Shame on You, Foreign Policy

Shame on you, Foreign Policy, for publishing such an amateurish piece on Rwanda's development success as rooted in order and cleanliness. The author, David Dagan, clearly has little knowledge of Rwandan history, or politics. This type of reporting helps shape the image of Rwanda that Westerns hold, and it is an inaccurate one that in turn bolsters and shapes donor policy. Interesting that this piece comes out shortly after Tony Blair defended his relationship with, and reaffirmed his commitment to the policies and practices of Rwandan President Kagame. International donors may be clueless, but I'd bet that diplomats on the ground in Kigali know full well that the 'successes' of the government come on the back of ordinary Rwandans who are not part of the state machinery.

I agree that the international community is looking for a success story, but not at any cost. What the author perceives as order and cleanliness is actually an ambitious drive to modernise described by James Scott in his "Seeing Like a State". Rwanda is actively engaged in a social, economic and political engineering process that privileges a few (presumably those that this author consulted) at the expense of the many (which the author appears not to have consulted). Without an understanding of the how these policies impact local actors, keeping in mind that even by Rwandan government numbers, 80 - 90% of Rwandans are subsistence farmers who live on less than $1 per day. Indeed, World Bank and IMF number acknowledge that at least 65% of Rwandans live on much much less. Indeed, among the peasant folks I consulted in my own research in the Southwest of the country, the average daily income was only 11 cents per day! I'd like to remind the author that Rwanda's gini coefficient has increased under Kagame. Rwandans are more poor today than there were in 1992 (.44 then vs. .59 now). Rwanda's economic growth is not shared by all, and it is hardly shared equitably. Economic growth should translate into an improved standard of living (see this explanation of the relationship between GDP and poverty)

It is also important to keep in mind that the government controls much of the political, social and economic sphere. Thus, it can demand clean and orderly valleys where poverty reigns because residents know they can be fined up to 10,000 FRW (approx. 17US$) if they do not. Umuganda is a historical practice that is rooted in more than a century of oppressive practices by local officials on the local populations in their jurisdiction. In its current manifestation, umuganda is still seen by many Rwandans as an additional humiliation that serves the government 's agenda.

These are but two glaring examples from the author. I could go on, but suffice it to say, he needs to look beyond the obvious, stop filtering what he does see and experience through a Western lens, and try to identify and explain what he does not see and hear. In a country where authoritarianism is entrenched (not emergent as the author contends), the author should, as any competent political scientist would, look at points of exclusion and inequality rather than blandly praising the government. I suggest he start by picking up the recently published "Remaking Rwanda", edited by Scott Straus and Lars Waldorf.

Take Action for Victoire Ingabire, Rwandan Opposition Politician

Earlier this week, the Rwandan High Court ruled that it had full jurisdiction in the case of opposition leader, Victoire Ingabire. This went unremarked by the international and domestic media, save a few reports from actors sympathetic to the obvious involvement of senior Rwandan government officials in Ingabire's trial. Indeed, almost all of the reporting on Ingabire's case is coming from officials of her FDU-Inkingi party.

Ingabire, of the United Democratic Front, is on trial in Kigali for fomenting insecurity, denying the 1994 genocide and promoting ethnic divisionism. Rwandan security forces detained her in January 2010, in advance of the August 2010 Presidential elections in which the incumbent, Paul Kagame, was re-elected with 93% of the popular vote. Ingabire’s detention meant that her UDF did not stand in the August elections. She will spend 30 years in prison if found guilty.

The purpose of this post is to ask you to take action, namely write to Paul Kagame, to request a fair trial. We need to bring more attention to the flawed nature of this case to the international community, and writing letters of protest to Kagame with a copy to your local politician is a good place to start. I prepared sample text for you to cut-and-paste below.

The Prosecution claim to have evidence of Ingabire’s ‘terrorist’ activities with Hutu rebel groups based in neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ingabire’s defence team, a Brit and a Rwandan, had been unable to assess the veracity and validity of the prosecution’s claims because the 2500-page indictment was issued in Kinyarwanda. This was contrary to the defendant’s right to an interpreter, which was required for defense lawyer Iain Edwards to do his job. The indictment was finally translated, but only a few weeks before her trial began in September 2011, leaving her defence team little time to prepare its counter-arguments.

