Background: As part of the Peacebuilding Practitioners Interview Series, Dr. Eric Patterson interviewed Fatuma Ndangiza, who was appointed to the position of executive secretary for Rwanda's National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) in 2002. In this interview, Ndangiza speaks about her work with NURC and the role she sees it playing in reconciliation efforts in the future. She particularly reviews what focus groups identified as key causes of the conflict in Rwanda.
Ms. Ndangiza, please tell me about the NURC and your work as its executive secretary.
As you may know, the NURC was established by Parliament in March 1999 in order to facilitate, coordinate, and promote unity and reconciliation across the county. Our main focus has been in four main areas: education, training, research, and publications. Of course, we have also reached out more broadly by denouncing discrimination and intolerance of any kind in Rwandan society.
The NURC started its work with a series of focus groups held throughout the country. From 1999 to 2000 we completed focus groups in about 154 districts, each group averaging about 300 people, and those people were representative of multiple levels of society. While this was a way of doing a conflict analysis of the genocide and the period leading up to the violence, it also helped create a sense of ownership by ordinary citizens from the very beginning.
What did these focus groups involve? Were there specific questions you asked?
To start, we asked three main questions. First, do you think unity and reconciliation are possible in Rwanda? Second, what do you believe were the underlying causes of the conflict in Rwanda? And, third, if you believe unity and reconciliation are possible, what needs to be done to accomplish that goal? These were, of course, very difficult questions. Reconciliation meant different things to different people. And, some people did not think it was even possible. Others were very concerned about the emphasis on reconciliation and not on justice. Remember that the gacaca courts had not yet started at that time. So many people asked why not justice first and reconciliation later?
On top of this, there were differences in opinion on what or who should be the focus of reconciliation efforts. Were we aiming to reconcile Hutus and Tutsis? Or was the focus primarily on perpetrators and victims of the genocide? And what about Rwandans who had lived outside of the country for a number of years and were now returning? Was reconciliation not needed between them and Rwandans who had not left the country? Finally, it was suggested that the government and the people needed to be reconciled, since many blamed the genocide on the government leadership. In the end, the answer was everyone! But then we had to ask, "How?" How do you reconcile people? And, at so many different levels? And how do you do it without people feeling that it is imposed on them?
Because many people were concerned about justice far more than reconciliation, we also had discussions about what to do if unity and reconciliation were not possible. People seemed to agree that they wanted peace, but if reconciliation wasn’t possible how do you find peace? People felt especially strong about peace for the younger generation. In the end, most people agreed that even though reconciliation was a very difficult and painful subject, it was important. And also that people should not be pushed on it, but should be let to go at their own pace.
What did people identify as the main causes of the conflict?
There were four main areas people seemed to agree on. First, many people saw bad governance, bad leadership, as a major cause of the conflict. This was not only recent leadership, but leadership throughout Rwanda’s history—pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial—although colonial and post-colonial leadership is seen as particularly responsible. People see the leadership, not all Rwandans, as the ones who promoted discrimination along ethnic lines, who didn’t promote respect for human rights. People also see the genocide as planned by the leaders, and not only political elites but also university, medical, and religious elites. Even in the schools, discrimination was taught, and the groundwork for the genocide was laid.
Second, people identified a culture of impunity as contributing to the genocide. Throughout Rwandan history so many atrocities have been committed. And people who have committed acts of violence have not received justice; they have not been held accountable. This created a culture which does not respect human rights. Even some perpetrators during the genocide acted as they did because they believed that there would be no accountability afterwards.
Third, people identified illiteracy and poverty as a cause of the conflict. In fact, if you go through our prisons today you will find that many of the genocidaires were illiterate or very poor. These people were easily manipulated. When leaders told them they must kill Tutsis or they will lose their land or that they can get land by killing Tutsis, this motivated many poor people to act.
Finally, people identified the distorted nature of Rwandan history, especially how it was taught in schools, as a cause of the conflict. Since much of our history was written by our previous colonial masters, much of it was distorted, especially along ethnic lines. Text books showed Tutsis as a natural enemy of the Hutus. And even as early as the first year of schooling, children would be told to stand up when identified as either Tutsi or Hutu. Such things entrenched the ethnic differences from the very beginning of one’s life.
How did the NURC provide after reflecting on the results of these focus groups?
Of course the NURC recognized that it could not do everything, so we decided to focus on a few core programs and then also advocate for other things that needed to be done and hope to pick up partner organizations along the way to help in those areas. For example, we focused on creating a reconciliation and peace curriculum for the education sector, but we could not take on the total structural reform of education in the country. That was something for the Ministry of Education.
Can you talk about the specific programs of the NURC?
We have many programs, but our primary initiatives focus on education, programs for youth, and outreach to prisoners. In terms of civic education, we work in two main forums. First, we have designed and conducted workshops and seminars for the traditional classroom setting. This curriculum focuses on conflict resolution skills and peacebuilding. Second, we organized and continue to organize a number of homegrown initiatives, referred to as ingando. (Note that the term ingando is taken from the Rwandese verb kugandika that refers to the halting of normal activities to reflect on, and find solutions to, national challenges.) Traditionally when communities faced problems, they would gather together and analyze what was happening—for example, the causes and impact of the problem and ways to manage it. We recognized that the need to reflect on the genocide required a community forum to ask what went wrong, learn how people had been affected, and share lessons learned.
