Politics of Identity and Globalisation Koh Yong Kha Ashley
The Rwanda Genocide
The people of Rwanda were previously known as Banyarwanda, which refers to Rwandese. It was until the arrivals of their colonial master, the Belgians who resulted in the people being separated into different ethnic groups. The Rwandese were divided into three ethnic groups, the Hutu, Twa and Tutsi. As ridiculous as it is, the people were actually split according to the length of their noses and heights. Generally, there are no obvious differences between the different ethnic groups.
As learnt previously, ethnic groups result in ethnocentrism. As they focused on interacting with people in their group, they have less opportunity to interact with people outside. Although there were no obvious differences in their looks, in the long term, they developed their own language and culture. Ethnocentrism is common in almost all societies, however in the case of Rwanda this was made worse by the state.
These ethnic identities were later used as a mask for the government to gain power when Rwanda met with socioeconomic crisis. This is when the problem started.
As mentioned in the lecture, identity becomes problematic when it is use for political purpose. Rwanda was facing serious problems during the 1980s. The economic condition of Rwanda worsened when coffee prices started to fall and it was considered as a falling country, alongside with other African states. Hence, the President of Rwanda at that time rallied against the Tutsi in order to maintain power, in hope to salvage the situation. In other words, he had manipulated the loyalty of the people towards their own ethnic identity. It was said that the Rwanda genocide was a planned one, in aim to get rid of political opponents and anybody who might oppose against the authority, in short, the Tutsi. (Hintjens) If there was any sense of social cohesion among the people, it has all been destroyed during the 1994 genocide.
Although on the surface, it seems like the Rwanda genocide was caused by the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi, but I would think that the state played a much bigger role in it. It was obvious that the genocide was a result of the desperateness of the state to maintain the strength of the country and not be categorized with others such as Kenya. The form of identity building in this case will belong to legitimizing identity where there is an internalized domination of over-imposed and undifferentiated identity. The state had revived the identity of the Hutu who had over the years appeared to be less superior compared to the Tutsi. They gave it a new meaning and used it politically to garner support and maintain power.
Ethnic identity was merely used as a cover by the state. The state has made use of the differences between the different ethnic groups. The genocide was defined as “a form of one-sided mass killing in which the state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are identified by the perpetrator.” (Hintjens) It was a desperate attempt by the state for the continuation of the country.
This is only one example whereby the state has played with the ethnic identity of its people for its own benefits. As quoted from Max Weber, ““the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether.” However, we know that that is not possible. With the existence of ethnic identity comes the existence of differences and hence conflict. However, just like what we have learnt, conflict is important in a society as it enables the society to improve. The result of conflict will depends on how we go about solving it. If the Rwanda state had chosen a smarter and more humane way of solving the problem and not made use of it instead, perhaps, those people would not have been sacrificed.
Reference:
Hintjens, H. M. (n.d.). Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. Retrieved from The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 241-286