At the same time, it appears that the rule of law, and the right to presumption of innocence are under threat, with senior members of the Rwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, Foreign Affairs Minister Louise Muskikwabo, and Prosecutor-General Martin Ngoga, publically proclaiming victory in the case before the defence had even mounted its argument in court.

Ingabire faces charges of being linked to rebel activity in eastern Congo and that she has uttered hate speech and denies the genocide. Ingabire has called for government recognition that ethnic Hutu are also survivors of the genocide. Since the 2008 Constitutional revision, it has become illegal to refer to the genocide as anything other than the genocide of Tutsi.

Amnesty International and other international human rights organizations have advocated for the Rwandan government to allow for greater freedom of expression. Opposition politicians, like Ingabire, journalists and human rights advocates cannot criticize the policies or activities of the government without fear of swift and severe repercussion. The case of Victoire Ingabire is emblematic of broader trends of repression and oppression in Rwanda, as noted in Amnesty International’s on-going “Allow Criticism to be Voiced” campaign.

Take Action
You can write a letter to President Paul Kagame, requesting a fair trial for Victoire Ingabire. You can also send a postcard prepared by Amnesty International – USA Section calling on Rwanda to allow criticism of the government to be voiced by opposition politicians. Be sure to send a copy to your local politician

His Excellency President Paul Kagame
Office of the President
Kigali
Rwanda
[Date, and your location of residence]

Your Excellency,

I am writing to express my concern for judicial irregularities and lack of respect for the rights of Mrs. Victoire Ingabire of the United Democratic Front. The indictment against Mrs. Ingabire is vague and sweeping. Her legal team has been unable to adequately prepare its defense arguments. In addition, Mr. President, members of your government have publicly spoken out about Mrs. Ingabire’s guilt, which is direct government interference in the judicial process. Such actions raise serious questions about the independence of the Rwandan judiciary, and the ability of Mrs. Ingabire to receive a fair trail that respects her human rights.

I urge you to allow Mrs. Ingabire a fair trial, which means letting her defense team to work unencumbered without fear of government interference in the proceedings.

Thank you,

What News on the Ingabire Trial?

Is it just me, or is there no international or local reporting on the state of Ingabire's trial. I am not looking for a play-by-play akin to Casey Anthony's recently completed trial in Florida, but would like some updates or status reports or something. Anything.

I guess The New Times has not been instructed to report on the trial? And since independent journalists are all but silenced by Rwanda's Media High Council, I assume these folks are unable to report on the proceedings. Do we even know if journalists, independent or otherwise, are allowed in the court house? Or is it more simple than this -- Kagame's visit to France has eaten up all the available ink and column space?

I'd also like to remind the Rwandan government that its judiciary is on trial here as well. Is a little transparency to much to ask?

16 Years under RPF Leadership, by Karekezi Eduard

Sharing this post, with permission of the author.

