Causes of Rwandan Genocide still not addressed
November 3rd, 2009 by Wil Robinson
It’s noticeable as soon as you cross the border from Uganda.
A palpable anxiety, hanging in the air over the country: a sense of apprehension. Rwanda feels like it’s trying to enjoy a brief respite from violence, knowing that a similar future is inevitable. The genocide of 1994 may be in the past, but the causes have not been addressed.
If Rwanda continues down the path it’s on now – despite the infrastructure development in Kigali, Rick Warren’s attempts to create a “purpose-driven nation,” and all the good intentions and foreign aid of international organizations – it won’t be long before genocide surfaces again.
And I get the feeling that deep down, many Rwandans sense it.
There were several factors that led to the 1994 genocide, but land pressures were probably the primary cause. A country of 8 million that relied on agriculture, in a land smaller than the state of Maryland, simply couldn’t continue to support population growth. Nearly every square inch of Rwanda’s steep hillsides is deforested and used for growing crops.
Add the authoritarian government of Habyarimana, the Hutu president that had held power since the early 1970s. Since independence, the Tutsi – a minority but a favorite of the colonial powers – had been seeking to restore their power. In the early 1990s, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Paul Kagame, was trying to destabilize the government from bases in Uganda.
But the fuse that set the whole thing off was the media. “Hutu Power Radio,” as it was known, fueled ethnic hatred as an outlet for the economic and land frustrations in the country. It’s an age-old recipe for controlling an angry public: channel the anger away from authority figures and toward the minority “other.” When the shipments of Chinese-made machetes started arriving across the country, the solution became obvious.
![[...at a Genocide Memorial in southern Rwanda, the clothes of victims found in a mass grave have been collected and still remain, 15 years on...]](http://www.internationalpoliticalwill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/clothes_1.jpg)
[...at Murambi Genocide Memorial in southern Rwanda, the clothes of victims found in a mass grave have been collected and still remain, 15 years on...]
Unfortunately, despite the reconstruction efforts of the international community, the major causes of the genocide – insufficient land area, an authoritarian government and the abuse of media – all still exist in Rwanda.
Other than two national parks, the entire country is deforested and farmed. The only trees left are non-native eucalyptus, a fast-growing tree that provides firewood.
Paul Kagame has been the effective leader of Rwanda since 1994, first directing a figurehead transitional government. He was installed as president in 2000, and finally elected in 2003. He is expected to run for president again in 2010. That’s at least 16 years and counting…
Throw in the Rwanda military’s penchant for interfering with its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Congo (at the behest of Kagame and his RPF-government). Tutsi militias, backed by Rwanda, have been on a 15-year, human-rights-abusing warpath of revenge against Hutus in the Congo (many genocidaires fled to the Congo and are a primary factor in Congo’s conflict). Of course, there is also Rwanda’s long-held claims that large swaths of Eastern Congo are actually part of Rwanda (that would solve the lack of land, wouldn’t it?).
But don’t forget a complicit media. The Rwanda Dispatch, a glossy monthly “news” magazine sold on the streets of Kigali, had an article praising the new media laws in Rwanda. Why do they think that “both journalists…and media consumers…will be celebrating?”
“[A new law requires] minimum capital for prospective investors…Some people have been setting up media firms, especially newspapers, without figuring out sustainability of resources for administrative and other costs…
[T]he result has often been publications registered as weeklies, but actually coming out after three months…
[The lack of start-up capital] had a lot to do with the abundant freedom exercised by all, including those having less than a million francs ($20,000 USD) as initial investment, to set up so-called newspapers.
[This law] will no doubt deal a blow to the lazy, irresponsible, malicious and amateurish press.”
Really? Saying you’ll publish once a week and then (heaven forbid!) only publishing once a month is a serious problem? (I’ll ignore the fact that the Dispatch apparently doesn’t have enough capital themselves to renew their website domain…)
As a sign of their responsible and professional journalism, the next story in the magazine is a 2-page hagiography on Paul Kagame. It’s so over-the-top NOT journalism, it’s embarrassing to read:
“…Paul Kagame – the man who has come to personify hope, vision and reconciliation world over…but of whose transformational prowess and ideas are beyond [his] territorial boundaries.
