Population’s perspectives on forgiveness through gacaca

How does the population interpret the role of gacaca in encouraging for­giveness? Particularly within suspects' and survivors' collective interpret­ations of forgiveness, there is significant disagreement and ambiguity.

First, how do popular sources interpret the form that forgive­ness should take at gacaca? Even when it is encouraged in interviews to elaborate on what forgiveness entails, the population rarely offers more than general definitions. It is possible, however, to discern within popular interpretations each of the four forms of forgiveness outlined above: inter-personal, individual-group, divine and official forgiveness.

I won’t go to gacaca unless I am forced to go. I have already forgiven the killers... Gacaca is still necessary because it will expose the truth of what the killers did. The guilty will still receive justice even though we for­give them.^[639]

For some survivors, forgiveness not only entails their forgoing personal retribution but also their forgetting the crimes committed against them. Forgetting is sometimes described as occurring after survivors agree to forgive perpetrators. Some survivors, however, interpret forgetting as a prerequisite for forgiveness. Romain, a survivor from Butare, said, for example,

I am able to forgive those who killed my brother and my best friend but not now. I am too angry... When I forget what happened, I will be able to forgive. Forgetting though will take a very long time.^[640]

A minority of popular sources, usually detainees, interprets forgiveness as an individual-group transaction in which they confess to, and apolo­gise for, their crimes and ask for forgiveness from their community. The community may then choose to offer or withhold forgiveness depend­ing on how it judges the sincerity of suspects' confessions. These sources hold that such interactions will take place solely within the confines of gacaca when suspects confess publicly and ask for forgiveness from the general assembly.

I have no fear about facing my community at gacaca. They already know everything I did during the genocide because I have already told them. I will go to gacaca and the community will forgive me straight away, right there and then.^[641]

Peter Uvin and Charles Mironko cite several suspects' expectation of individual-group forgiveness on the basis of their positive interac­tions with survivors during prison gacaca hearings in 1998 and 2000.^[642] Similarly, as quoted in the gacaca journey narratives in Chapter 4, Alphonse said in 2006, �Gacaca will start after the [Constitutional] ref­erendum. I will tell the truth and the victims will forgive me. There is no question about that.'

A third interpretation of forgiveness comes from a small group of detainees who argue that the most important form of forgiveness comes not from their victims but from God. Some detainees express uncertainty regarding whether survivors will forgive them; they therefore view divine forgiveness as the likeliest means of atonement for their crimes. Many detainees argue, like Sylvestre, a detainee in the ingando at Ruhengeri, that �the community may refuse to forgive me but God always forgives.'^[643]

Jean Damascene, a provisionally released suspect in Gisenyi, said, �I'm not sure if the survivors will forgive me. Many of them are still very angry. But I have confessed and I know that God has forgiven me.'^[644] In such cases, forgiveness takes a divine form and concerns rebuilding a fractured relationship with God rather than with survivors. Many Protestants in particular view forgiveness as an immediate process in which God auto­matically forgives those who confess their sins to him and ask for his for­giveness.

The final popular interpretation of the form of forgiveness through gacaca constitutes a one-off, official transaction in which suspects seek forgiveness from the state. Emmanuel, a detainee in the ingando in Butare, argued that he expected to receive forgiveness not only from God and the families of his victims but also â€?forgiveness from the government' after confessing his crimes at gacaca.^[645] It is unclear from such expres­sions what official forgiveness entails, except for the state's foregoing any punishment of convicted genocidaiτes. Notably, Martin, a detainee in the ingando in Gashora, claimed, â€?The government has already forgiven me, so now the community will forgive me too.'^[646] Martin did not elaborate on how he knew that the government had forgiven him. However, he seemed to interpret his release from prison into the ingando, and the prospect of soon returning to his home community, as signs of official forgiveness.^[647]

Much of the population views forgiveness after the genocide as a two-way process that occurs primarily during gacaca hearings. The most common expression of this process involves detainees' initiation of forgiveness by confessing to their crimes, followed by an apology and a request for their victims to forgive them. The next step, according to the majority of detainees and survivors, involves survivors' acceptance or rejection of this apology, depending on the level of sincerity that the confessor has displayed, and their granting of, or refusal to grant, forgiveness. As Juliene, the survivor in Butare quoted above, argued, full confession and a genuine display of remorse are common preconditions for granting forgiveness.