RWANDA INSIDE STORY: 16 YEARS UNDER RPF LEADERSHIP
BY KAREKEZI EDUARD
It is after a sour war of 1990-1994 that ended miserably with thousands if not millions of Rwandan people killed or had left the country, the RPF (the current ruling political party in Rwanda) took power. This human; savage and de-constructing act driven by human inevitable and irrepressible urge to come or cling to power left our society being the most wounded and shattered in the 21st century. Though many were left in a quandary without answers to causes and way forward, some still question the morality of this tragedy which uprooted our social bonds and left our society in tatters. Nevertheless this came to be a food for thoughts for political scientists, anthropologists, conflict resolution practitioners etc. as on the notion that management of post-conflict period can be influenced by how such a conflict ended. It has been crystal clear that when a conflict ended in a zero-sum style and an integrative solution to a conflict was disregarded, then the running of post-conflict period can not only be disastrous but also a seed-bed for future struggles. As the winning side tries to economically, politically and socially asphyxiate the losing one, the latter will only remain with a single option: digesting the defeat by smouldering inside silently. Thus in most cases while waiting for new avenues, survival strategies like total surrender to the winning party are crafted, and by virtue of being victorious, the winner takes all and subsequently pulls the strings. Here is Rwanda where we are.
Since the end of the abovementioned tragedy (war), activities have been undertaken in various domains. These range from infrastructure development, the fruitless and controversial reconciliation policy to toto closure (critical websites, newspapers, debates etc.) of whatever might have disturbed the political diet enjoyed by the ruling political party, the RPF. Aggressive population control mechanisms have been crafted. This is likely to be quickly achieved by the fact that due to unbearable living conditions, people are eager to get cash (10.000 Rfw (1.3 US dollars)) for vascotomy instead of searching for information regarding the policy and effects thereof. Deliberately designed vague and overarching laws were crafted to ensure that whoever dares to criticise the regime fits into a web of genocidaires. This significantly led one man’s meat (self-aggrandizment by the winner) being another one’s poisson (the loser being undyingly silent). Consequently goats (losers) are browsing where they have been tied (somewhere in prisons, refugee camps, rural areas etc.). To fully lock the nation, snippers were posted on the roofs by establishing a National Consultative Forum for Political Organizations in which all registered political parties are locked, and operate at the behest of the RPF.
Nevertheless, it is said that the love of a woman and a botle of wine are sweet for a season but last for a time, the RPF’s credibility recently began and continues to wear thin, the government needs to recalibrate its foreign policy and retool its way of dealing with external world. Wherever president Kagame goes and whoever he visits, we expect the unexpected flabbergasting, acidic stories for a president who has been receiving medals from some unwary leaders. Though he remains obdurate, president Kagame has opted for ‘school diplomacy’ whereby he would largely visit schools and students rather than heads of state who increasingly are becoming aware of his misdeeds committed inside and outside his area of jurisdiction. The unity between African diaspora is becoming more and more growing against him. With this in mind, he fully knows well that odds are stacked heavily against him. Indications are that the diaspora has handcuffed/dwarfed the regime’s drive toward self-posturing as benevolent and people oriented. Definitely this has been one of the causes for recurrent drought spell in Rwandan politics, and to that end, analysts suggest RPF has lost its ideological compass.
General perception on a case of General Kagame Vs. Ingabire
Once in history Lenin said that: “It is impossible to predict the time and progress of revolution. It is governed by its own more or less mysterious laws.” We used to follow from different channels about what this African woman stands for. But no one could gauge the bravery of Madame Ingabire Victoire until she, due to her psychological impulse to be and feel free, her belief that injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, decided to leave her country of exile and returned home to challenge the myths attached to RPF (of being a family for all Rwandese) by taking part in the largely criticized August 2010 presidential elections. Our sense was that the locked political space was going to be navigated. We thought it was the beginning of a genuine debate, constructive dialogue on the problems bedevilling our society. We appreciated her political acumen, her insightful thoughts. A new political dispensation was unfolding. However, it was a high-voltage political odyssey. Even though her philosophy on national reconciliation was irretrievably doubtless; sadly, she was arrested and re-arrested before presenting her political project to the electorate. While consuming this misfortune however, what we have to know is that in any field, professionals use tools to achieve their goals. Doctors use stethoscopes, mechanics use spanners, footballers use boots, teachers use chalk and blackboards etc. In the profession of politics, dictators use institutions to destroy their real or potential/perceived opponents; and subsequently score their political goals. The ruling political party here in Rwanda (RPF) is using the legal system as a technical tool against its potential political opponents. The judiciary system has become a willing appendage of RPF. The decisions of RPF politicians masquerading as judges, often of distant and confusing character, are indeed destroying perceived real opposition parties piece by piece. But equally important to note is that opposition leaders did not enter into politics to play second fiddle. These parties are, though not yet some registered, not led by dim-wit leaders. That is why the peoples of Rwanda think of being currently in a political quandary. In fact it is after realizing that unless it’s bent, a man cannot ride on your back, these pro-democracy took a decisive and uncompromising decision of telling the thruth the power. These pro-democracy, now in detention in one of the notorious prison known as 1930 have unwavering support of the entire population due to their thirst for truth, true truth and human dignity. These prominent opposition leaders are Mr. Ingabire Victoire the Chairperson of FDU-Inkingi a yet registered party along other key opposition leaders Mr. Bernard Ntaganda, the founder and president of PSI-Imberakuri (now split unto two, a move crafted by the ruling party), Mr. Ntakirutinka of UBUYANJA and Mr. Deo Mushayidi (PDP Imanzi) to name a few. The ruling party has used all instruments available to nip these rival political formations in the bud.
There is a German proverb which goes that if you want to kill a dog you must allege that it has rabies. This is what the RPF falsely has been using in order to justify the ill-treatment of prominent opposition leaders. They have been accused mainly of harboring genocide ideology. “genocide Ideology” has been an unimpeachable weapon of choice in its judicial arsenal. It does not need a rocket scientist to confirm that the circumstances under which Madame Ingabire Victoire, the chairperson of FDU-Inkingi found herself in is a result of having dared and called a spade a spade. This is well known by all and sundry. When something is right, it is right regardless of who says it, let alone how or when it is said. What we have to digest is that what Ingabire said on national reconciliation is unimpeachably true and therefore, realistically right. She put forward a clear framework on how solutions can be found to the problems that continue to smould our national psyche. Nevertheless, despite all these political tribulations, she remains the Rwanda’s most valued asset. Despite the suffering endured by these champions of democracy however, usually the unexpected happens. And it is said that the morning sun never lasts the day. Repeating what she said ‘time is nothing when there is courage and determination’. To end this, I would like to say that‘bitter pills may have blessed effects’.