In this unfolding appeal, I wish to give my attention to the man the world has come to admire most because of his superlative performances…The man is Paul Kagame….”
It goes on from there – but you get the idea (I wonder how much Congolese civilians admire Kagame, given his support for pro-Rwandan militias operating in the Congo). The rest of the magazine is filled with pro-RPF, pro-Rwandan government, pro-Kagame propaganda. The daily newspaper, The New Times, isn’t much better.
![[...more than 50,000 Tutsi were slaughtered inside the Murambi school in southern Rwanda during the genocide. The rooms still house the dead - men, women, hcildren, and babies - preserved in lime and all with tell-tale signs of murder: heads with machete marks still visible; legs cut clean through, distorted limbs mangled by hate...]](http://www.internationalpoliticalwill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tarp-rooms_1.jpg)
[...more than 50,000 Tutsi were slaughtered inside the Murambi school in southern Rwanda during the genocide. The rooms still house the dead - men, women, children, and babies - preserved in lime and all with tell-tale signs of murder: heads with machete marks still visible; legs cut clean through, limbs mangled by clubs and garden hoes...]
Rwanda, still trying to recover from mass murder, where their friends and neighbors were among the perpetrators, faces the same three problems almost two decades later:
- Pushed to the brink by unsustainable land use and over-population, they have done little to address the problem.
- After suffering under one authoritarian government, they have replaced it with another.
- A media that followed the government line to the point that they incited mass murder has used that lesson to justify a crackdown on media that doesn’t follow the new government line.
In reality, the genocide never really ended – it just transplanted itself into the DRC, causing a 15-year conflict. The international community and media seem content to ignore the Congo and the 4 million dead, conveniently misidentifying it as a “civil war” (which is also what the world said in 1994 about Rwanda) and placating themselves with slogans like “never again.”
Meanwhile, international aid workers have developed a fetish for anything Rwanda, driving up the cost of living in Kigali far beyond what average Rwandans can afford. The Tutsi have been labeled as victims and given a free pass in world politics by an international community that feels guilty for letting one million people be murdered. The Hutu have wrongly been generalized, stereotyped and demonized as tribal, blood-thirsty and hateful, and are used as evidence that ethnicity – not economics – was the cause of the genocide.
The new generation of Rwandans has no memory of 1994, but the causes are still there – no land, authoritarian and unresponsive government, and a censored and controlled media. How long before the young are manipulated into perpetrating the same crimes?
The clock is ticking.
Tags: hate, hutu, radio, Congo, over-population
My impression of your article is that you went to Rwanda with a specific mindset, a preconceived notion of impending doom. You would have gotten a vastly different impression if you’d gone to Rwanda with an open mind and heart rather than with the expectation of seeing her as she was in 1994. I am extremely offended that you would say that another genocide is inevitable! My impression of Rwanda when I visited this beautiful country this past spring was totally the opposite. I was very impressed by the progress this country has made in the last 15 years. Never once did I feel threatened or intimidated. Quite the opposite! I was welcomed with literally open arms and made to feel like I was at home. Did you even make the effort to spend any time with the incredible people of this country or were you too terrified to leave the safety of your hotel room? These people are incredibly strong and the most forgiving souls that I’m sure I’ll every have the pleasure of knowing. Yes knowing, because I made many friends in the short time I spent in Rwanda. Yes this country has land issues. Yes there is poverty. But if you’d actually done any comprehensive research of Rwanda you’d know that land was never the primary reason for the all the chaos and turmoil over the years. Of course there are still people there who are apprehensive. Wouldn’t you be if you’d survived such tragedy? And most certainly there are still people living in Rwanda and being sheltered in countries across the world who continue to promote and incite more violence. And you obviously never stepped foot outside the city limits into the forests or you’d know (or maybe you wouldn’t) that are a vast range of native tree and plant species all over this country and not just non-native eucalyptus! And you probably don’t know that they have many native animal, bird and insect species as well! As for the media I can speak to your biased opinion of the Rwanda New Times. If you read the New Times on a daily basis as I do you would know that this paper has no issue with publishing articles and/or letters that question government policy and is continually exposing corruption. As for your opinion of Mr. Kagame…do you live in a country that is completely supportive of its politicians? I live in Canada and we, as a people, very often find ourselves questioning and objecting to our leaders policies and decisions. It’s called democracy and that’s what Rwanda is trying so heroically to achieve. As for the international community providing aid due to guilt…we most certainly should be helping Rwanda! We ignored and abandoned them in their darkest time! And your comment that the new generations have no memory of the genocide! They live with it each and every day! It is their history and if you’d spent any time at all with the survivors you’d know that they tell the children about the past so they, as the future of Rwanda, will be more tolerant, more compassionate, more understanding, more forgiving and more willing to resolve issues in a peaceful way without violence. It’s so sad to know that there are still so many people out there who have no real understanding of Rwanda and her amazing people. Please do more research before you publish more of your propaganda because there are people who will believe your words without knowing the entire story.
