Overall landscape of perspectives on truth through gacaca
It is now worth drawing together the various processes and functions of truth through gacaca that the government, population and commentaÂtors describe to underline some of the connections and tensions inherÂent in these components of truth.
Within the three processes of truth at gacaca - truth-telling, truth-hearing and truth-shaping - we may discern various functions of truth, as expressed in Table 7.1. These functions of truth embody very different aims within gacaca and consequently they often conflict with one another. This section then outlines the three processes of truth at gacaca and how these processes, and the functions of truth embodied within them, may conflict with, or reinforce, one another.Before exploring the compatibilities and tensions between the procÂesses and functions of truth described by the three groups of sources, two further identifiable functions of truth, which these sources do not mention explicitly, must feature in any analysis of truth through gacaca. First, some detainees' truth-telling, in the form of public confessions and apologies before the general assembly, constitutes a mode of punishment through shaming. In this function of truth-telling, the purpose is to pubÂlicly identify those guilty of committing crimes and to expose the nature of their crimes, in order to produce a sense of disgrace in the guilty indiÂvidual and to express to the wider community that such criminal behavÂiour is morally unacceptable.[497] This viewpoint resonates deeply in small communities, where confessed criminals will live with an ever-tarnished reputation. Public exposure of individuals’ crimes will decrease their standing in the community, painting them as untrustworthy or dishonÂourable characters.
As with many of the outcomes of gacaca examined here, truth-telling as shaming requires a careful balance by gacaca judges.
They must make public examples of convicted perpetrators, to send a clear message to the community that such actions will not be tolerated and to publicly acknowledge the long-term effects of these actions on the victims, while at the same time facilitating the eventual reintegration of perpetrators into the community, so that they gain a renewed sense of belonging and contribute to the overall rebuilding of the fractured society. Judges must also ensure that individuals who are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused do not suffer the same indignity as the guilty, by forcefully proclaiming their innocence and rebuking any member of the general assembly who continues to accuse the innocent of the crimes of which they have already been acquitted.Second, none of the sources explored here describes the role of external parties in counselling individuals who give evidence at gacaca. Outside actors, for example trauma counsellors appointed by the Ministry of Health, may help facilitate individuals’ discourse towards more theraÂpeutic ends. We may deduce therefore that a function of therapeutic truth-shaping is possible through gacaca, as counsellors advise individÂuals who have given traumatic evidence at gacaca on how best to deal emotionally and psychologically with the truths they have told.
Table 7.1 draws together the various processes and functions of truth through gacaca explored in this chapter.