Critique of sources' perspectives on healing through gacaca

It is necessary now to critically analyse the official, popular and observer interpretations of healing through gacaca, taking a thematic approach. Some sources rely on problematic assumptions that require either sig­nificant alterations or outright rejection, particularly when they are compared to the practical reality of healing through gacaca.

First, some official, popular and critical sources emphasise the import­ance of public dialogue at gacaca for suspects' and survivors' healing. Public discussion, they argue, contributes both to healing as liberation, for example in Rutinburana's and some survivors' view that discovering key historical facts will free individuals from their ignorance, and to heal­ing as belonging, as they argue that engagement and sharing personal experiences in a communal environment will increase individuals' sense of connection to the community, which in turn will help facilitate per­sonal healing. These sources are undoubtedly correct to emphasise the importance of public dialogue in facilitating healing as liberation and healing as belonging. However, they assume that such forms of conver­sation will lead straightforwardly to healing. They argue that survivors will discover the facts of the past and experience a relatively immediate sense of release from their uncertainty. They also assume that survivors' sharing personal experiences at gacaca will automatically generate a greater sense of belonging, thus overcoming their feelings of isolation and loneliness.

Public discussion at gacaca, however, is much more complex than these views suggest. As Rutinburana recognises, �opening wounds' pub­licly at gacaca is a complicated, often fraught process that risks retrau­matising many participants. Nsabiyera is right to argue that opening these wounds will be �necessarily painful'. Public engagement at gacaca may in fact prove to be entirely detrimental to healing, for example - as Ndangiza mentions above - for rape victims who face the prospect of discussing traumatising personal experiences in front of gacaca judges. Therefore, what most sources neglect is the extent to which it is not knowledge at gacaca - either discovered through the expression of his­torical facts or shared when participants in gacaca compare and contrast personal experiences of the genocide - but acknowledgement that con­tributes most significantly to healing. When the general assembly fails to acknowledge the personal experiences that participants describe at gacaca - if it displays insufficient understanding or empathy towards those describing their pain - then such dialogue does not contribute to healing as belonging. Dauge-Roth also observes the importance of com­munal acknowledgement in the Rwandan context:

By refusing to remain silent or silenced, survivors aim not only to keep the memory of those who died alive, but to also gain social recognition and legitimacy within the ongoing dialogues through which social mem­ory and belonging are shaped. Their testimony, then, aims not only to represent the past as it has been witnessed, but at the same time symbol­ises a social performance of the survivors’ agency within their commu­nity... [T]he testimonial impulse... signals a desire for connectedness that requires survivors to forge the social recognition of their disconnec­tion so that their alterity does not amount to their exclusion.^[624]

Regarding healing as liberation, the discovery of salient historical facts often produces further trauma, as suggested by the exhumation of mass graves in Ruhengenge, unless survivors receive communal acknowledge­ment of their experiences.

Second, many genocide suspects argue, similarly to those who equate public engagement with relatively immediate forms of healing, that their confessions in front of the general assembly will lead automatically to healing as liberation from feelings of guilt. Many suspects argue that confession will naturally gain the community’s acceptance and that they will be able to participate again in the �family’ of the community. This is the ideal notion of suspects’ healing at gacaca, as first private then public confession leads ultimately to integration into, and greater participation in, communal life. Healing, however, will not always take this course, as many survivors express scepticism regarding detainees’ motivations for confessing in light of the reduced prison sentences afforded to those who confess early. If the community does not accept detainees’ confessions or help them reintegrate, then private confession becomes detainees’ only source of healing, though this would entail only personal release from guilt rather than an increased sense of belonging and capacity for communal participation. Thus, suspects’ healing is affected greatly by private and public experiences both within, and outside of, gacaca. Mediators again play an important role in preparing the general assem­bly to respond to detainees when they appear before gacaca.

Third, while some sources neglect the difficulties inherent in public dialogue and confession at gacaca, they also underestimate the extent to which post-genocide healing will inevitably entail long-term proc­esses. Detainees who describe gacaca as a �cure’ for their emotional or psychological torment after the genocide suggest that gacaca will pro­vide almost immediate healing.

Gacaca may begin the process of healing, allowing individuals to publicly discuss personal experiences, which, for various reasons, may have been previously impossible. The sources examined here often neg­lect the extent to which healing is an ongoing process. Guilty suspects will continue to regret their crimes and survivors will continue to grieve the deaths of their friends and family for years after gacaca, perhaps indefinitely. These participants will require ongoing assistance, particu­larly if they have experienced retraumatisation during gacaca hearings. Furthermore, because forms of engagement and communal participation are key processes in facilitating healing as belonging, sustained partici­pation in communal activities outside of gacaca will be crucial for indi­viduals’ long-term healing. Negative experiences outside of gacaca can easily undermine many of the gains in healing made during gacaca.

One practical way in which gacaca may provide an initial step on survivors’ journey towards wholeness is through reparations and restitu­tion.

In conclusion, while the various processes of healing as liberation and healing as belonging show gacaca’s capacity to deal with trauma, doubts must be raised over the extent to which gacaca alone can assist in this regard.

