Commentators’ perspectives on peace through gacaca

Finally, the critical literature rarely considers explicitly the link between gacaca and peace. It is clear, though, that most commentators view con­flict in Rwanda as largely unavoidable, given the extent to which eth­nic and other divisions have shaped social and political life for decades.

For most commentators, the methods by which gacaca facilitates peace emphasise the need for long-term processes of overcoming con­flict that duly recognise deeply rooted animosity in the community. The few commentators who discuss peace through gacaca focus on its abil­ity to foster positive peace, usually defined in the educative rather than deterrent sense. Many Rwandan authors stress the need for a pedagogy of civic virtues to afford the population the means to peacefully resolve its problems. A rare instance of a commentator's discussing negative peace through gacaca comes from Karekezi, who echoes the government's view that gacaca must establish negative peace in terms of restoring stability and �social equilibrium'.^[540] Karekezi, however, also argues that this initial stage of peacebuilding is insufficient and that gacaca constitutes a forum for communal problem-solving that encourages more peaceful, long-term engagement; a view that interprets peace in the positive sense.^[541] In this critical view, dialogue and communal problem-solving are gacaca's main means of shoring up negative peace.

Like the population, the few commentators who address gacaca's contribution to peace argue that it is likely to increase discord between participants, particularly between suspects and survivors and especially in the early stages of the process. Xavier Gasimba argues that â€?both the innocent and guilty fear gacaca' and that survivors and suspects have different but equally justified reasons to expect personal insecur­ity during hearings.^[542] Where commentators divide is over their expec­tations of the results of initially difficult interactions at gacaca. Some non-Rwandan observers argue that such confrontations will jeorpardise peace, especially if participants are dissatisfied with the forms of pun­ishment meted out at gacaca, which may cause resentment and the desire for vengeance. Corey and Joireman argue that gacaca will lead to short- and long-term insecurity in Rwanda: in the short term, because the security of witnesses and defendants cannot be guaranteed during and after acrimonious gacaca hearings; and in the long term, because gacaca fails to guarantee due process for genocide suspects, for example by denying them access to legal counsel, and because it deals only with crimes committed by Hutu genocidaiτes and not those by the RPF. Corey and Joireman argue that gacaca embodies a form of â€?politicized justice' that will intensify â€?a desire for vengeance among the Hutu majority... thereby contributing to, rather than curtailing, the risk of ethnic vio­lence in the long run'.^[543]

On the other hand, some Rwandan observers, such as Gasibirege, argue that the engagement between parties that gacaca encourages is necessary for the population to learn to resolve difficult issues collect­ively. The election of gacaca judges, Gasibirege argues, encouraged the community to discuss the virtues that judges should embody, to dis­cern the degree to which different candidates embodied these virtues, and thus to learn to deliberate openly and peacefully on issues vital to the well-being of the entire community. The election of gacaca judges, Gasibirege argues, was a �key moment in the process of peace' and showed that, if community leaders could create a conducive atmosphere, then the population could learn future modes of conflict resolution through active, public engagement.^[544]