POPULAR ETHOS OF GACACA
Different individuals and groups in Rwanda interpret gacaca as an instiÂtution in various ways. Different groups also define in divergent ways the various terms with which gacaca is purportedly linked, such as the nine pragmatic and profound aims mentioned above.
The nature of these interpretations, both of the objectives themselves as concepts and of their connections to the gacaca process, often reflects what particular individuals and groups believe they may gain from gacaca rather than any reasoned articulation of the community-wide role that gacaca plays. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine the interpretations of all interested parties, whether from an official, popular or critical standÂpoint, and to assume that none of these groups possesses an inherently more valuable understanding of what gacaca should achieve. My point in investigating the nine objectives mentioned earlier is that the associÂation of these aims with gacaca draws from the Rwandan social, cultural and political sphere and not from a distantly related theoretical or philoÂsophical realm that I seek to impose on any analysis of gacaca.Gacaca is a dynamic enterprise that draws on a wide range of legal, political, cultural and religious sources. Therefore, one secondary aim of later chapters is to investigate the influences that other social forces have had on gacaca - often differing between geographical regions but underpinned by a particular Rwandan worldview - and that affect the population’s expectations of the institution. Failing to recognise the influences that other social phenomena exert on gacaca, as most writers in this field have so far, leads to a limited understanding of the values that gacaca embodies and in turn to an unsatisfactory concepÂtual framework with which to critically assess gacaca. Any attempt to critique gacaca must address the issue of how the people engaged in this process interpret the practice and from which social and culÂtural sources - apart from the legal documents and pronouncements by government leaders that initially shape the institution - they draw these interpretations.
The often unexpected ways in which the Rwandan public perceives gacaca will therefore have a significant bearing on how the institution functions. Basing my argument on the assumption of possible differÂences between official and popular views of gacaca raises an important methodological question: when interpreting the objectives of gacaca, how should we balance an analysis of the government’s intentions with the practical manifestation of the institution in the community? Will the most compelling aims of gacaca emanate from the government’s perspective of gacaca, as expressed in the legal texts establishing the institution and public pronouncements by political leaders, or from the views and practices of the general population engaged in gacaca? If disagreement occurs between official and popular understandings of gacaca, should one interpretation trump the other? In general, the assumption underpinning the analysis in subsequent chapters is that neither the government’s nor the population’s views carry any special weight in the critical interpretation of gacaca. My approach is to treat official and popular interpretations of gacaca as equal sources of anaÂlysis, examining the two side by side - often aided by the analysis of other commentators - with the understanding that on occasion the govÂernment’s expression of gacaca and its aims will prove more responsive to the needs of the post-genocide society and more coherent than the population’s own expressions of gacaca, and vice versa. Furthermore, neither the Rwandan population nor the Rwandan state is monolithic and therefore it will be necessary to interrogate the crucial disagreeÂments within these categories of actors in order to fully comprehend immanent understandings of gacaca.
It is important to justify the contention that the population’s views on gacaca should warrant a central status when interpreting gacaca’s objectÂives and judging its effectiveness. It may appear that such an approach gives undue consideration to what many observers may view as merely participants’ misunderstandings or deliberate contraventions of the laws governing gacaca - in essence, a â€?warping’ of the original intentions of the makers of gacaca that should carry no moral or practical weight in our understanding of gacaca.
There are, however, very good reasons for closely analysing the ways in which everyday Rwandans’ interpretations of gacaca, as represented in their verbal discussions of the institution and in their practices and interactions during gacaca hearings, contribute to the function of the institution. The fundamental reason why interpretÂing popular perceptions of, and participation in, gacaca is important for understanding gacaca as a whole is because the driving ethos of gacaca is one of popular ownership and participation. The Rwandan government emphasises the importance of popular agency, and most Rwandans, at least in their verbal expressions, also view themselves and not the state as the driving force behind gacaca.[204] As argued in more detail later, the government and population often overstate the extent to which everyÂday Rwandans are free to participate in gacaca. Nonetheless, the spirit of gacaca emphasises that the community should play a central role in all aspects of the process and that the objectives of gacaca should not be pursued through the agency of national or local elites but through comÂmunal engagement in a public setting.The government stresses that gacaca judges must allow the general assembly, with minimal interference from judges or other community leaders, to openly discuss cases and wider (often emotional, non-le- gal) issues stemming from the genocide. Fatuma Ndangiza, Executive Secretary of the NURC, describes gacaca as â€?a form of justice oriÂginating from and serving Rwandan culture' and a demonstration of â€?Rwandans' ability to manage their [own] conflicts'.[205] As the Gacaca Manual, which the government produced with the assistance of ASF in order to guide judges in their daily running of gacaca, exhorts: â€?Don't forget that the population is the main actor in the Gacaca Jurisdictions and that you represent the population.'11 Judges are on hand primarÂily to encourage what Hannington Tayebwa, former Head of Judicial Services at the Ministry of Justice, calls â€?facilitated problem-solving', which holds that the general assembly should engage in a largely open discussion at gacaca hearings, in which judges act as mediators to help the community achieve certain legal and social objectives.[206] [207] Gacaca judges function essentially as democratically-elected officials, pursuing the good of the populace by allowing the general assembly to control much of the running of gacaca, except in instances when judges believe that communal discussions may lead to damaging levels of discord or violence.[208] Much of the Rwandan public shares the government's understanding of the importance of popular participation in gacaca. At gacaca the truth frees us from the weight we have carried around since the genocide. Gacaca is important because it allows us to be together and to hear the truth and to learn to live together again... I will go to gacaca and ask the prisoners who come from the jail to speak the truth about what they did. There are many lies at gacaca. But the community will refute them and the judges will get to the truth and make a record of the prisoners' crimes. Then I will feel as if all these things have finished and life will start again.[209] A gacaca judge in Buhoma district of Ruhengeri province stated simiÂlarly, â€?Gacaca is important because it brings everyone together, to talk together. When we come together, we find unity. Sometimes there is even too much talking and I have to slow the people down.'[210] Many Rwandans view gacaca as a forum in which all members of the community, suspects, survivors and the general population, can debate and discuss legal and non-legal issues resulting from the genocide. Gacaca’s popular ethos necessitates an analysis of popular perspecÂtives if we are to rigorously interpret its aims. This is a difficult underÂtaking because the volatile nature of gacaca makes it a moving target. It is impossible to propose a single, paradigmatic interpretation of gacaca and its aims because gacaca is shaped largely by the needs, beliefs and methods of local communities. These local factors vary greatly between, and within, different communities, and over time, leading inevitably to ambiguous, changeable and frequently contested understandings of gacaca. This dynamism should make us wary of interpreting the aims of gacaca too rigidly. Nevertheless, to neglect the ramifications of popular ownership of gacaca is to neglect the important public spirit of the instiÂtution and thus to fail to judge it on its own terms. As I argue in the folÂlowing chapters, many non-Rwandan commentators’ interpretations of gacaca and its objectives are flawed in critical respects, principally their neglect of the popular nature of the institution. It is therefore necessary to offer a more grounded interpretation than exists currently, however limited that interpretation may be as a result of the dynamic nature of gacaca.