 |
|
|
In a post-genocide society, what is the appropriate balance between ensuring the security of citizens and protecting their personal freedoms and civil liberties?
Immediately following genocide or mass violence, the systems and processes a government puts in place sends messages to its citizens: Will my government address the injustices that took place? Will I have a say in a shared vision of our future? Will I feel safe?
A new constitution addresses these fundamental questions and creates a blueprint for a society striving for justice and reconciliation. |
|
|
|
What does democracy look like after genocide? How do you get there? Is it necessary for future stability? Can it create instability?
When we talk about democracy, what are the values and structures that we are referring to? Many democracies express those values and structures—and the blueprint for achieving those aspirations—in their constitutions. In South Africa after apartheid, the process of writing a new constitution served many purposes: it became a shared enterprise for former enemies, engaging them in a specific, tangible exercise and process; it became the vehicle through which the new dispensation was articulated; it served as a symbol of South Africa’s transformation for the public, particularly because citizens were invited to participate in its construction; and it acted as the starting point for some of the most important initiatives in the transition, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (Click here to view the South African Constitution.)
Rwanda recently completed its first democratic constitution since the 1994 genocide. Similar to South Africa, the public was invited to comment on the process, to offer suggestions regarding an array of matters, from the length of the president’s term, to questions of what should be considered a fundamental right, to the responsibilities of government to take care of its citizens. When the constitution was introduced, some critics argued that it consolidated power in the central government. Others argued that this is a stage that Rwanda must go through in order to stabilize the country before full democracy can take place. (Click here to read the preamble from the Rwandan constitution.)
Returning Home to a New Constitution
Rwandan Leopold* lost his parents, as well as countless friends and family members, in the 1994 genocide. He lost his home long before that when his mother sent him away as an adolescent to attend school in Zaire (now Congo). She told him that if he stayed in Rwanda, as a Tutsi, he might not survive, and she wanted all of her children to survive. Leopold tried to return many times, but each time his mother turned him away. He had to make his own way in Zaire, as he had no family or friends to turn to, but his mother believed that this was safer than what could happen to him if he remained in Rwanda. After graduating from school, Leopold returned home again. His mother took him to the airport and said that he had to leave, for good. That was in 1989. Five years later, she would be killed in their home.
Leopold has spent the past several years living in Canada. He is married and has two young boys. In 2003, he was asked to move to Rwanda for work. It is a great opportunity, a mark of the economic progress that Rwanda is making. But does he feel safe returning to a country he was forced to flee? Leopold says that he does. Safe enough, in fact, that he brought his entire family with him to live in Rwanda. What makes him feel safe? He believes that President Paul Kagame has developed a stable and secure society and that Kagame has accomplished this through cooperation with members of the previous regime, significant compromises and a process that brings democracy into Rwanda incrementally through a slow decentralization of government.
While in Canada, Leopold felt frustrated when Canadian friends would criticize the new Rwandan Constitution, saying that it was not democratic enough. “You have to be in Rwanda to understand,” he says. “The Constitution works for us. It might not look as free as the US or Canadian Constitutions, but Rwanda is different. It has only been ten years, and here we are, all trying to live together again. The majority of the country were involved in genocide in some way. You have to make concessions to live together. You have to compromise. And, you have to have some limits so that the country is safe for survivors and returnees.”
*Last name withheld for safety reasons.
Connections for the Classroom...-
Compare the Rwandan constitution to the South African constitution, considered by many to be a shining example of how the values and structures of a truly democratic society should be articulated. What democratic values are expressed in the South African constitution that are absent in Rwanda's constitution? In what ways are the two constitutions similar?
- Leopold argues that Rwanda is justified in creating a society that does not necessarily promote all the personal freedoms and civil liberties of a true democracy, opting instead to secure the safety and security of its citizens. Do you agree with Leopold's argument? If a society does not seem ready to be transformed into a true democracy, do you think an incremental approach is prudent or even possible?
|
|
 |
|
|
|