I have used the word ‘absurd’ after careful reflection. According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary the word ‘absurd’ means “clearly untrue or unreasonable; ridiculously inconsistent with reason, or the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory. An absurd man acts contrary to the clear dictates of reason or sound judgement. An absurd proposition contradicts obvious truth”.
Because some African leaders believe that ethnicity, tribalism or divisionism – be it religion or race – is the root cause of political instability and conflict, they have decided to deny that ethnicity exists or to legislate against its use in public discourse. In Uganda there is a law against ‘sectarianism’; in Rwanda the word ‘divisionism’ is the equivalent of sectarianism in Uganda.
At a workshop in New York about Rwanda some participants who had gathered to talk about post-genocide progress singled out the disappearance of ethnicity as the most significant achievement. They stressed that Rwandese had decided to put the past behind them and move on as one nation. They added that ethnicity was a colonial creation which should not be carried into post-genocide Rwanda. They emphasized that in pre-colonial days Rwandese not only spoke the same language, went to the same church, lived on the same hill but also practiced complementary economic systems as one people. These symbiotic relations were shattered following the arrival of Europeans and the imposition of divide-and-rule methods that favored one group over another.
However, studies have revealed that ethnicity – cultural prejudices, social and economic discrimination and exclusiveness of ethnic members – is still alive and well. In a 1998 report titled “Life After Death: Suspicion and Reintegration in Post-Genocide Rwanda” published by U.S. Committee for Refugees, there is troubling confirmation of the existence of ethnicity. One commentator observed that when they talk Rwandese do not mean it, adding that the calm exterior is different from the interior. One UN worker reported that whenever he takes out Rwandese colleagues for a drink or dinner, there is always ethnic tension. And some colleagues who worked in Rwanda after 1994 told the author that there were occasions when members of one ethnic group turned down an invitation for a social gathering simply because the host had also invited Rwandese from the other ethnic group.
The RPF government’s official position is that ethnic differences do not exist in Rwanda because all Rwandese are the same. Because of this anti-divisionism policy, Hutu and Tutsi words have gone out of use. Rwandese have invented a new language like ‘old refugees’ meaning Tutsi and ‘recent returnees’ when referring to Hutu.
This government approach has come under criticism. While the effort to bring about ethnic unity is laudable and well-intentioned, it runs the risk of ignoring reality and interfering with constructing dialogue about ethnic tensions that are real. “Pretending ethnic differences do not exist potentially undermines government credibility with the nation’s overwhelmingly Hutu population whose support the government seeks. An alternative policy available to Rwandan leaders would be to acknowledge that ethnic differences exist but are unimportant. .. Ethnicity is a reality you cannot deny. … For me [a Tutsi priest], it is important to affirm the reality rather than inhibit talking about it” (U. S. Committee for Refugees 1998).
While the government denies existence of ethnic differences, the allocation of government jobs and participation in the national economy has demonstrated ethnic preferences for Tutsi over Hutu. The majority of the latter have been pushed back into subsistence economy.
In Uganda, the NRM government preached that there was no place for sectarianism. Individual merit would be the only consideration for employment, winning a fellowship, getting a promotion or even contesting for a political seat. Ugandans were happy and parliament easily passed the anti-sectarian law which, inter alia, outlawed talking or writing about anything in sectarian terms. As time passed, sectarianism was applied in awarding contracts, fellowships, appointments and promotions especially in senior and strategic positions in national institutions. Ugandans began to whisper about the creeping sectarian problem until the practice became so glaring that parliament has demanded a report on recruitments and promotions in the civil service. Increasingly Ugandans are less afraid of being prosecuted under the anti-sectarian law because they have proof that sectarianism is alive, well and getting out of hand.
While in Burundi on mission in January/February 2010, a senior international organization official informed us that there was no inter-ethnic problem in the country because comprehensive intermarriages had taken care of that. However, as our consultations proceeded, we learnt that to avoid the country from slipping back into a conflict phase every effort was being made to ensure ethnic balance in government appointments and promotions. We also learned that the constitution demands that when the president is a Hutu, the vice-president must be a Tutsi and vice versa.
The above outline leads to one conclusion. Sweeping ethnic differences under the carpet may provide a temporary solution. In the long-term it is better to put them on the table, have a frank discussion and collectively try to find a solution. Attempts by Uganda and Rwanda to suppress ethnic differences have only succeeded in undermining the credibility of governments in the two countries.