Rwanda’s ordinary killers: interpreting popular participation in the Rwandan genocide

This paper examines the question of why so many ordinary Hutu participated in genocidal killing of Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994. I find that mass mobilisation was contingent on the fulfilment of two main conditions. Firstly it required a mindset – the internalisation of a set of historical and ideological beliefs – within the Hutu population. These were predominantly beliefs in a historical Hutu oppression at the hands of Tutsi and in an ideological definition of the ongoing civil war as an ethnic one, a Tutsi attempt to reinstate this historical order. Secondly, it required the commitment of State institutions to the genocidal project. This commitment provided the initial trigger, legitimacy and impunity for civilian participation in an anti-Tutsi programme. However, once triggered the degeneration into genocidal violence was the product of a complex interaction of other motives ranging from coercion, opportunism, habituation, conformity, racism, and ideological indoctrination

Discursive and Processual Socialization of the Mass into Acts of Violence: the Case of Rwandan Genocide

This article analyses discursive and processual socialization of the masses into acts of violence during the Rwandan genocide of 1 994. The discursive aspects of the socialization include discourses of dehumanization, ethnic extremism and the dynamics of public socialization into violence and other acts of savagery. The processual dimension of the socialization refers to the violentization process. The article tries to show that the discursive and the processual aspects of socialization reinforced each other. It analyses the ideological and linguistic mechanisms mobilized in Rwanda to foment hatred and whip the masses into atrocities. The article, in addition, tries to explain the genocide through diverse social psychological theories and illustrate the interaction between the leaders\u27 political agitation of the masses towards extermination and the perpetrators\u27 action on the ground. The article argues that no single theory can fully explain the incomprehensible genocide since it was the result of a complex intermarriage between social, ideological and moral forces. It also examines the role of cultural and linguistic resources in the violentization process. On the basis of the analysis, the article recommends what should be done to prevent similar atrocities in Africa

Genocide

Overview: Before the 1940s the word genocide did not exist. There was no name for unique mass killings involving thousands to millions of targeted people. A man named Raphael Lemkin coined and popularized the word genocide and took on the responsibility to get the Genocide Convention passed. In the 1980s the United States finally joined The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Genocide Convention), however this came with many clauses and restrictions, causing the terms to be less effective. The convention defined genocide as any criminal acts harming or destroying national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups, but left the terms very vague and confusing. It gave no specifics on a number of crimes or deaths which must be reached to qualify as genocide. Even with the passing of the Genocide Convention, there still was no judiciary system to enforce the international law and give repercussions. Many nations, including the U.S., remain resistant to intervene on genocide, and the United Nations has little authority due to limited funding and no military power. The Genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda are strong examples of the lack of willingness of the United States and international community to acknowledge genocide, intervene on the crimes, and hold war criminals responsible for their action

Predicting violence within genocides: meso-level evidence from Rwanda

Can we predict when and where violence will break out within cases of genocide? Given often weak political will to respond, knowing where to strategically prioritize limited resources is valuable information for international decision makers contemplating intervention. I develop a theoretical model to help identify areas vulnerable to violence during genocide. I argue vulnerability is a function of the state’s coercive power and the ruling elite’s control of this power from above, mediated by the strength of society’s cohesion below. Violence will be delayed in areas where political and military resistance to the center is high as it takes time for extremists to exert control at the periphery. Violence will also be delayed in well-integrated communities as it takes time to break existing social bonds and destroy social capital. I draw on the case of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide and examine sub-national variation in the onset of violence across the country’s 145 administrative communes using survival analysis and within-case analyses comparing early and late onset in two communes. The findings have implications for international policy makers responding to ongoing genocides

Rwanda, Burundi, and Their Ethnic Conflicts

This paper demonstrably dispels the assumption that ethnic conflict in Rwanda and Burundi is a chronic endemic phenomenon. It emphasizes the consolidation of the caste system during the colonial era, intra regional disparities within the two communities, high population densities, very weak economic bases, poverty, and international interference as some of the cardinal dynamics behind the current deadly contentions within the two states. An analysis behind the genocidal tendencies in the two countries is well illustrated, with special emphasis on the Rwandese tragedy of 1994 as well as its parallels and divergences with the Nazi Holocaust