More importantly, given the deep personal, psychological and emo­tional issues involved, healing is by nature a long-term process that individuals cannot complete solely within gacaca. Healing for many Rwandans will be a life-long pursuit. Furthermore, many individuals are likely to suffer retraumatisation after gacaca, as external events in the wider social, cultural and political realms affect their journey toward wholeness. There is a significant risk that external events will eventually undermine many of the gains made at gacaca. Gacaca may help initiate the healing process but it will bring very few Rwandans a sense of �final­ity' or �closure'. While gacaca displays an undeniable capacity to facilitate healing as liberation and healing as belonging, it alone cannot achieve final results in these regards.

Gacaca embodies various processes that contribute to healing as liberation and healing as belonging, deploying methods of confession, discovery of historical facts, public and private memorial, communal acknowledgement and material restitution that assist individuals holis­tically in overcoming trauma. A key feature of these processes is their focus on healing individuals' identities, which have been badly dam­aged during the genocide. Aiding individuals in regaining a sense of the coherence of the self, and of the connections between the self and the community, requires deep reflection on the part of the individual and sustained engagement with others. Healing is therefore both an internal and a communal pursuit. Gacaca creates a space in which internal and external processes of healing are possible, while emphasising the need for individuals to express themselves emotionally, to make themselves vul­nerable to others, which may cause further anguish. Such initially trau­matic processes, however, are necessary if individuals are to ultimately experience healing. Gacaca displays a marked capacity to facilitate heal­ing as liberation and healing as belonging for both survivors and sus­pects, although we must also recognise the severe limitations of gacaca in this pursuit. Healing will inevitably take much longer than the dur­ation of gacaca and will rely heavily on external emotional, psychological and material influences. Within these limitations, however, gacaca has to date displayed an important practical capacity to facilitate healing, emphasising the need to rebuild Rwandan society from the level of the individual upward, in concert with gacaca's more community-wide and nationwide objectives.

GACACA AND FORGIVENESS

Forgiveness is a theme rarely discussed in the context of post-conflict societies because, for many people, it connotes amnesty for perpetra­tors or religious beliefs to which they may not subscribe. In the context of gacaca, however, all three groups of sources analysed argue that for­giveness is possible through gacaca. This may reflect a harking back to traditional gacaca, in which forgiveness was an explicit principle. My research shows that people's religious persuasion is the primary influence on their views of post-genocide forgiveness, as well as their experiences of the genocide, either as perpetrators, survivors or members of the broader community.

This section explores forgiveness through gacaca by asking four ques­tions: first, what form do sources believe forgiveness should take after the genocide? The issue of form centres on who is expected to partici­pate in forgiveness processes and what forgiveness entails. Regarding the actors involved, the sources analysed here describe four different forms of forgiveness through gacaca: forgiveness between individual perpetra­tors and survivors, which I call �inter-personal forgiveness'; forgiveness between an individual perpetrator and his or her community, or �indi- vidual-group forgiveness'; forgiveness between an individual perpetrator and God, which constitutes �divine forgiveness'; and forgiveness between an individual perpetrator and the state, which I call �official forgiveness'. Once we determine whom forgiveness should involve, does forgiveness entail parties' forgoing direct, personal revenge against perpetrators, for­getting crimes committed, or some other action?

Second, this section investigates how different sources interpret the processes by which forgiveness occurs at gacaca. This question relates both to the general processes of forgiveness, asking whether forgiveness entails a one-off transaction between parties or a long-term process, and more specific issues, such as who should initiate forgiveness. A key component of this analysis of forgiveness processes is the conditions that different sources believe are necessary for forgiveness to be granted, for example whether apology and a request for forgiveness from perpetrators are necessary or whether survivors or others may meaningfully grant it before perpetrators initiate the process.

Third, what motivations are considered crucial for inspiring people to ask for, or to grant, forgiveness? Does forgiveness stem from a sense of religious or moral duty or a desire to achieve certain pragmatic outcomes, such as perpetrators’ healing as liberation, which releases them from feel­ings of guilt and shame when survivors forgive them of their crimes?

Finally, this section explores the outcomes that these sources expect from forgiveness through gacaca. Does forgiveness contribute to rebuild­ing long-term relationships between perpetrators and survivors or will it simply act as a circuit-breaker to survivors’ desire for personal revenge, thus leading to a more peaceful coexistence? In analysing different sources’ interpretations, this section distinguishes between two main types of outcomes of forgiveness: a fundamentally pragmatic response that requires only that survivors forgo resentment and direct, personal retribution against perpetrators and does not require significant rebuild­ing of relationships between them, an outcome that I call �basic forgive­ness’; and a more expansive view that expects forgiveness to facilitate the restoration of broken relationships, which I call �profound forgiveness’.

Analysing the official, popular and critical views of the form, proc­esses, motivations and outcomes of forgiveness at gacaca, this section argues that forgiveness is an important aim of gacaca but that it is neces­sary to refute a common perception of post-genocide forgiveness as an obligated, immediate action that necessarily precludes any form of pun­ishment. This section argues instead that forgiveness through gacaca should be understood as a gift that survivors bestow upon perpetrators. Furthermore, the inevitably long-term nature of forgiveness processes, as well as many survivors’ deep sense of anger and resentment that must be managed for forgiveness to occur, mean that we should interpret gacaca’s pursuit of forgiveness as successful only within significant limitations.