Dear Wil Robinson,
Excellent analysis of today’s Rwanda. I take it as an urgent call for action on the part of the international community. God forbid the genocide happens again, but should it happen, you’ll have done your part in forewarning the world. For us in Rwanda, life is hell under a fascist dictatorship that enjoys international support. One way or another, we know that this will soon be history. That is, regardless of how long it takes.
Marie Collins–
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion and to make assumptions. But there is a big difference between the “tourist” Rwanda that you describe and the real Rwanda. And if you think the genocide is a thing of the past, ask the Congolese what they think. They’ve been dealing with repercussions for 15 years.
Peacemaker–
Thanks for your comment. It is an urgent call. Realistically, I can’t imagine another genocide - certainly not on the scale of 1994 - but I think political and/or economic violence could be directed toward ethnic groups - much as we saw in Kenya in 2007/2008 after the elections.
Too often it seems, socio-political-economic factors are the instigators of violence, but it is reported/recorded for history as “ethnic.” Ethnicity is simply an easy rallying cry, a flag to wave in front of the masses that can justify violence far easier than economic or political reasons. It’s used by people seeking power (much as religion is) to unite people behind radical ideas and actions that otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to justify.
We’ll see what next year’s elections bring…but I don’t see Kagame relinquishing power anytime soon - at least not willingly. A strong people’s voice - with international support for democratic justice - could persuade Kagame to change his mind…
WiL Robinson,
You actually talk blindly, I’ve just now realized.
You yourself have touched on the exact primary cause of the 1994 genocide: politicians’ propaganda rallying the populace around the ethnicity card. Poverty, land scarcity, etc. are used as secondary rallying tools.
President Kagame and the RPF-led government that he heads, as well as the rest of us concerned Rwandans, are very much aware of that.
We are addressing those problems through reconciliation and unity campaigns, impunity eradication efforts, investment and privatisation as well as regional integration drives so as to create a knowledge-based economy that sees itself rather as being part of a wider diversity than a unitary Hutu-Tutsi confine.
Don’t mislead the world.
Still willing to read ‘The New Times’? See my “Peddlers of falsehoods on Rwanda in increasing abundance”.
Butamire Pan–
Your article (http://allafrica.com/stories/200911130200.html) takes many of my quotes out of context. It is not “Rwanda” that is on a human-rights abusing warpath in Congo - but “Tutsi militias” - an indisputable fact.
Secondly, I did not equate the Dispatch with Hutu-Power Radio - I merely pointed out that a controlled and censored media leads to abuses like pre-1994. Can you dispute that?
Third, you claim that Rwanda is at peace with DRC. Really? Would you like to inform the thousands of refugees still unable to return to their homes because of the various militias-some of which were funded via Kigali at the outset- still operating in DRC? I’m sure they’d like to know that Rwanda and the DRC are friends. Of course, if you speak of the two authoritarian leaders finding common ground (Kabila, who is isolated in Kinshasa, and Kagame), then yes, the elite have made up and are friends.
The land problem. Can you explain how Rwanda has addressed it? At least 90% of the plots of land are still unsustainably-farmed, with erosion and a complete lack of terrace cropping. With soil that is mostly clay, how is allowing the nutrient-rich topsoil to wash away considered “addressing the land problem?” If sustainable methods are used, yields will increase, and land pressures will subside.
The knowledge-based economy you speak of - the new “tech” development - is, by all means, a fabulous movement. Once primary and secondary education are guaranteed for every citizen - it will flourish and pay off. But that’s a long way off, and is contingent upon guaranteed education for a generation.