Now dear friend, whoever you are, wherever you are, please you help is needed. People are languishing in prison because of me and you. You never know democracy has become a transboundary issue like HIV. Your voice is needed. We want to hear from you. Not today, not tomorrow, not……!!!!!BUT NOW!!!!!!!!

By Karekezi Eduard
Email: karekezieduard@yahoo.com
Kigali-Rwanda

Ingabire's Verdict?

The long awaited and much anticipated trial of Victoire Ingabire, the imprisoned de facto leader of the Rwandan political opposition, was due to start today. The judge adjourned court until Wednesday, citing the need for competent interpretation.

Yet, on Twitter, the Government of Rwanda has declared victory in the case, stating that it (not the prosecution) has documents to prove her ties to 'terrorist' groups in the region, and thus her guilt.

Nice to see the government being *this* transparent on its interference in the judicial system. I wonder what diplomats resident in Kigali might have to say on this. My guess is a muted response, particularly since President Kagame recently called international justice two-faced in reaction to the denial of visitors visas for several members of his delegation to France (or at least the timing of his reaction suggests as such).

While some people might find it a bit of a conceptual stretch to link Ingabire's domestic trial to Kagame's visit to France, what I think we are looking at is not justice, but rather fodder for Kagame's duplicitous actions vis-a-vis international criticism of his regime. Indeed, Ingabire's trial corresponds to continued demands from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others to revise and update the genocide ideology and ethnic divisionism laws. The timing of the two events is actually pretty crappy for continued government efforts to show itself as forward looking, progressive and ethnically inclusive. My sense is that we are about to enter an intense period of government propaganda that will further reveal points of weakness in ruling RPF....

Action: Amnesty International Campaign on freedom of speech in Rwanda

Amnesty International Campaign on freedom of speech in Rwanda, now beginning: Freedom of expression has been unduly restricted for many years. August 2010 presidential elections, which President Kagame won with 93 per cent of the vote, were marked by a clampdown on freedom of expression. The Rwandan government has expressed a commitment to review laws which criminalize criticism, but recent trials of journalists and opposition politicians suggest that Rwanda’s clampdown on critics shows no sign of abating. Ditto the detention of Victoire Ingabire for freedom of expression "crimes".