The most common component of processes of forgiveness described by the population is an emphasis on victims' willingness to accept the contrition of perpetrators who confess and to forgo any assumed claim to direct, personal revenge against the guilty. In essence, this definition of forgiveness equates to victims giving perpetrators a �second chance' by dispelling any desire for personal revenge and by allowing perpetrators to begin a new life in their home communities. This view describes for­giveness as a long-term process, involving an ongoing dialogue between survivors and perpetrators long after gacaca is complete. Gacaca may provide the forum in which perpetrators initially confess to their crimes, apologise and ask for forgiveness, but many survivors claim that they will find it difficult to forgive perpetrators immediately. Robert, a thirty-eight­year-old farmer in Butare, whose brother and two uncles were still in jail, accused of genocide crimes, said, �The community will forgive those who are guilty, but it will depend on how bad their crimes were. The worst crimes are very hard to forgive.'^[649] Survivors will often need to reflect on the confessions and apologies they have heard and to judge the sincerity of perpetrators' words.

What then do popular sources believe will motivate suspects and sur­vivors to engage in forgiveness processes at gacaca? In popular interpret­ations, two expressed motivations for forgiveness predominate: a sense of Christian duty that requires individuals to ask for, and to grant, forgive­ness; and anticipated instrumental advantages of forgiveness.

During the genocide I believed that all Tutsi were bad... But when I was in prison, I lived with many Tutsi and they were just like my parents. Before I used to think that all Tutsi were rich. Now I want to go to gacaca and tell the survivors that I am sorry for what I did. And I know they will forgive me when I tell them the truth.^[650]

Such a sense of remorse is not always an instantaneous response to the crimes that many detainees have committed. In one instance, Issa, a sus­pect in the ingando at Ruhengeri, said that while he had always felt sorry for his crimes, he felt the deepest sense of remorse and the need to ask for forgiveness after he himself became the victim of injustice when his wife committed adultery while he was in prison. It was only after his wife visited him in jail, confessed her infidelity and begged for his forgiveness, Issa explained, that he fully realised his need to express his remorse dir­ectly to the family of his victims and to beg for their forgiveness.^[651] At the same time, many suspects, such as Cypriet, whom I interviewed along the gacaca journey as discussed in Chapter 4, display little remorse for their crimes and instead blame their actions on manipulation by govern­ment officials or offer more nebulous explanations such as their having been �caught up' in the general atmosphere of lawlessness and murder during the genocide. These circumstances, some detainees argue, made it impossible for them to refuse to participate in the killings.

Christian notions of atonement and redemption are important influ­ences on the popular interpretation of forgiveness as motivated by a sense of religious duty. The most common explanation from both sur­vivors and detainees of why forgiveness is necessary after the genocide is that, because God has forgiven his children for the sins that they have confessed, they must ask for forgiveness from, and be willing to forgive, each other. Forgiveness therefore is a sign of gratitude for the grace and mercy believers have received from God. Such an interpret­ation stems from biblical passages such as this central one in the Gospel according to Matthew: �For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.'^[652] On this basis, Vedaste, a detainee in Butare, explained that he did not fear returning to his home community from the ingando because �the people who live there are Christians and they will forgive me.'^[653] Jean-Baptiste, a survivor in Nyamata, said after a gacaca hearing that �we must forgive because God forgives', adding, �it is our Christian duty and if we do not forgive then we become the sinners.'^[654] In this sense, individuals' religious con­victions are viewed as transcending any personal reticence towards asking for, or granting, forgiveness. In many Christian interpretations, the commandment to forgive in turn characterises as a sinner any per­son who refuses to forgive a confessed and remorseful transgressor. Survivors' participation in Christian gacaca hearings reinforces these views, as clergy exhort parishioners to publicly confess the sins they have committed against one another. At Christian gacaca, church lead­ers commonly preach that it is every Christian's duty to forgive anyone who has wronged them and that anyone who refuses to forgive displays ingratitude for the mercy they have received from God.^[655]

Regarding the second popular expression of motivations for seeking forgiveness through gacaca, community leaders and the wider popula­tion describe different types of pragmatic considerations. Church leaders and gacaca judges in particular argue that survivors should forgive con­fessed perpetrators in order to achieve community-wide benefits. The most common pragmatic reason why forgiveness is necessary, according to these leaders, is to encourage detainees who appear before gacaca to tell the truth about their crimes. If detainees believe that survivors and the wider community will forgive them, the argument goes, then they will be more willing to divulge what they have done. During a gacaca hearing I attended in Save district of Butare province, a local pastor gave a short talk at the beginning of the meeting, in which he exhorted the general assembly to tell the truth and to be ready to forgive because �truth is the liberator and we must help detainees to confess their crimes.'^[656] He continued: �We won't hurt them with lies and we will welcome them home, ready to forgive them, so they will tell the truth about what they have done.'^[657]

Some suspects reverse this process and argue that, by telling the truth, they will encourage survivors to forgive them. �It is not easy to confess to crimes like mine', said Alexis, a detainee in the ingando at Gashora, who confessed to participating in the group killing of a woman during the genocide when he was eleven years old. �But I want to help the commu­nity forgive me at gacaca... One day I hope the community will let me go back to my farm and let me start my life again.'^[658] In this view, truth is a token that can be traded for forgiveness.

