Kamila Błażejczyk 63027,

Kinga Buczeń 65604,

Magdalena Ziółkowska 63097,
Robert Sanetra 64113.

The genocide in Rwanda from the perspective of psychology of conflict

Twenty-eight years ago, in 1994, Rwanda’s population in southern Africa declined by

one fifth of its population. Between 800,000 and 1 million people died within 100 days. What
caused this cruelty in this small African country? What was the conflict between the hostile
tribes and what is their life like many years later?
The historical background of this African state plays an important role. The first
inhabitants of Rwanda were the Twa Pygmies. First Hutus came to these areas, then nomadic
Tutsi shepherds. As scientists, historians and experts point out, the Tutsi and the Hutu were
not two separate tribes. On the contrary, for generations they have shared a common language
of the Bantu family, a centuries-old history of cohabitation in the same area and of mixed
marriages. In pre-colonial times, “Tutsi” and “Hutu” simply meant belonging to a socio-
economic group in the social hierarchy. These groups evolved over the centuries in parallel
with the founding of the Rwandan state.
In the pre-colonial period, the groups in Rwanda were very different. Height, physical
appearance and social status were the most obvious. The Tutsi, who mainly ranch cattle,
owned 10-15% of the municipality. They differed from the other groups by a slender body, a
larger body size and an elongated facial shape. Maintaining internal unity and effectively
resolving conflict situations between the disputed Hutu population ensured the shepherd
minority a dominant position in the Kingdom. One example of this was their exclusion from
the residents' obligation to work. The Hutu, the farmers and the backbone of the Rwandan
army, made up 85-90% of the population. The lowest rank in the social hierarchy was the
Twa people , with less than 1 percent . The friction between Tutsi and Hutu has its origins in
colonial times. With the Treaty on the Area of Influence in East Africa between Germany and
Great Britain in 1890, the Germans took control of Rwanda, who saw no opportunity to enrich
themselves in this small state, and exercised a policy of indirect government there. The
colonial education of the missionaries had contaminated the way of thinking and sensitivities
of the Africans and spread racism and hatred. This situation is a very clear breeding ground
for future conflicts and genocide. At that time, Rwanda was characterized by a fairly clear
hierarchy of society and consequently by a power gap between the different tribes. Rwanda
was controlled by the Germans in 1916. They chose a different tactic and interfered much
more than their predecessors. The Belgians preferred to work with the Tutsi minorities to
instill in them the belief that they were of European descent because of their lighter skin
colour. They were given easier access to education and administrative positions and
participated in the government process. Excluded from this ministry and increasingly
disillusioned Hutu were left with only theological formation and the priestly ministry. There
is no doubt that this was a strong impulse to exacerbate tensions between the two tribes and
thereby create conflict. It deepened the divisions between the two tribes and the differences in
power. The Tutsi, the so far lower social stratum, are still socially disadvantaged because of
their skin colour and see them as “closer to Europeans”. A number of privileges granted to the
Tutsis are exacerbating divisions and, in particular, the power gap, and tensions between the
tribes are becoming racist. In Hutu, frustration is brewing at the painful fall from the heights
of the social leaders.
In the early 1930s, Belgium introduced identity cards, what was the last and very
expressive moment of social division. From that time to the catastrophic year of 1994, every
Rwandan bore the Tutsi, Hutu or Twa race in his document. The decline in the standard of
living of the Hutu was exacerbated by the process of farm division carried out by the Tutsi
with the support of the Belgian administration. The introduction of ethnicity tabs not only
formalized the separation between Tutsi and Hutu. Some researchers point out that 60 years
later, the same ID cards facilitated the genocide. Their introduction has undoubtedly
exacerbated social divisions and exacerbated conflict. From then on, the members of the two
antagonistic tribes were very clearly marked by their affiliation with them. Certainly they
have also developed a sense of identification with their group. As a result, the conflict has
taken on a new, identity-building dimension. From then on, the entry for belonging to the
Hutu implied a strictly antagonistic position vis-à-vis the Tutsi and vice versa. In other words,
any Hutu could say: “I am Hutu and I hate Tusi” and Tutsi: “I am Tutsi and I hate Hutu. ”
The difficulties in controlling the riots between Tutsi conservative activists and the
Hutu emancipation movement (Parmehutu), which fought against pervasive discrimination,
have shown the Belgian authorities that they are no longer in control of the situation in
Rwanda. They therefore decided to withdraw from the territory of the country. In July 1962
Rwanda confirmed its independence and power was transferred to the Parmehutu activists.