We have postcards you can mail to President Kagame. Let me know if you would like any, and i've have them mailed to you. This is an important campaign. Or, you can tweet the same to @Paul Kagame and his Foreign Minister, @LMushikiwabo.

For postcards, please contact Ken Harrow at harrow@msu.edu.

You can also "like" Amnesty's Central Africa page on Facebook to keep abreast of this campaign and others in the region.

On the Opposition and Insults

One of the pitfalls of keeping a blog, and a research-centred Facebook page means that all kinds of people feel compelled to comment on my thoughts on politics in Rwanda. I welcome all kinds of viewpoints from all kinds of people, even though some folks are prone to personal attacks, and other non-substantive remarks that don't actually help me think through my evidence and subsequent arguments. Quite the opposite, in fact. Personal attacks leaving me scratching my head in puzzlement because, thanks to and because of technology, I have never met face-to-face with most of my detractors (or my allies, for that matter). How can someone launch a personal attack on someone they have never met? At the same time, when I make such binary statements like, "my detractors" and "my allies", it leads a lot of people to conclude that I am firmly in one camp or another when the reality is that I keep a blog and an open Facebook profile so that I can learn about what people who care about peace and justice in Rwanda think, whether they are Rwandan or not, and whether I agree with their viewpoints or not.

I think its absurd that a non-Rwandan cannot comment on Rwandan society for a number of reasons, not least of which is that in an interconnected and globalised world, we all have a stake in a peaceful Rwanda that sees no more genocide or similar political violence and one that is committed to socio-economic equality. For me, Rwanda's ever increasing gini co-efficient is a direct threat to peace in the country and the region more broadly. In addition, critique is part and parcel of any democratic country, and since Rwanda claims to be a consolidated democracy after two Presidential election (2003 and 2010), then how am I misbehaving? Indeed, I would suggest that by my own standards, Rwanda gets off pretty easy -- you should hear me critique the policies and programmes of my own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper!

All this commentary on insults and opinion to segue into the real purpose of this posting. I have had some very interesting email conversations with individuals (mostly Rwandans, some Congolese and a few foreign academics) about the article I co-authored that compares the rhetorical leadership styles of Habyarimana and Kagame. Unfortunately, the Rwandans I am engaging with are outraged. Those loyal to Kagame are offended that I dare compare him to Habyarimana, and those who long for a return to the days of Habyarimana are offended that I compare the Father of their nation to the likes of Kagame. So I am inadvertently in the middle of a debate I never expected. I want to say to anyone who is interested that I welcome these discussions but will not react at all to personal attacks or similar diatribes. If you want to talk about our methodology, our analysis, our tools of interpretation, or correct this mistake or that, I can't wait to talk to you. If you want to tell me that I am a flaming idiot, and that I should be burned at the stake, then don't be stunned when I don't get back to you.

Now, lest you think that this article has only attracted negative attention, I want to share that I learned something meaningful that is food for thought for Rwanda scholars in particular and GLR scholars more broadly. It seems that the current political opposition (Ingabire, Habineza, and so on) is a threat to Kagame because urban and/or educated Tutsi who were in the country during the genocide and survived it are largely supportive of their politics. Thus, the main constituency that the RPF claims to the international community (and commentators like Kinzer in his recent Guardian article) represent do not actually support its government. So this is a direct threat to the broad-based and grassroots legitimacy that Kagame claims his government holds among Rwandans. This is also an interesting development in the context of Rwandan history. When there are divisions within the ruling elite (in this case not only between RPF elites as evidenced by the recent allegations of treason against former insiders Nyamwasa, Karegeya, Rudasingwa and Gahima but between the RPF and its presumed core consitutency), the odds for politically motivated violence are increased. And this is the point that my co-author and I wanted to make -- Kagame is replicating, perhaps even unconsciously, the power structures that made genocide an option for threaten Hutu elites. And it is here where my research is located, to revealing the power structures that exclude a portion of the population, and the implications of socio-political exclusion.

The Erlinder case, con'td.

The case of detained American Peter Erlinder continues to muddle the real issues in Rwanda. (See this representative article). While Western supporters have come to his aid and succour, the remains the very real issue of what will become of the Rwandan opposition when his case is resolved and he leaves the country.