Another popular explanation of the pragmatic motivations behind forgiveness through gacaca, which comes from suspects rather than sur­vivors or other sections of the population, relates to their perceived need to rebuild fractured relationships in the community. Many detainees believe that their asking for forgiveness will encourage survivors and the broader community to accept them back. As Julbert, a detainee in the ingando at Butare who confessed to being part of a group of murderers during the genocide, claimed, �It was the word of God that told me to confess to my crimes. Now it will be possible to live together with the genocide survivors again. We will be able to live together after they for­give me.'^[659] This argument expresses a key motivation for detainees when they confess to crimes and ask for forgiveness, namely a desire to avoid direct reprisals from genocide survivors and to reintegrate smoothly into their home communities.

Detainees who interpret forgiveness in its official form usually argue that asking the government for forgiveness will help them benefit from gacaca's plea-bargaining system. Vedaste, who stated that forgiveness from God and the wider community was necessary for his gaining a sense of inner peace, also said that it would be necessary for him to �ask for forgiveness from the government which may help decrease my prison sentence'.^[660] Suspects' expressed motivations for forgiveness, such as this one, which sometimes appear at first to be influenced largely by religious persuasions, often coincide with more pragmatic considerations.

For other detainees and some survivors, a psychological type of prag­matic motivation for asking for forgiveness is to overcome their sense of guilt. As described regarding healing through gacaca, many guilty suspects claim to have experienced great upheaval in their consciences during their time in jail, often as a result of religious meditation or the influence of church leaders who visited them. Again influenced by cer­tain Christian conceptions of atonement, many detainees claim that asking for forgiveness will help them overcome their sense of shame; in essence �cleaning the slate' of their past and allowing them to move for­ward with a clearer conscience. Forgiveness is therefore interpreted as one pragmatic means towards healing as liberation.

What outcomes then do popular sources expect from forgiveness through gacaca? Generally speaking, the population argues that forgive­ness through gacaca will produce any of three different outcomes. First, popular interpretations focus on the extent to which forgiveness will help rebuild fractured relationships between individuals. On that basis, popu­lar views concerning restorative outcomes from forgiveness divide into two further categories: a basic, pragmatic view which holds that forgive­ness will facilitate the peaceful coexistence of individuals previously in conflict; and a profound view which holds that forgiveness will encour­age individuals to engage more closely with one another to build deeper relationships in the future. It is not always clear whether the popula­tion believes that forgiveness will facilitate basic or profound restorative outcomes. Therefore, it is often necessary to infer popular views in this regard from other statements relating to forgiveness.

The basic interpretation of the restorative outcomes of forgiveness through gacaca generally comes from genocide suspects. According to many suspects, forgiveness means that victims agree to disregard what has taken place in the past to allow perpetrators and victims to coexist peacefully in the future. Elie, a detainee in the ingando at Ruhengeri, expressed a common view among suspects: �Reconciliation, when we all can live together again, will happen when the guilty ones ask forgiveness at gacaca and the victims agree to forgive them.' ^[661] During the gacaca jour­ney, as quoted in Chapter 4, the provisionally released suspect Laurent also connected forgiveness with reconciliation, although he put greater onus on suspects to rebuild fractured relationships. �Reconciliation doesn't come from the sky', he said. �It means living together, saying sorry, asking for forgiveness. It is much more than words - it is actions.' In a twist to survivors’ interpretations, some detainees come close to equat­ing forgiving with forgetting, suggesting that, when survivors agree to forgive them, they will also agree to forget the crimes committed against them. This view manifests in many suspects’ seemingly unquestioning confidence that they will gain acceptance back into the community after their release from the ingando. Such a perspective is common among sus­pects who have participated in pre-gacaca hearings and received favour­able responses from survivors. As Emmanuel, a detainee in the ingando in Butare, said, �I have this confidence in my community because I went through the early gacaca while I was still in prison. I can go back home in confidence because I am already forgiven.’^[662]

