All Quiet on the Quaker Front

Not much news here – the FNL delegation to Bujumbura (see May 9 post) has been delayed until Friday because no earlier flight was available. Instead I want to begin to discuss the topic of how Hutu-Tutsi relations came to be what they are today.

According to the Lonely Planet East Africa:

The tall, warriorlike Tutsi people are thought to have migrated to present-day Rwanda and Burundi from Ethiopia or southern Sudan between the 14^th and 17^th centuries. Through their ownership of cattle and advanced combat skills, they were soon able to establish economic and political control over the local Hutu, and this dominance continues to the present day. (7^th ed., p.56)

Just about every word of this is first of all wrong, and secondly, ties into the mythic colonialist interpretation of “tribes” that helped fuel the current conflict. Yet it is a pervasive view that underlies not just travel guides but much of our media coverage on the conflict.

According to author Jean-Pierre Chrétien, archeological and linguistic research suggests that if the Tutsi were at one point geographically separate from Hutu, then their encounter took place at least 2,000 years ago. And if instead a cleavage developed within one unified society along the lines of agriculturalists (Hutu) and pastoralists (Tutsi), it occurred more than 1,000 years ago. So tying explanations of the current problem with this distant past would, be, as Chrétien writes, “comparable to an interpretation that treats the French Revolution as the final episode in an age-old conflict between Celts and Franks.” (p.74)

Beyond being factually wrong, this explanation is rooted in the racist views of the Europeans who colonized Burundi (first the Germans, then the Belgians after WWI). When the Europeans encountered Burundian society, they quickly got to work accounting for the origins of the people they encountered in a way that facilitated their divide-and-conquer colonial aims. The Tutsi, with their superior class position, were said to be (surprise!) racially closer to white people. They hypothesized that the Tutsi were of “Hamitic” origin, having arrived from the north, and ultimately from the Middle East, as descendents of Ham.

Now, the biblical story of Ham (Genesis 9:18-25) explains how his descendents were cursed to be slaves as a result of Ham seeing Noah naked. And although most of the descendents of Ham were actually Caucasian, this story was used as a justification for the subjugation of black people (as it was in the U.S.). But even with that, the Tutsi’s alleged “semi-Caucasian” descent made them superior to Hutu. Take the following quotation from Dr. Jules Sasserath, a Belgian doctor, in 1948:

One calls them the Batutsi. In reality, they are Hamites, probably of Semitic origin…In reality, they form a race of lords. The Hamites are 1.9 meters high. They are slender. They possess straight noses high foreheads, thin lips…The rest of the population is Bantu. They are Bahutu, Negroes who possess all the typical characteristics: flat nose, thick lips, low forehead, and brachycephalic heads. They have a childlike character, both timid and lazy…They are a class of serfs. (quoted in Chrétien, p.72)

Oh, underpaid and over-traveled writers of Lonely Planet, is this the sort of view with which you want to be entangled?

So after a few long plane rides I successfully made it to Bujumbura!

No flight troubles, no baggage trouble, no visa troubles, and Adrien (who I will be working with) was there to greet me at the airport. So I found myself quite relieved to be here, and very relaxed. Things have a definite calm feeling about them. And after months of preperation its great to actually be here and ready to do something.

Not that I got right to work. Saturday is wedding day in Burundi, and Adrien took me to the wedding of a friend of his. Weddings in Burundi are pretty large affairs (150, 200 people?), and you get the sense they make up a sort of social circuit.

The general trend is to start with a ceremony in the church, then drive to have their picture taken at various sites around the city the “Tree of Love”, the beach, etc. Next, the stream of cars, with hazard lights flashing (we saw three other such wedding caravans as we drove around), makes its way to a reception with music, remarks by the father of the bride and groom, and – the Burundian equivalent of an open bar – a free soda for everyone.

What a wonderful way to start my time here in Burundi, with people coming together to celebrate new beginnings, their commitment to care for another, and the joining of two families.

Next up: church tomorrow morning, and then perhaps a trip to the beach (hey, it’s Sunday…)

To see more photos, and even a video of the wedding reception, see my flickr page.

So tonight I fly out of London on Ethiopian Airlines first to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, then stop briefly in Kigali, Rwanda before arriving in Bujumbura, Burundi tomorrow at 1 p.m. Bujumbura, where I’ll be living, is the capital of Burundi and has about 800,000 residents.