As for the rest of your claims - I would love to see the day that privatization and and foreign investment actually do more for the ordinary people than for the few elite…let me know when that happens.
Instead, what I see is a suppression of economic activity. Everyone in Kigali needs a vest to engage in business - you can’t even sell a newspaper without being licensed (and controlled).
Does this make Kigali appear to be a developed city? I guess it does at a glance.
But in reality, it simply masks over the millions that could otherwise be engaged in a truly free economy. Commerce in Rwanda is tightly controlled, and only by a few. Truly free enterprise is non-existent. Rwanda lacks the free entrepreneurship that Ugandans enjoy across that border that you seem to think I imagined.
True development isn’t a facade put up for foreigners and tourists to see when they visit. It isn’t AC restaurants and luxury goods stores.
True development is when everybody participates - and is allowed to participate. Unfortunately, I don’t see that as the case in Rwanda. The Dispatch said themselves that 8% of the population in Rwanda has access to a computer - so I suppose that tech-savvy development plan isn’t for everyone, just the 8% that are already in a financial position to be able to access computers.
Yes, GDP is increasing, and yes, per capita income is increasing. But you and I know those are misleading figures, easily skewed by a very select few that make most of the money.
Is Rwanda better off now than 1994? Of course it is, no one’s disputing that.
But can average Rwandans afford to travel on the new express buses with assigned seating? Can average Rwandans afford live in Kigali? Can groups of white foreigners sit at coffee shops in Kigali and discuss “how to help Rwanda develop” and come up with real solutions without actually including a Rwandan in the conversation? Does the average Rwandan harvest a higher yield on their crop? Does the average Rwandan have access to a free press that is open to criticizing leadership? Does the average Rwandan hear the opposition voices in that media that dare to oppose Kagame?
No.
In the end, I would love to be proved wrong. And I don’t envision some genocide anywhere near the scale of 1994. As I mentioned in the comment above, I fear violence incorrectly identified as “ethnic” breaking out over economic or political issues - much as in Kenya in 2007/2008, or in India (just about all the time…).
But media (western media) doesn’t like to report that people are pissed about economics or politics (after all, our media is owned by huge corporations that profit from “free” trade”) - the media salivates over “ethnic” problems and usually misrepresent events to sensationalize the story for Western (and uninformed) audiences.
My piece is not a Rwanda-hating tirade. It is simply a warning to the international community - as human beings, we have a responsibility for each other, no matter which country or nation. And right now, that means paying attention and getting at the real roots of problems instead of just superficially addressing the effects.
Or, I guess we could just keep going along convincing ourselves that everything is okay, that the genocide is in the past, and that the West has no more responsibility (and never did) for the 1 million dead- or the 8 million still alive. We can just go along our merry way, confident in the righteousness of Kagame and the RPF, giving them a free pass to do as they please without fear of consequences.
And then the western media ( as they are prone to do) can blame “tribal” tendencies when violence does break out. Because it’s not our fault - it’s those ‘Africans.’
Butamire Pan–
P.S. - By the way, I am extremely critical of all media (as many posts on this site shows) - especially Western - and hold all journalists to the same standards.
Wil Robinson,
I can see you are genuinely COMPLETELY astray, because you talk about a Rwanda completely alien to me. And I am TOTALLY sincere when I say that.
If I don’t get time to respond to your bizarre ramblings, I promise to get someone else who does, if for nothing else, at least to give you an opinion of another Rwandan, much as Marie Collins has done a stellar job of it.
Ain’t done with you yet, watch this space!
P.S. - Wil Robinson, could “Peacemaker” by any chance have held a machete? And could he be advising you, perhaps, so that you just came out here to confirm his stories?
Otherwise, why not use his name? Or he fears for his life, because Kagame does not allow free speech?
Butamire:
I take your lack of evidence to dispute facts to mean you have no answer, and are content to keep living in a world where your own GDP/per capita is the only one that really matters.
And your equating others who disagree as being mass-murderers is a common tactic used by those who wish to silence opposition. It smacks of Israelis who accuse any critics of their apartheid state as being anti-Semitic and Nazis. Or of US Republicans that accuse any Americans who criticize the military as being pro-Al Qaeda.
