Population’s perspectives on economic development through gacaca
In contrast, the population generally views little connection between gacaca and economic development, particularly at the individual or comÂmunity levels. The popular perspective therefore questions not only the government’s claimed connection between gacaca and economic growth but also the conclusion from Gasibirege and Babalola cited above that among the population â€?most of the problems of poverty are perceived to be directly linked with the genocide and thereby expected to be resolved through the gacaca process.’[420] The first part of this statement is undoubtÂedly true: most Rwandans view poverty as a direct result of the genocide.
My research suggests, however, that the population generally disagrees with the second part of the statement: that gacaca is expected to alleviÂate poverty.At the outset, the population is sceptical that survivors will receive significant levels of compensation because of perpetrators’ and the state’s lack of resources that could be made available for this purpose. According to an NURC survey, 54 per cent of Rwandans expect that survivors will be dissatisfied with the level of reparations received dirÂectly from perpetrators or through the Compensation Fund.[421] The use of compensation as punishment draws on the traditional version of gacaca, which required offenders to replace property that had been damaged or stolen or to provide other goods of equal value. It is not surprising thereÂfore that 86 per cent of the population believes that the families of genoÂcide victims should receive compensation through gacaca, while 65 per cent believe that those found guilty of genocide crimes should directly compensate victims.[422] As Alphonse stated during the gacaca journey in Chapter 4, discussions around compensation during gacaca hearings had proven highly fractious; meanwhile, it appeared that few convicted perÂpetrators possessed the materials necessary to compensate their victims, although some survivors had benefited from the new houses provided by the government.
A rare example from my interviews of a survivor explicitly linking gacaca with economic development, in this instance in a community and national sense, comes from Rose in Nyamata. Rose argued that gacaca's hastening of the judicial process and the mass return of genocide suspects to the community will mean that â€?the money spent on prisonÂers will be put back into the community now', enabling the government to support poverty-alleviation schemes for which it previously lacked the resources because of its preoccupation with maintaining conditions in the jails.[423] The general population, principally families of detainees, makes a stronger connection between the release of prisoners and ecoÂnomic development. Bernard, a sixty-one-year-old man in Butare, whose three sons were imprisoned since 1994, two of whom had recently been released from the ingando, said,
The years when my sons were in jail had a very big effect on our family. We are a poor family and my sons are needed on the farm. Other famÂilies have helped us since the genocide... God has listened to us and things will get better now that my sons are home.[424]
For many Rwandans, though, current economic realities are so harsh that gacaca and other institutions are unlikely to improve their situation. â€?Gacaca won't give me work', said Ruth, the detainee in the ingando at Kigali Ville quoted earlier, who was a high-school teacher before she claims to have been falsely accused of complicity in murder during the genocide.[425] Her husband died of malaria while she was in prison and her two daughters went missing, leaving her with few close relatives to proÂvide for her in jail and after her release from the ingando. Because the accusations made against Ruth after the genocide would almost certainly bar her from finding work as a teacher again, she said, â€?I will need much more assistance from the government if I'm going to survive. I don't know what I will do when I go home.
There is no one there to help me now.'[426] As described in Chapter 4, many detainees - including Alphonse, Cypriet and Laurent, the three interviewed on the gacaca journey - report that they faced significant financial hardship after their release. For some families of detainees, the release of their loved ones back into the community places a greater economic burden on them as they have to cover the living costs that the government partly covered in the prisÂons. Meanwhile, the general population views overcoming poverty as its biggest challenge after the genocide. Among survivors, the belief that gacaca should provide them with some form of compensation for the pain and loss they have suffered is widespread. However, few Rwandans genuÂinely believe that gacaca - and perhaps state programmes generally - will improve their material conditions.Furthermore, participation in gacaca appears to have placed a signifiÂcant financial burden on many Rwandans. As discussed in the previous chapter, the considerable time spent at gacaca that otherwise would be spent farming or engaging in other economic activity was a key reaÂson that many people cited for their non-attendance at gacaca. Several inyangamugayo also claimed that gacaca placed significant financial pressure on them and their families because, despite not being paid by the government for their oversight of gacaca, they were required to dirÂect hearings at least once a week and expended many hours gatherÂing evidence and deliberating with their fellow judges.[427] In such cases, the population argues that gacaca has in fact undermined its economic well-being.