From then on, the situation of the minorities changed rapidly: the Tutsis became the target of
discrimination and attacks by avenging Hutu militias. This is an important moment in the
country’s history that fuels hatred between the tribes. The existing power gap is being
reversed – from now on it will be won by the Hutu, and Tutsi will return to the bottom of the
social hierarchy. Hutu pursues a fulfilled longing for retribution against Tutsi, while Tutsi
frustration overcomes.
Due to the numerous tensions, many people had to emigrate to neighboring African
countries. According to Martin Meredith, in the early 1990s, 500,000 people found
themselves abroad. Refugees who, according to the then Rwandan authorities, had no right to
return to their homeland. The uncompromising attitude of the then president Habyarimana
prompted the emigrants to try to resolve the conflict and in 1990 the troops of the Rwandan
Patriotic Front stationed in Uganda entered Rwanda. The president, with the military support
of France, managed to repel the rebel attack. Although Hutu political activists had no
intention of compromising with minorities, let alone sharing power with them, French allies
forced the government to enter into peace talks. After long negotiations, in August 1993, the
conflicting parties signed the so-called Arusha Accords (a city in Tanzania). They assumed
the complete cessation of fighting, the separation of powers in the country, and granted Tutsi
refugees the right to return to the country. The UN peacekeeping forces stationed in the
capital of the country (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, hereinafter:
UNAMIR) were to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the agreement. As it
soon turned out, the agreement was not accepted by the Hutu rulers in the country and was
only intended to please external observers. At the same time, extremists, fearing losing power,
spread propaganda in the newspapers and on the radio, trying to convince the public of the
Tutsi's foreign origin, presenting them as a separate race and throwing them out of Rwandan
society. Attempts were made to instill and maintain fear of the Tutsi by speaking and writing
about their political plans to return to the monarchy and exterminate the Hutu people. Called
for active defence. This is another move fueling the conflict and mutual hatred of the tribes -
the moral exclusion of the opposite side.
The event of April 6, 1994 became the perfect pretext for a carefully planned civil
war. On that day, a plane with the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down. This
date is considered the beginning of the Rwandan genocide. The genocide began on the night
of 6-7 April 1994 - interestingly, to this day there is still no certainty as to who was
responsible for shooting down the machine. The most popular thesis is that the shoot-down
was carried out by individuals belonging to an extreme organisation on the Hutu side. For
them, the biggest obstacle to getting rid of the Tutsis was precisely the president, who
strongly disagreed with the extermination. The downing of the plane became the trigger for
the eruption of huge amounts of accumulated tension that had existed between the tribes for
years. It can be assumed that the main reasons for the escalation of the conflict included a
shift in the motivation of the tribes from a desire to gain full power to a desire to retaliate for
the wrongs and humiliations suffered from the opposing side when it was in a privileged
position. Certainly, the constant shifts in the balance of power that developed an assertive
orientation of the parties and fueled their conflictual aspirations also played a part, while the
introduction of tribal designations into identity cards entrenched the parties' rigid positions.
All these factors made the events of the sixth of April the spark that ignited the bomb that saw
the conflict reach its bloody climax. 