In interpreting many detainees’ views, it is often difficult to differenti­ate between forgiveness and reconciliation. Many suspects use the terms interchangeably because, in their view, each term refers to a renewed sense of togetherness after the genocide. Two external influences have heavily shaped many suspects’ connections of forgiveness and recon­ciliation. First, many detainees claim that confession teams encouraged them to admit to their crimes in jail. According to several detainees in the ingando, one of the main messages of the teams was that confes­sion would secure their early release from prison. Many detainees also claim that the confession teams told them that asking for forgiveness from survivors was the main way to avoid direct, personal reprisals and to enable a smooth reintegration into their home communities. Domatien, a detainee in the ingando in Butare, said, �The confession teams who visited us in prison told us that it was necessary to confess and to ask for forgiveness. They told us that if we confessed, then we would have no problem with the judgments at gacaca and that our community would accept us back.’^[663] This connection between asking for forgiveness and acceptance back into the community was reinforced by many detainees’ experiences of pre-gacaca hearings, where they came face to face with survivors while they were still in prison or in the ingando. During these hearings, some detainees, such as Emmanuel in Butare, claimed to have already asked for forgiveness from the families of their victims and to have received survivors’ assurances that they would be welcomed home. Emmanuel said, �I have already met with the family of my victims and told them what I did. The family forgave me at this meeting and I know it will be the same at gacaca... Then I will be allowed to live in the com­munity again.'^[664]

From my research, much of the population appears to view forgiveness as an immediate act that occurs solely during gacaca hearings. This no doubt reflects suspects' hope that they will receive immediate forgive­ness after confessing at gacaca. Many survivors, however, claim that they will refuse outright at gacaca to forgive those found guilty of crimes. In neither of these two dominant perspectives is there significant scope for a view of forgiveness as a long-term process that may extend outside of gacaca. The population's views appear to draw on certain Christian notions of forgiveness, particularly within Protestantism, according to which a believer receives immediate forgiveness for his or her sins after confessing them to God. Because many believers interpret confession and the request for, and granting of, forgiveness from their sins as a sin­gle, immediate act, they view forgiveness at gacaca in the same way.

However, not all detainees are so confident of receiving positive reac­tions from their communities, particularly if large numbers of survivors still live there. The tense mood of the detainees on the bus on the day of their release from the ingando in Kigali Ville, as they neared the drop-off point near Gashora, indicated the uncertainty and anxiety that many of them felt at the prospect of returning to the places where they commit­ted crimes during the genocide. Any linkage of forgiveness and forget­ting appears to be only a minority view; in essence, the most extremely pragmatic interpretation of the likely outcomes of forgiveness.

In my interviews, nearly all survivors describe the need to remember and, where necessary, to bring individuals to account for past crimes. The idea that forgiveness entails forgetting is anathema to most survi­vors because, as we have already seen concerning healing, forgetting such immense trauma will be impossible for anyone who experienced the genocide at first hand. Most survivors also oppose the idea of forgetting crimes because they are intent on achieving some degree of retributive justice. Augustin, a forty-six-year-old survivor in Gisenyi whose elderly parents were murdered during the genocide, said,

Gacaca is very dangerous for survivors. Why are these prisoners back here now? It makes me very scared to have them here, so close to my house. Reconciliation won't happen here. The survivors can't forget the past and we will fight for justice.^[665]

Rose, the survivor in Nyamata quoted in Chapter 4, echoed these sentiments. One of her sons, Rose explained, was a Hutu whom she adopted after his parents fled to Zaire near the end of the genocide. �His parents killed some of the children in my household', she said. Rose's parents, her son, three nephews and two nieces were killed dur­ing the genocide. She did not know who had killed her parents, but she suspected that the parents of her adopted son were responsible for the murder of the six children. I asked why she had adopted the boy. �Before the genocide', she said, �we all lived together. No one cared if you were Hutu or Tutsi - we were like one family. Their children lived with my children. This one has really always been my son.' Rose explained that one of her teenage nieces, murdered because she was a Tutsi, had married a Hutu only months before the genocide began. Her niece's husband was also murdered because the interahamwe accused him of protecting Tutsi. �I have forgiven [my son's parents] for what they did, even though I will probably never be able to tell them. But I will never forget what happened. Who can forget such horrible things? These things stay in your mind forever... There is a serious need for justice here but instead we see the perpetrators walking around freely. This is not right.'^[666]

Many Rwandans' motivation to rebuild relationships, both personal and communal, through forgiveness at gacaca means that they expect this process to result in more optimistic forms of restoration. Some sources argue that forgiveness will create a new, shared life for survivors and perpetrators, which allows both groups to move forward together, not by forgetting past crimes but by recognising what has occurred and finding new ways to coexist. Particularly when people believe that forgiveness will contribute to personal forms of healing as liber­ation through gacaca, for example as many detainees view confession as important for overcoming guilt, then they often interpret forgiveness as a means to overcome personal burdens that hinder the rebuilding of relationships. �The main reason why I confessed', said Thaddee in the ingando at Gashora,

is because I want to rejoin the survivors. This will happen when I tell them the truth about my crimes and they forgive me. If the truth comes out, gacaca will go well. The government will make sure that people tell the truth.^[667]

Thus, some popular sources argue that forgiveness enables the re-establishment of relationships and the construction of new forms of community after the genocide.