METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

While Chapter 3 outlines in greater detail the analytical rationale for interpreting and critiquing gacaca in this book, it is necessary here to outline some key issues concerning the adopted research methodology, beginning with my main approaches to fieldwork and ending with a brief consideration of some of the research problems encountered.

Broadly speaking, my fieldwork comprised two phases, which are reflected in the structure of Chapters 6-10: first, I conducted semi­structured, qualitative interviews with official, popular and observer sources regarding the objectives that they associated with gacaca. These interviews involved open-ended, non-leading questions designed to allow respondents to discuss gacaca in their own terms. On the basis of those interviews, I designed the conceptual framework of gacaca’s nine object­ives detailed later in this book, within which I undertook the second phase of this research, namely the empirical analysis of gacaca’s practical operation in communities across Rwanda. The purpose of this approach was to develop a conceptual framework that derived from the perspec­tives of the parties who in various ways were intimately connected to gacaca, rather than adopting a free-standing conceptual apparatus that would bear little resemblance to how people personally engaged in gacaca have understood the institution.

My general fieldwork method was first to conduct interviews in 2003 with confessed genocidaiτes in four ingando or â€?solidarity camps’, which constitute civic education centres for various groups in Rwanda, princi­pally provisionally released genocide detainees: in Kinyinya (Kigali Ville province), Gashora (Kigali Ngali), Butare Ville (Butare) and Ruhengeri Ville (Ruhengeri).¹¹ In each camp, I distributed around 200 question­naires, requesting detainees’ personal information, such as name, sex, ^[11] age, birthplace, the category of the genocide crimes to which they had confessed, level of education and religion.^[12] These questionnaires gave crucial insights into the background of genocide suspects in each camp and provided a snapshot of the overall population of suspects impris­oned across Rwanda. Detainees either completed the questionnaires themselves or, if they were illiterate, had a friend complete them on their behalf. On the basis of their responses, I selected approximately twenty detainees in each camp from as wide a range of backgrounds as possible to interview individually.

These interviews with genocide suspects, which typically lasted between forty-five minutes and one hour but sometimes up to two hours, covered a broad range of topics, including the respondents’ experiences of the genocide, prison and ingando; their interpretations and expect­ations of gacaca; and their views on the future. I conducted interviews alone if respondents spoke English or French or, if they spoke only Kinyarwanda, I interviewed them through an interpreter who came from the province where the ingando was located. Between 2003 and 2010, I regularly attended gacaca hearings in communities in the same provinces as the initial ingando interviews, to compare the views of par­ticipants in gacaca and the nature of their involvement during hearings with the views of suspects. Finally, I interviewed survivors and the gen­eral population in communities near these gacaca jurisdictions, to better understand the key local factors influencing gacaca.

The purpose of this empirical approach was to record the broadest possible spectrum of interpretations by interviewing individuals within all social groups who are directly involved in gacaca, particularly sus­pects, survivors and gacaca judges. It was also important to interview the general population, who in many cases comprised relatives of geno­cide suspects. I interviewed the population in a wide range of commu­nities across Rwanda, in both urban and rural areas, but particularly in the latter as communities outside of Kigali are often overlooked in post­genocide research. Like my ingando interviews, these semi-structured interviews in the community covered various themes concerning people’s personal experiences of the genocide and its aftermath, which provided a clearer sense of their current circumstances, as well as their perceptions of gacaca.

In several communities, I stayed in the homes of local families or in a tent nearby when the relevant landowners consented, to be as close as possible to the people whom I was interviewing. At the beginning of my fieldwork and later, between visits to each ingando and the surround­ing communities, I conducted 103 interviews with government officials (including Rwandan President Paul Kagame and various cabinet min­isters) and NGO personnel, usually in Kigali. I also made one visit to Butare Central Prison in 2003 to interview suspects, gaining a govern­ment permit to the prison by accompanying a World Vision team that conducted a healing and reconciliation workshop with detainees, and later visits to Kigali Central Prison and Rilima Prison. Finally, I travelled twice to Arusha, Tanzania, to observe hearings at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and to interview tribunal per­sonnel about issues of justice and reconciliation in Rwanda, including their views on gacaca.

A central component of the research contained in this book is a ser­ies of longitudinal interviews conducted with confessed genocidaiτes at all stages of their journey towards their appearance at gacaca, alongside interviews with survivors and the general population in the same loca­tions and during the same phases.

Given the sensitivity of the fieldwork questions, I tape-recorded only a small number of interviews, usually with government officials, and took detailed notes during the remaining interviews, which I double­checked with my interpreter at the end of each day. Throughout this book, I employ pseudonyms for all genocide suspects, survivors, gacaca judges and members of the general population and provide only broad descriptions of their locations (usually the name of the province and district), for legal and security reasons.

I end this section by outlining some of the key methodological quan­daries encountered during the fieldwork which impinge on the ana­lysis in this book. Overall, two principal challenges to this fieldwork comprised the need to build trust with interviewees and to navigate the unavoidable biases of respondents. In a post-conflict setting such as Rwanda, many people are understandably sceptical or distrustful of outsiders, especially those who ask difficult questions about traumatic events. Given that this research occurred as gacaca trials were under way, there was great sensitivity to legal matters and reluctance among many interviewees to discuss issues that might impinge on genocide cases. Furthermore, during interviews with government officials, it was necessary to remain cautious about exaggerated, self-aggrandising or misleading claims. In all of these situations, a key principle of my research was triangulation, seeking multiple sources to verify the information gathered. One boon in seeking to overcome issues of dis­trust and suspicion was the ability to return to Rwanda to speak to the same individuals many times over several years, building rapport with respondents and thus encouraging them to speak more openly and hon­estly about complex issues concerning gacaca.

Regarding practical challenges, during interviews in ingando, I was often interrupted by camp officials, whose presence significantly affected the tone and depth of interviewees’ discussions.

Finally, it must be recognised that any study of gacaca is inherently limited by the sheer scale of the institution in terms of the number of jurisdictions and participants, geographical diffusion and the timescale of proceedings, which in some communities have taken place once a week for eight years. Gacaca is too large and too changeable for any sin­gle researcher or group of researchers to capture fully. A gacaca jurisdic­tion in one village may differ in key respects from another less than a kilometre away, and the character of both jurisdictions may evolve sub­stantially over time, depending on how participants engage in the pro­cess and subsequently alter their expectations and behaviour. During my fieldwork, I attempted to address this issue by observing gacaca hearings and interviewing participants in a wide range of locations and over many years. This methodology provides a deep insight into the experience of gacaca in eleven communities in five provinces, embedded in a broader context of provincial, national and regional dynamics, and constitutes a more comprehensive approach to analysing gacaca than most published analyses. By comparing the findings from this research with those from other observers operating in different parts of Rwanda and during dif­ferent periods, it is possible to construct an analysis that gets closer to a comprehensive view and identifies trends that are likely to pertain in all locations across Rwanda. Nevertheless, local influences on gacaca are crucial to any understanding of the process, including discrete social and cultural norms and the role of micro-politics in shaping participants’ views on and behaviour during gacaca. We must recognise the substan­tial limitations of any analysis of gacaca, while also underscoring the enormous virtues of an in-depth exploration of discrete communities that are embedded in a wider socio-political framework and examined over a lengthy period.