Only an hour after the plane was shot down was enough for Hutu militias to surround
the homes of hundreds of Tutsis who were in the Rwandan capital. The murder was carefully
planned. As the Rwandan Prime Minister admitted after some time - the extermination of
Tutsis was even discussed in parliament. The tragedy of one million Tutsis started in the
capital, but already a few days later it spread in waves to further territories of Rwanda. From
day one, the actions were brutal and indiscriminate. The civilian population played a large
part in the massacres - propaganda proved to be very effective. The attackers were armed with
machetes, knives and axes and acted swiftly, roaming the countryside in search of victims.
Their task was made easier by RTLM announcers, on air reading out addresses where Tutsis
might be hiding. Almost 75% of the victims were deprived of their lives during the six weeks
of genocide, which eventually lasted until July 1994. The victims sought refuge with Catholic
clergy, in schools and stadiums, but even this did not guarantee their safety - they often did
not get help there. 
There were also places where the genocide was carried out extremely ruthlessly - an
example is the university town of Batare, where the Tutsi population made up as much as
24% of the population. In the end, only those who made it to Burundi managed to survive.
The lack of response from the international community prompted the leader of the
RPF Rwandan Patriotic Front to restart the civil war and direct all available forces into the
Rwandan capital. After fierce fighting, RPF troops captured Kigali in early July 1994, putting
an end to the extermination of Tutsis. 
Rwanda's current president, Paul Kagame, is winning successive elections, the
democratic nature of which is highly questionable. Each time, he receives the support of more
than 90% of the electorate and runs for successive terms in defiance of the new constitution
adopted in 2003. Nevertheless, he has contributed to the reconstruction of a country in ruins
after ethnic conflicts. Above all, he has taken numerous measures to encourage foreign
corporations to do business in his country, developed it technologically, and is constantly
looking for tools to rebuild the national identity of the citizens, as well as a sense of unity.
One of these could be, for example, the action of compulsory collective cleaning of one's
neighbourhood by Rwandans every last Saturday of the month. Failure to show up is
punishable by a fine equivalent to about 20 zloty. It is worth mentioning that Rwanda today is
also one of the best-rated countries in the world in terms of gender equality - more than 60%
of the Rwandan parliament is made up of women. 
The numerous civil wars, in addition to the loss of population, have caused enormous
material damage. Agriculture, which has always been the mainstay of the country's economy,
has suffered greatly. The slow process of rebuilding the country has led to the reconstruction
of infrastructure, upgrading roads, bridges, airports. The government is achieving successes in
the fight against corruption and poverty. Rwanda is also recognised as one of the better
developing countries in Africa. The level of healthcare has improved significantly and access
to education is increasing all the time. 
But can one resist accepting the thesis that there is complete peace in Rwanda and that
the memory of the former massacre has passed? Nowadays, Hutu and Tutsi are no longer
mentioned in Rwandan society. In line with President Kagame's intensive integration policy,
Rwandans are already spoken of. However, the very division between the two antagonistic
tribes is a space of thorny and difficult-to-swallow taboos legitimised by legal restrictions on
freedom of expression. It is safe to say that the Rwandan genocide was such a widespread
phenomenon that today practically every Rwandan is in regular contact with a perpetrator or
victim from that time, or is one himself. However, no one can speak openly about it, because
since 2003, Rwanda has had a law prohibiting the dissemination of so-called 'genocidal
ideology', which in a rather vague outline prohibits the deepening of ethnic divisions, the
denial of the Tutsi genocide. This vagueness is very often a pretext for initiating numerous
political skirmishes between the opposition and the government in a public forum. It is
therefore difficult to get the impression that all the emotions and social trauma buried under
the cloak of political correctness have been worked through, especially since the
representatives of the two antagonistic communities live in isolation and reflexively treat each
other with a great deal of distrust, while many people who witnessed the genocide are still
alive, remember it and feel the uncertainty of the times to come.  
Although the Rwandan genocide took place almost 30 years ago, these events still
have a huge impact on the current situation in the country and determine its fate all the time.
