killings were themselves subject to death.

As the genocide began, the West stood by. The UN had stationed troops in Rwanda in response to the 1993 peace accord. However, when the real genocide began, those troops in Rwanda were not authorized to act. The commander of the UN troops begged for authority to act, feeling that the killing could be stopped. He felt like a relatively small but violent minority was behind the killings, so relatively few troops would be needed to enforce the will of the larger but powerless group of moderates. Instead, the UN troops were withdrawn from Rwanda, accelerating the slaughter. Only after the Tutsis militia was able to defeat their Hutu counterparts did the killings stop. The exiles, led by Paul Kagame, were able to fight their way into Kigali after a few months, pushing the militant Hutus into the south of Rwanda. Only then did the French send a contingent of 5,000 troops to Rwanda. However, all the French did was to create a line between the fleeing Hutu and the pursuing Tutsi, effectively protecting the perpetrators of the atrocities from their own form of justice.

The Great Reconciliation

When the violence finally ended in late 1994, the country faced problems of enormous proportions. Not only had almost 1 million people been killed of a country with a total population of 8 million, but millions more had been displaced. Further, any government or business infrastructure was in shambles. Having seen Rwanda just 15 years later, it was absolutely remarkable to see how much progress had been made. The people of Rwanda seem genuinely happy and good natured. God is at work in that country, and so many of the Rwandan people have God as an active part of their lives. When I mentioned this to Ebralie one day, she displayed real emotion. She said she agreed with me, and said that is why she still could not understand how the genocide occurred in Rwanda. Maybe it could happen in other places where the people were not happy or joyous or spiritual. She could understand it could happen somewhere else, but not in her Rwanda.

Perhaps because of the way that God was at work in Rwanda, the country had adopted a novel way of addressing the aftermath of the genocide. For years after the genocide, those involved were tried and jailed, leaving the country with hundreds of thousands of citizens in jails and millions of people in need of healing. One answer to the ongoing pain was a unique and controversial program called the great Reconciliation. The idea was simple but powerful. The country would allow those that had been jailed for taking part in the genocide to be set free if they confessed to their transgressions, and faced their victims or their family members to ask for forgiveness. The family did not have to grant forgiveness, but that was not a condition of release.

With this new program, tens of thousands of inmates were and are being released to become a productive part of the new Rwanda. Some argue that the perpetrators should serve their full sentences. But the government ultimately decided that reconciliation was more critical to the future of Rwanda than punishment. Furthermore, the forgiveness granted was just as important to the survivors as it was to those they forgave, allowing both parties to move forward. By virtually all accounts, the great Reconciliation has been a successful and critical part of the process allowing the country to make the strides it has in the relatively short period since the genocide.

Our last day in Rwanda, we visited the Genocide Museum. I was glad we waited for the last day to visit it. After five days and many discussions with the people, I felt I had a better context to see the museum. Ebralie had never been, and had told me before the trip that she did not want to go. However, when we made it to the museum she decided to go in. The museum did a remarkable job of outlining the issues that led to the genocide, and laid out the facts of the genocide in a fair and straight-forward manner. The photographs and displays were hard to look at, but they told the story more poignantly than any words could. The museum was emotional for everyone, but it was certainly more emotional for Ebralie than any of the rest of us. She had lived the story being told in the museum. I knew she and her family had escaped the genocide, but I did not begin to fully comprehend her story.

A Personal Tale of Survival

One night as we were heading back to our hotel in Kigali, Ebralie had our driver take a detour. We were near her old neighborhood, and she had the driver take us down the street where she once lived with her family. When we got to a certain house on the road, she asked the driver to pull over along a ditch that divided the house from the road.

Ebralie told us that this house had been her home with her family when the genocide broke out. She recounted the night that militiamen came to their door, and lined the family up in the ditch that was next to our car. She, her husband, and her children were laid in the ditch with guns to their heads. The militiamen grilled them with questions, accusing them of hiding someone and searching for a reason to pull the trigger. Ebralie said she had no idea how long they laid there, as she asked how does one count minutes when waiting to die?

Suddenly, a gunshot rang out from down the street, and a militia member on the corner was killed with a single shot to the head. The others that had been threatening the family ran to the dead man, and began to exchange gunfire with someone down the street. After laying there paralyzed in fear, the family slowly and silently got up and went back into the house. Ebralie said they huddled together all night and prayed, and the militiamen never came back. They left the home the next day never to return. After wandering through Rwanda, then living in Nairobi, Kenya for six years, the family finally made it to America. Her journey had come full circle back to that moment. In her one prior visit to Rwanda, she had not been able to make this visit. She was glad that she had this time, as she said each step helped in the healing process. I think the progress she found in the healing of Rwanda as a nation helped with the personal healing she found.