Commentators’ perspectives on forgiveness through gacaca

Finally, how do commentators interpret the role of gacaca in facilitating forgiveness? Generally speaking, few commentators discuss forgiveness in the context of gacaca. Where they do, their views - like the popula­tion’s - are shaped largely by the degree to which they subscribe to certain religious perspectives.

First, what form do commentators argue forgiveness should take at gacaca? Among commentators who believe that forgiveness is a legitim­ate objective of gacaca, the majority (both Rwandan and non-Rwandan) argue that forgiveness is essentially an interpersonal act between indi­vidual perpetrators and survivors that is likely to begin at gacaca but is also likely to involve difficult, ongoing discussions. Gasibirege describes gacaca as an important �?space for forgiveness’ in which judges encourage individuals to pursue this objective.^[668] Jean-Paul Mugiraneza, formerly a senior researcher at IRDP, argues that forgiveness is crucial for Rwandans to rebuild personal and communal relationships after the genocide. Forgiveness, though, Mugiraneza argues, must be the �?very final stage of gacaca’ and must be the personal choice of those individuals who have committed or suffered particular crimes.^[669]

Although they rarely articulate this explicitly, most commentators who support pursuing forgiveness through gacaca interpret forgive­ness as entailing survivors forgoing direct, personal retribution and feelings of resentment against perpetrators.

Regarding the processes of forgiveness through gacaca, most advo­cates of forgiveness emphasise their long-term nature. �?Gacaca's work of repentance', argues Nsabiyera, echoing Dortzbach's view of healing mentioned earlier, �?begins a journey between those asking for forgive­ness and those who are forgiving.'^[672] This journey, Nsabiyera argues, will be long and arduous, as gacaca begins slowly rebuilding trust between parties previously in conflict. Nsabiyera argues that at gacaca there are two forms of forgiveness, �?official and personal'.^[673] Official forgiveness is largely symbolic and is carried out during gacaca hearings in front of the general assembly. The main purpose of official forgiveness, according to Nsabiyera, is to inspire others to ask for, and to grant, forgiveness. Many individuals who participate in the process of official forgiveness, though, he argues, will also need to experience personal forgiveness, which occurs far from the public gaze and through a process of deeper engagement and rebuilding of trust. Such a process takes time and requires more diverse interactions between individuals than are possible at gacaca.

Concerning the motivations behind forgiveness, many critics are sceptical of the intentions behind calls for gacaca to facilitate survivors' forgiveness of perpetrators. Because critics view forgiveness as a process driven more by the judges and leaders in charge of gacaca, rather than by remorse from perpetrators or by survivors' willingness to forgive, they doubt the value of considering forgiveness as an objective of gacaca. PRI argues, �?[C]onfessions [of perpetrators of mass crimes] without real or genuine regret are very common. To say, “I was wrong, very sorry”, can be done without true acknowledgement of one's guilt, especially if it is just a matter of a verbal apology.'^[674] Critics view many instances of perpetrators asking for forgiveness as too hasty and lacking the reflection and signs of remorse necessary to convince survivors and others that their requests are sincere. Uvin goes one step further and suggests that genocide suspects are likely to ask for forgiveness in order to benefit from gacaca's plea-bargaining system. Uvin, who generally supports gacaca's system of confession and plea-bargaining because it �?creates... strong incentives to speak out, to discuss, and to not follow the law of silence',^[675] also argues, �?Prisoners who confess and ask for forgiveness can receive dramatic reductions in penalties. To benefit from the community ser­vice provisions, the accused have to ask for forgiveness publicly.'^[676]

Some commentators argue that two further motivations underlie indi­viduals' desire to seek or grant forgiveness. First, some observers argue that religious leaders force their congregations to request and grant for­giveness. John Prendergast and David Smock, two critics of forgiveness through gacaca, argue that pressure from Catholic church leaders heav­ily influences suspects and survivors in this regard. Religious coercion, they argue, will be �?emasculating' of the gacaca process and will lead to �?a sort of religiously sanctioned impunity'.^[677]

Second, some commentators argue that many Rwandans consider for­giveness as a central aim of gacaca because, regardless of their personal experiences of the genocide, forgiveness will help them throw off the burdens of the past and release them to live more vibrantly.

Holding grudges blocks better thinking. We [as survivors] must sep­arate out and clarify our emotions so that we realise that forgiveness at gacaca can be a process of healing. First we must forgive ourselves for not forgiving others in the past. Then we will be ready to forgive others and to experience healing.^[678]

Nsabiyera argues that many survivors carry an immense burden of fear and pain after the genocide. They express hatred towards those who killed their loved ones, which, Nsabiyera argues, can become debilitating, affecting all facets of their lives. Forgiving perpetrators for their crimes is therefore vital for survivors' release from these negative emotions, offering an opportunity to start life afresh, with a renewed sense of inner peace and improved relations with others. As we have already seen regarding healing at gacaca, perpetrators often express a need to be liberated from feelings of guilt. Some commentators argue that many perpetrators will experience release from guilt when their vic­tims forgive them.

Inevitably, commentators’ different interpretations of the processes and motivations of forgiveness at gacaca influence their views on its likely outcomes. Critical views of forgiveness, such as de Jonge’s, assume that forcing survivors to forgive perpetrators will simply increase survivors’ resentment and anger. Most advocates of forgiveness through gacaca meanwhile argue that forfeiting direct, personal vengeance, as basic forgiveness entails, will result in more peaceful cohabitation between parties previously in conflict. Some advocates of forgiveness argue that something more profound than mere cohabitation is also possible. For example, Nsabiyera argues that forgiveness should involve fostering a deeper, more profound engagement between perpetrators and survivors. If forgiveness at gacaca is to be truly meaningful, according to Nsabiyera, forgoing personal vengeance is insufficient because it will leave in place many of the sources of pain, anxiety and hatred. Only through deeper engagement can perpetrators and survivors overcome these emotions that have made closer relationships impossible in the past. In particular, Nsabiyera argues that processes of truth-telling inherent in forgiveness will help rebuild relationships between parties previously in conflict. �?Truth-telling’, he argues, �?can bring healing and makes repentance possible.’^[679] When perpetrators trust the general assembly to listen calmly and peacefully to their expressions of guilt and explanations of their actions, then they will be more likely to confess to their crimes, to ask for forgiveness and to engage closely with survivors in order to help rebuild relationships.