I had hoped this would simply stimulate discussion - yet I see it’s quite obvious that you have no intention of discussion.
Given your unwillingness to debate with facts, and your personal (and baseless) attacks on other commentors who disagree with you, consider your thread now closed.
And by the way, thanks for including a link to my site on allafrica.com. I appreciate the free publicity…
Wil,
I wish you realized how misleading is your view on Rwanda. I’m not sure how long you have been living there, or how much research you have done, but it is certainly dangerous to make such misleading statements.
First of all, I’m not Rwandan, so there are no hidden interests in what I say here. But it does frustrate me to read articles such as yours. Because if one dares to talk so confidently on such delicate contexts, then one needs at least to be rigorous.
You are certainly not being rigorous when you mention that the same factors that led to the Rwandan Genocide are still there today. The main factor for the Genocide was decades of politics based on ethnic divisionism. The use of the ethnic card politics was started by the colonial governments and when on for fours decades after independence. Well, the government of Paul Kagame is the first government that is actually rejecting the politics of divisionism and working for the prosperity of all Rwandans, whichever ethnic group they belong.
The government of Rwanda is certainly working for the country to become a strong democracy but this cannot happen overnight as you would appreciate if you understood the context. Last December took place in Rwanda the annual National Dialogue, where any citizen could call to Parliament and directly hold politicians accountable. Furthermore, the National Dialogue was live streamed through the Internet, so all the world, including you and the Rwandan Diaspora could see and hear by themselves this event. It is true that the law won’t allow certain political parties to register if they base their politics on ethnic divisionism, and revisionist theorist of the Genocide. But, Wil, many European countries have also strong laws against the revisionism of the Holocaust as well as against racism. There is also a vast academic literature that explains the reasons why a country after a conflict cannot have a western-style democracy overnight, since this might create further instability.
As for media freedom, do you realize that it was precisely in the name of ‘freedom of press’ that a specific radio and newspaper where allowed to publish the messages that triggered the Genocide? So do not be so dogmatist because the historical facts are proving you wrong. Did you know that the current government is promoting media literacy and debate workshops among schools in order to raise critical citizens. What gets more democratic than this? And let me tell you that these debate workshops are run by civil society organizations.
As Marie said, if you read the newspapers every day you would see how critical they can be of the government. If you were able to read Kinyarwanda you would also see that there are very critical newspapers which are not published in english but which are very much read by Rwandans. If there are articles talking about the hope that kagame has brought to the country, is not because media are controlled but because indeed many Rwandans are hopeful of a government who is actually committed and determined to bring sustainable peace and development in the country.
I could go on and on. For the first time after decades, Rwanda has had 16 years of peace and stability, it is one of the few countries to be on the right path in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, and it is the country of the whole region that is more effectively fighting against corruption.
So, I know you are trying to be righteous, but, unfortunately, you are getting it wrong in the case of Rwanda.
Anna
Anna–
First - I wonder what basis you have for claiming what I wrote is “dangerous?” Dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the numerous aid and missionary groups that point to Rwanda as their “model of excellence” because it exposes issues that have been ignored while the western world tries to ease its conscience?
Secondly - everyone’s heard the “European divisions/ethnicity” cause of the genocide before, and I’ve researched it in depth. But what is missed in this simplistic argument is that virtually no “ethnic” conflict in the world can be explained so easily. Ethnicity (like religion) is more often used as a visible characteristic upon which demagogues like to rally the base. The causes of the Rwanda Genocide were not ethnic - only the killing was. Even then, in parts of the country without substantial Tutsi populations, the percentage of people killed nearly matched other areas - because if there weren’t Tutsi to kill, the genocidaires found Hutu” collaborators” and even Twa to blame for their problems.
I know Kigali looks nice (and western) and aid workers like to point to it as a some evidence of “growth”- and YES, it is growing and amazing to see such development. But most of Rwanda doesn’t live in Kigali.
Most of Rwanda doesn’t have access to the “streaming Internet” to hold their politicians accountable. Most of Rwanda is rural, and every city is not like Kigali - far from it. Most of Rwanda is far more concerned with erosion and dwindling crop yields, educating their children, and access to medical care than watching Rwanda’s version of C-SPAN over the internet.