The tension between the tribes has not been resolved, it has only been covered up by political
correctness. Decades of difficult relations between Hutus and Tutsis, filled with aggression
fuelled by the colonial policy of Western Europe, make it possible to conclude that the de
facto conflict between the two tribes is an intractable conflict. This is indicated by a number
of very clearly delineated mechanisms that prompt this thesis. First of all, the two tribes
suffered alternating episodes of humiliation, discrimination and, at the same time, a great deal
of power, which it treated as a weapon in the practice of retaliatory violence. The conflict was
widespread - the majority of the population was involved. There were very strong emotions
attached to it, especially in the context of the events of 1994, and the fact that the genocidal
massacre was definitely out of the hands of the authorities and the international community.
What also characterised it was the spiral of macabre aggression and violence unleashed at an
extremely rapid pace that was definitely beyond any cognitive and rational control of
individuals. Certainly, the history of Hutu and Tutsi relations is also marked by collective
trauma, while the positions of the actors in the conflict are highly polarised and clothed in a
very clear identity trait (the parties to the conflict define their identity through the prism of
their position in it), which, together with its longevity and persistence, becomes a
multigenerational conflict in which hostility is passed on to descendants through socialisation
processes. 
Clearly, the process of restoring unity and peace in Rwanda is still ongoing. However,
the lesson is that economic transformation does not always go hand in hand with political
transformation. In the name of the struggle for peace, civil liberties, freedom of expression
and political arrests are being curtailed. In addition, past conflicts, including with Belgium
and France, mean that any aid and desire to warm up international relations is rejected, and
the situation in Rwanda and in this part of Africa remains unstable. Admittedly, President
Kagame is taking numerous measures to prevent a renewed escalation, and he has broad
popular support, but it seems that the problem of Hutu -Tutsi relations still needs time to work
through. What is needed, however, is a thorough accounting of all perpetrators so that society
gains confidence in retributive justice, the preservation of which will reduce the risk of further
violence. Perhaps there will come a time in the history of this country when society will be
able to bear the burden of the events of those years, come to an honest reckoning and make a
genuine, unforced reconciliation. For the time being, it remains to be hoped that perhaps some
members of Rwandan society, somewhere deep inside themselves, are really looking forward
to it.
 References
Bogaczyk, F. (2020). Ludobójstwo w Rwandzie. Na oczach świata w ciągu 100 dni
zamordowano nawet milion osób. https://ciekawostkihistoryczne.pl/2020/12/05/ludobojstwo-
w-rwandzie-na-oczach-swiata-maczetami-zamordowano-milion-osob/.
Cose, E. (2022). Mordowali za pomocą maczet i broni palnej. Rocznica ludobójstwa w
Rwandzie. https://www.newsweek.pl/swiat/rwanda-7-kwietnia-gdzie-sa-dzis-ludzie-
odpowiedzialni-za-ludobojstwo/qht2frb.
Danielewicz, K. (2020). Rwanda, konflikt niedokończony….
https://securityinpractice.eu/rwanda-konflikt-niedokonczony/.
Głowacka, K. (2015). Ludobójstwo w Rwandzie i jego polityczne konsekwencje, Poliarchia
1(4)/2015, 25-50, DOI: 10.12797/Poliarchia.03.2015.04.03.
Jagielski, W. (2019). Narzucone pojednanie w Rwandzie.
https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art9388041-narzucone-pojednanie-w-rwandzie.
Konarski, M. (2010). Duchy przeszłości nie opuszczają Rwandy.
https://psz.pl/124-polityka/maciej-konarski-duchy-przeszlosci-nie-opuszczaja-rwandy.
Ojewska, N. (2022). Tutsi i Hutu. Jakie były przyczyny ludobójstwa w Rwandzie?.
https://histmag.org/Tutsi-i-Hutu-Jakie-by%C5%82y-przyczyny-ludob%C3%B3jstwa-w-
Rwandzie-23983.
Tochman, W. (2018). Dzisiaj narysujemy śmierć, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.