Does anyone have any information on Ingabire's decision to hire Erlinder to defend her? He is far from the best choice given the political dynamic in Rwanda. Surely she is more politically astute than this? Aligning herself with someone who believes that the RPF organised and implemented the genocide belittles her broader (and significant) argument that Rwandans of all ethnicities were killed in 1994.

Oh, and the argument of Erlinder's supporters that, as an American citizen, he should be released because of the amount American donor aid to Rwanda smacks of more than colonialism (something that feeds into the RPF government's narrative about sovereignty). It also suggests that Erlinder's life is worth more because he is American. Rwandans deserve better than that.

Ingabire seeks refuge

Today, 22 February 2010, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, Presidential aspirant and head of the opposition UDF, sought refuge at the UK Embassy in Kigali. There is very little information on why she sought refuge and what was discussed with members of the UK Embassy, although this press release was made available earlier today.

I am very keen to see how the ruling RPF reacts to Mme. Ingabire's statement that she will invoke her constitutional right to silence....



PRESS RELEASE

Kigali 22 February 2010

I am home and safe.

This morning my political organisation, FDU-UDF INKINGI informed the national and
international community about my request for a temporary refuge. It's true I was for
many hours today inside the British High Commission in Kigali. We discussed the
current political situation in Rwanda and threats to opposition leaders and I still
expect that all the stakeholders will do the utmost for a peaceful democratisation
of Rwanda.

However, the police harassment is still on the agenda because the CID persistently
summoned for fresh questioning this evening. I like to make it public, that from now
on during this night and all next police interrogations; I will, if necessary, use
my constitutional right to silence until my case is taken to a court of law.

Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza
Chair, UDF INKINGI.

The Search for Legitimacy Continues....

I have just learned from colleagues in Rwanda, and in the diaspora here in Canada, that the Criminal Investigation Department of the Rwandan National Police have summoned Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza to return for further questioning on Monday 22 February at 1pm Kigali time.

This is best interpreted as another RPF-led search for legitimacy for its policy of genocide ideology. There is no actual proof (based on Mme. Ingabire's speeches and the vague definition of the genocide ideology law) that any transgression has occurred.

This, of course, is besides the point. It is but another example of the authoritarian and arbitrary rule of the RPF.

It must also be said that the more the RPF harrasses and seeks to intimidate Mme. Ingabire into submission (compliance to its policies and politics?), the greater the burden on Mme. Ingabire, should she be allowed to stand as a presidential candidate, to seek consensus among Rwandans of all ethnicities, social groupings and economic classes.

We've yet to see a platform from Mme. Ingabire, and we don't know much about what are her plans for Rwanda. Memorializing the lives lost during the genocide and all the lives lost before, during and the after the genocide. What about the economy? Who are her main aides and allies? Does she enjoy popular support in the hills? Perhaps this is because she has yet to officially register as a candidate, and consequently cannot campaign.

Mme. Ingabire's continued harassment at the hands of the RPF makes it difficult, if not impossible, for her to get on with the business of being a politician.

Rwanda's Ethnic Card: Who is manipulating whom?

On 10 February 2010, Human Rights Watch called on the Government of Rwanda to end attacks on opposition parties. Read the press release for the full commentary. Reuters reported that Rwanda's political opposition (meaning Mme. Ingabire) will likely face criminal charges for playing the ethnic card.

I would like to add a layer of context to these two reports. On the BBC Africa Service on 10 February (Focus on Africa), Carina Tertsakian of Human Rights Watch spoke correctly when she said that attacks on opposition politicians were intensifying.

I agree with her 100%. Such attacks are not new, they are only more intense in this round of elections. I am pleased to learn that the Government of Rwanda has agreed to accept Commonwealth election monitors. I only hope they actually consider more than the bare basics of electoral democracy (ballot stuffing, padding voter lists, etc) to consider the ways in which the ruling RPF plays the ethnic card that it accuses Ms. Ingabire of manipulating.