Many people have asked if I am apprehensive about leaving for Burundi. In general, I am quite at peace with myself because I know that this is exactly what I want to be doing with my time, and I have been thinking about it for almost a year. In a more specific way, though, one concern is the recent violence outside of Bujumbura between the government forces and the Palipehutu-FNL rebel group. More than 100 people have been killed and 20,000 or so have fled their homes in the past month.

What is behind this conflict? It is certainly not a simple case of ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi. What then are they fighting about?

A little background first. The strict division between a Tutsi-run military dictatorship and Hutu rebels that existed since the 1960s came to an end with a peace deal agreed upon in 2000. This made possible a ceasefire between the government and the largest Hutu rebel group, the CNDD-FDD in 2003. That same year, the Hutu dominated, but ethnically mixed FRODEBU party won the elections and peaceably took power. In the 2005 elections, the CNDD-FDD party won the presidency.

A ceasefire with the other rebel group, the Palipehutu-FNL (or just “FNL”), was not signed until 2006, and has not been followed. Why hasn’t the government (lead by a former Hutu rebel group) been able to come to agreement with a Hutu rebel group?

The FNL have a number of grievances – they would like to be protected by an amnesty, request the release of their members who are prisoners, want positions within the government and want their some of their members to be integrated with the army. So far the government has been reluctant to make the concessions to their own power and (democratically achieved) positions that would make this possible.

The good news is that a delegation of exiled leaders of the FNL are planning to travel to Bujumbura on May 14th to discuss the ceasefire.

That may not be enough to put my family at ease yet, but one can hope it will lead things in a positive direction.

And with that, I must be off to catch my flight!

Just as women in the United States in WWII stepped up to fill roles that had until then been denied them, women in Rwanda took on new roles in the wake of social changes brought about by the 1994 genocide. Women adopted expanding roles in government, first in the transitional government and then in increasing numbers through electoral victory. As a result, Rwanda is at the top of the world in terms of women in power, with 48.8% of the seats in the lower house, 34.6% of the seats in the Senate (compare with 16.3% of Congress in the U.S. and an average of 17.8% worldwide).

What have these women done while in power? According to Carla Koppell of the Initiative for Inclusive Security, who spoke today at Georgetown University, these women have worked towards changing both the policy and process of the Rwandan Parliament.

For example, the women created the first and only cross-party caucus that introduced the only bill to originate in Parliament. The bill addresses gender-based violence, such as making rape a crime. Not only is the policy contained in the bill novel to Rwanda, the process they have adopted to promote the bill stands as an example: they first consulted with communities to draft the bill, building grassroots buy-in, then reached out to involve male parliamentarians to promote the bill as well.

They have also emphasized consideration of the situation of children, health care, and the differential impact of legislation on women.

How did they achieve such representation? One factor was a requirement in the 2003 Constitution that required 30% representation in all decision-making organs. This gave women a critical mass that allowed them to organize the Forum of Rwandan Woman Parliamentarians (FFRP). This organization is a caucus for policy promotion but also allows for more experienced women to mentor newer members, which has proved central to increasing the involvement of women, and led to participation far beyond the legally required 30%.

A Model for Others
These Rwandan women stand as an example for other countries emerging from conflict, or for that matter for any country. Carla Koppell points out that these Rwandan women illustrate tendencies observed in other countries, in that women legislators are likely to pay more attention to their constituents, to place less emphasis on political partisanship, and to promote good governance and peace.

Without essentializing women as peace-loving, empathetic mothers, we can acknowledge that women legislators bring the concerns of their experience and a perspective that has often been neglected or suppressed by all-male or male-dominated legislatures. Now, the perspective women bring will be different depending on the culture in which they have been socialized. While mothers, for example, may share the experience of raising and caring for children, which could give them a shared concern for the young and vulnerable, this must be contextualized within an understanding of societal differences and must also allow for differences in personality. Within those caveats, though, the example of women in Rwanda shows that they have a unique role in governance, and not merely because it is unfair to exclude them when they make up half of the population or more.

These women have shown that they can work collaboratively to address the problems of a society in which violence against women was deliberately wielded as a weapon of control, and they can do so while creating a more participatory political process.