Moreover, while a “western-style” economy in Kigali may look “good” to us, how does it help the average Rwandan? Ignore GDP and per capita income - those are misleading. How does making everyone who wants to sell something get a license and wear a vest encourage enterprise and business? How does controlling an economy so that only a select few are free to do business encourage wide-spread growth? Inclusive economies have little control - this is what allows EVERYONE to participate if they want to - not the few that can afford the license fees, or know the right people. That kind of strict regulation only works when an ENTIRE population is largely educated and has equal access to the formal economy. That is NOT Rwanda (not at this point, at least). Make no mistake- Rwanda is still a developing country and cannot ignore 80% of its population so the other 20% can feel like they’ve created a “mini-Singapore” in the heart of Africa.
I know that relying on English media in a Francophone country where most people speak Kinyarwanda is not reflective of the bigger picture. But be that as it may, the English press is still a poor excuse for independent media. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a mouthpiece for the government line. Surely clamping down on free speech because “Hutu power radio incited the 1994 genocide” isn’t a solution for a pluralistic, democratic society.
However, there was one major development over the past few months that I see as significant:
The arrest and detention of Laurent Nkunda (I might have spelled that wrong). The Tutsi warlord - long backed by Rwanda - that was free to wage his own genocide against Hutus living in the Congo was a blatant symbol of Kagame’s government’s desire to exact revenge - and Kagame’s decision to put an end to his reign in Kivu is significant and bodes well for the future. It has directly led to increased economic activity in Kivu, as well as cooperation between Congo and Rwanda. It has eased the refugee and human migration issues in eastern Congo. This was a significant step to moving past “revenge” policies (or at least the perception of such policies among Hutus) and into a forward-looking future.
As I think I mentioned in a reply above, I don’t imagine that Rwanda will ever see a genocide on the scale and ferocity as in 1994. There will never be another 1 million killed by machetes - the country’s psyche won’t allow it.
But what I can imagine is a low-level conflict, one that pushes people out of their homes, where violence is sporadic and scattered, but enough to make people worry and consider leaving the country. Think something more similar to Sudan or Palestine.
And just like Sudan and Palestine, it’s not about ethnicity or religion. It’s about land - usable land. Something that the 7 billion people on Earth are increasingly finding in short supply.
But then again, it’s comforting to just assume that “well, Hutus killed Tutsis because they were a different ethnic group, tribe, or religion” - using those words that we reserve only for describing problems in the non-white regions of the world.
Because if we assume that, we can excuse ourselves from guilt the next time it happens and we don’t do anything to stop it (just like in Sudan, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Somalia, etc.)
To Anna, Butamire, and Marie…
I told you something’s rotten in the state of Rwanda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/world/africa/01rwanda.html
The New York Times
April 30, 2010
Rwanda Pursues Dissenters and the Homeless
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
IWAWA ISLAND, Rwanda — A few months ago, Gasigwa Gakunzi was hanging around a ramshackle house where poor children pay to watch television when the Rwandan police arrested him for loitering. The next thing he knew, he said, he was taken away from his family and carted off to this remote island in the middle of Lake Kivu.
Gasigwa, 14, now spends his days learning patriotic songs and how to march like a soldier. At night, he sleeps in a huge sheet-metal shed with hundreds of men and boys packed mattress to mattress.
“Please call my father,” he whispered. “He has no idea where I am.”
Nearly 900 beggars, homeless people and suspected petty thieves, including dozens of children, have recently been rounded up from the nation’s neatly swept streets and sent — without trial or a court appearance — to this little-known outpost. They will spend up to three years here being “rehabilitated,” learning skills like bricklaying, hairdressing and motorcycle maintenance.
It is one of the country’s newest self-improvement projects, and it seems a fitting symbol for what many political analysts and human rights groups say Rwanda has become: orderly but repressive.
Under President Paul Kagame, this country, which exploded in ethnic bloodshed 16 years ago, is now one of the safest, cleanest and least corrupt nations on the continent. The capital, Kigali, is not ringed by sprawling slums, and carjackings — a deadly problem in many African cities — are virtually unheard of here. The roads are smoothly paved; there is national health insurance; neighborhoods hold monthly cleanups; the computer network is among the best in the region; and the public fountains are full of water, not weeds. All of this has been accomplished in one of the world’s poorest countries.