The RPF has outlawed public reference to ethnicity. It justifies its intolerance of political dissent in the name of eliminating the ideology of genocide and ethnic divisionism which it claims drove all Hutu to kill all Tutsi. My own research reveals the extent to which the RPF has instrumentalised the genocide to protect and consolidate its own political power. The RPF claims that the ultimate blame for the 1994 genocide rests with the colonial powers who promoted divisive politics that resulted in the ethnic hatred of ALL Hutu for ALL Tutsi. This simplistic interpretation of events works to mask the crimes against humanity and war crimes that the RPF itself committed before, during and after the genocide.

This simplistic interpretation of all Hutu killing all Tutsi does more than overlook the myriad ways in ordinary Rwandans, irrespective of ethnicity were caught up in the maelstrom. It also hides from view, in the name of ethnic unity, that many Hutu died including those who died trying to protect Tutsi. Equally, there are Tutsi who put themselves on the line to protect Hutu family and friends. Many Tutsi survived because of the aid and succor of a Hutu family member, friend, colleague, neighbour or strangers. There are also stories of Twa and Hutu who died because of their Tutsi features (for more see Des Forges, 1999; Fujii 2009; and Straus 2006 for the various forms of killing and the attendant motivations).

These different forms of killing and surviving are not accounted for under the current government. It is recognition of what Fujii (2009) calls "webs of violence" that I think Mme. Ingabire is asking the RPF to allow. The ferocity of the government's reaction -- threats, harassment, and physical violence -- to her request to take into consideration and account all the lives lost in 1994 is revealing. It reveals the insecurity of the current government as it expects deference and compliance to its directives. Those who dare break the facade, or try to peek behind the veil of peace and security, are treated harshly.

A good example of the lack of legitimacy that the RPR-led government has among ordinary Rwandans is its politicisation of individual mourning. The RPF seeks to control the ways that ordinary Rwandans -- Tutsi, Hutu and Twa -- mourn their lost loved ones.

First, only official survivors are recognised, and the RPF represents their trauma symbolically through the image of a lonely, wounded survivor as the personification of the 1994 genocide. The RPF invokes this image of the traumatised survivor to silence criticism from the international community. The lives lost -- Tutsi, Hutu and Twa -- in the violence before (1990-April 1994) and after (July 1994 to September 1999) are not memorialised.

The government uses the official mourning period (7 to 14 April every year to assert its official version of what happened during the genocide. Survivors (read Tutsi) are clearly distinguished from the killers (read Hutu). This single version of events hardly captures the multiplicity of individual experiences.

The genocide means more to ordinary Rwandans than just the idea that all Hutu killed all Tutsi; some Tutsi killed, some Hutu protected Tutsi; Twa also participated; just as some joined in, others stood by. Despite this, the government requires that Rwandans of all ethnicities attend mourning week events, notably the exhumation of mass graves and reburial of bodies, and listening to the speeches of government officials that remind the population of the need to “never again” allow genocide in Rwanda.

Many ordinary Rwandans that I spoke with in 2006, both in formal interviews and through participant observation, said that they felt the RPF was manipulating the way the genocide is remembered to maintain their positions of power and wealth rather than truly seeking to unify the country.

As Gaston, a released Hutu prisoner, told me, “We dig up bodies for reburial at the national ceremony but how do we know those remains are even Tutsi bodies? We [Hutu] died as well, but nothing is mentioned about how we suffered during the genocide. Not all of us killed you know. Instead we go because our new government says we must; we were told this very clearly at ingando (citizenship re-education camp)”. (I write about the humiliation of ingando here).

Others, particularly Tutsi survivors, acknowledged the reburials as “a little bit necessary for national healing” but would prefer to do it in private, “away from the spotlight”. In homogenising the diverse individual lived experiences of victims of the genocide – Hutu, Tutsi and Twa – as well as those of individuals who lived through the violence of the 1990-1994 civil war, and the emergency period after the genocide (1995-2000), the RPF is stage-managing and politicizing individual mourning.

I think the RPF harassed and harmed Mme. Ingabire because she spoke out against this stage-managing and politicization of individual mourning.