INTRODUCTION

To summarise, gacaca is a dynamic, hybrid institution, borne out of heady ideals, political necessity and compromise, whose complex evo­lution since 2001 stems from a wide range of popular and state-run fac­tors.

Evidence from jurisdictions around Rwanda highlights gacaca's suc­cesses in handling the backlog of cases and delivering retributive just­ice, facilitating crucial processes of truth-telling and truth-hearing, and providing for positive peace by creating a dialogical space for the resolution of people's past conflicts, which is critical to sustaining more cohesive relations in the long-term. Gacaca has also proven effective in many communities at initiating processes of restorative justice, heal­ing, forgiveness and reconciliation, although these objectives inevitably stretch beyond the time frame of gacaca, given the slow, emotional and interpersonal dynamics concerned. In other communities, however, these objectives are very distant prospects or have in fact been under­mined by people's experiences of gacaca. The analysis in Chapters 5-10 indicates that most commentators have grossly overstated the predicted or observed problems with gacaca: it has not degenerated into mob just­ice nor constituted a form of state-sanctioned collective condemnation of the entire Hutu population.

This final chapter comprises three sections: first, it draws together the strands of argument in Chapters 6-10, namely the analysis of gacaca's pragmatic and profound aims and formal and negotiated methods, to show that gacaca represents a radical, comprehensive approach to tran­sitional justice. In displaying the galaxy of gacaca's eight feasible object­ives, which so far have been treated predominantly as discrete, this section briefly explores the compatibilities and tensions manifest in this simultaneous pursuit of different (and different types of) aims. This ana­lysis of multiple objectives suggests that we should be sober about gacaca's attempt at a holistic response to the genocide, while recognising its sub­stantial achievements.

Second, on the basis of this interpretation of gacaca's galaxy of aims, this chapter critiques the dominant discourse of gacaca, princi­pally its misinterpretation of gacaca's hybrid aims and methods. This section argues that the prevailing view of gacaca is flawed for vari­ous methodological reasons and for reasons stemming from its narrow interpretation of gacaca's objectives, namely its sole focus on deter­rent justice. In countering this view, this section also defends gacaca against several human-rights criticisms raised by proponents of that perspective.

Finally, this chapter distils some immediate implications from the findings in this book regarding the nature and efficacy of gacaca. These implications concern two main areas: the use of community-level tran­sitional processes in other contexts in Africa and further afield; and the social and political future of Rwanda. Together, these elements highlight the importance of gacaca in aiding Rwanda's recovery after the genocide and in contexts far beyond.