But while the nation continues to be praised as a darling of the foreign aid world and something of a central African utopia, it is increasingly intolerant of political dissent, or sometimes even dialogue, and bubbling with bottled-up tensions. Recent grenade attacks in Kigali and a shake-up in the army showed that even one of the cornerstones of the new Rwandan state — personal security — might be in danger.
“Kagame’s strategy for stability is a dangerous, long-term gamble,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “By stymieing a political opposition, an independent press or a critical civil society — in short, by not allowing democratic institutions to form — Kagame is leaving people little to identify with but their ethnic group.”
With less than four months to go before national elections, few of the major opposition parties have been allowed to register. Some opposition supporters have been attacked inside government offices; others have been jailed. Several prominent government officials who recently broke ranks with Mr. Kagame defected to other African nations, saying they feared for their lives. The BBC local-language radio service was shut down for a time because the Rwandan government did not like the way it was talking about the genocide of 1994.
That dark period, when death squads from the Hutu majority massacred hundreds of thousands of minority Tutsis, as well as moderate Hutus, remains the touchiest subject of all. In the past three years, Rwandan officials have prosecuted more than 2,000 people, including political rivals, teachers and students, for espousing “genocide ideology” or “divisionism.”
Mr. Kagame and his disciplined military quickly restored order after the genocide, and this stability has been the foundation for Rwanda’s remarkable comeback. The foreign minister, Louise Mushikiwabo, says that after all Rwanda has been through, the government has to remain vigilant about ethnic divisions.
“Rwanda will not allow any politician, political party, any individual, to tamper with the reconciliation and unity in Rwanda,” she said in an interview.
Instigators of violence have been prosecuted for divisionism, but so have people trying to discuss the country’s past or its current direction. Critics contend that the government wields Orwellian-sounding laws that are intentionally vague to stifle any inkling of opposition.
Even programs like the one on Iwawa Island, which the government says will give street people a second chance, are not exactly what they seem.
As a boatload of officials recently glided onto shore, one police commissioner gestured to the birds, the trees and the young men with uniformly shaved heads fetching water and said, “Welcome to our Hawaii.”
But on the mainland, people describe it as an Alcatraz.
“We call it the island of no return,” said Esperance Uwizeyimana, a homeless mother of four.
None of the vocational training programs had started by mid-March. Protais Mitali, the youth minister, insisted there were no street children here, just adults. Yet squeezed in with the men were many adolescents like Gasigwa, and employees confided that several dozen boys were incarcerated here.
“This isn’t a good place for children,” one employee said in hushed tones because the minister was nearby. “They could get abused.”
Rwandan officials are prickly about complaints. President Kagame lashed out at foreign critics this month, saying, “Who should be giving lessons to Rwanda’s 11 million people about what is good for them?”
He called opposition leaders “hooligans” and said Rwandans were “as free, as happy, as proud of themselves, as they have never been in their lives.”
Several leading opposition figures, like Victoire Ingabire, say it is impossible to challenge the government, arguing that it is controlled by a cabal of Tutsis who were refugees in Uganda before the genocide and now unfairly dominate the economy.
Mrs. Ingabire, a Hutu, was an accountant living in the Netherlands until she returned in January to run for president. Today, she lives in a new housing development called Vision 2020 Estate; her sturdy, two-story brick town house is indistinguishable from dozens of others, except for the guards out front.
“There’s no space to talk about what happened in our country,” said Mrs. Ingabire, who has been charged with genocide ideology, being a “divisionist” and collaborating with rebels. It is not just Hutu politicians who feel persecuted. Charles Kabanda used to be a leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the Tutsi-dominated ruling party, but split with it in the late 1990s, he said, because “they were ruthless.”
He recently worked with the Green Party, but said it had been repeatedly blocked from competing in the elections. Government officials said the Green Party failed to meet requirements like getting 200 valid signatures from all over Rwanda. Mr. Kabanda simply shook his head.
“ ‘Enemy, enemy, enemy’ — that’s what they call anyone who thinks differently,” he said. “This government’s record is dreadful. It’s only you, the international community, who is showering them with flowering praise.”
Josh Kron contributed reporting.