Over the past few years, ingandos have been conducted across the country in coordination with local communities. Ingandos usually involve residential camps, bringing together between 300 and 400 people per program, for between two weeks and two months depending on time available and focus of the sessions. These have been important ways through which people who have a strong distrust for one another can interact. People are brought together and share meals, take classes together, and build trust. In this way we wipe away the old prejudices.
We have run ingandos for four main groups. First, some four million returnees came back to Rwanda following the end of genocide, and we quickly realized the challenge of reintegrating them into the community. For example, in neighboring countries where refugees had fled there was propaganda that it was still not safe in Rwanda. Also, people who remained throughout the genocide were weary of those returning. So our biggest challenge was building trust and confidence, as well as disseminating accurate information about the situation in the country, about the new Rwanda. We stressed the need for people to learn to live together and respect one another. We also emphasized that people should not take the law into their hands upon their return. If they recognized perpetrators upon their return, they should report this to the police or judiciary, not take justice into their own hands.
Second, we work with ex-combatants, especially early on, around 2000 to 2001. During these ingandos we focused on how to reintegrate ex-combatants back into society. We focused on educating them about a culture of peace and tolerance. In addition, we sought to build a sense of individual and collective responsibility for what had happened.
A third group we work with is youth, mainly those at the university level. Recognizing them as our future leaders, we run ingandos during their long holidays and focus on civic education. We challenge our youth to think about the future of their country and what they can do. We also teach conflict resolution and peace skills. And, we invite political and civic leaders to speak to these youth.
Fourth, we have run ingandos since 2003 for some 70,000 prisoners released by the presidential pardon for prisoners of category two and three. These include perpetrators who had confessed, the elderly (over 65 years of age), the terminally ill, children below 18 years of age, and those who were determined to be innocent of the charges brought against them. The decision of the president was taken in order to further promote restorative justice and reconciliation.
To aid in this process, we ran ingandos for prisoners to participate in before returning home. Naturally there were many concerns on all sides. Prisoners worried whether they would be accepted back into their communities, asked how they could, or if they should, ask for pardon from their victims that survived, how to handle things if their wife had remarried, etc. Many prisoners were also traumatized by what they had done, so these ingandos were a way to address those issues too. Some victims from the communities were also unhappy, arguing that these people had tried to kill them and were now being released to finish the job.
One thing we stressed during these ingandos was how perpetrators could work with victims through community associations, as a vehicle for trust building and as a way to give back to the community they hurt. Such perpetrator-victim associations are now quite common in Rwanda and may focus on dance, art, poetry, crafts, etc., but they are also a way of beginning a conversation between perpetrator and victim and promoting reconciliation. Some associations even build homes for victims, a type of symbolic reparation by the perpetrators.
In the end, unity and reconciliation in Rwanda is based on very practical initiatives.
In addition to the ingandos, can you please talk about some of the other NURC programs?
One thing we have focused on is creating networks throughout the country to further promote the message of unity and reconciliation. For example, we have tried to work with popular artists and dancers because we know this will draw people in, especially young people. We have also focused on networks of women. Mothers have a strong role in the home, and if they accept and promote unity and reconciliation, their family members will follow.
The youth are another group with which we have worked a lot. Initially we worked mainly with university level students, but other students also showed a strong desire to become involved. There are now some 500 student clubs for peace and reconciliation in secondary schools. In addition, our university students now want to coordinate with these secondary school clubs to run programs in primary schools. There seems to be an agreement among many young people that they want to be different then the older generation. You see, in the past, much of the hatred against Tutsis or Hutus was from parents. So these clubs can encourage new thoughts through activities like drama, sports, or arts and crafts.
We are now even starting debate clubs in our universities, and we hope to add these at the secondary level soon. In one recent debate, the topic was whether it was better to identify as a Rwandan or along ethnic lines as a Hutu or Tutsi. Both sides argued their points, and the debate helped to bring out much of what was in the hearts and minds of people. These debates are important tools for encouraging dialogue, as well as helping change old behaviors and thoughts. Our students and young people are building peace on the ground in these and many others ways.
How has the NURC coordinated with partner organizations to tackle some of the broader issues you mentioned—those that cannot be the sole responsibility of the NURC?
In 2000 we organized the National Summit for Reconciliation, which brought together representatives from all levels of society—grassroots, policy makers, teachers, women, religious leaders, and others—to discuss what needed to be done in Rwanda in order to move toward a deeper sense of reconciliation. This meeting was very high level—chaired by the president of Rwanda. And it was such a successful tool for sharing opinions, lessons learned, and best practices that it is now held biannually, with some 1,000 people attending each summit. We also invite representatives from other countries who have experienced similar periods of violence and discrimination to share their experiences. For example, representatives came from South Africa, including Mbeki, and Mozambique to our first summit in 2000. And we have even had representatives from non-African countries join us, such as from Germany.
What are some of the most important lessons you have learned from these summits?
First, it was obvious when people began to share their experiences that we needed to have a much deeper understanding of reconciliation than with which we started. We needed to recognize that everyone needs to be engaged in the process. We also sensed the deep need people had for justice—some sort of accountability for perpetrators. From the first summit, we also reflected as a commission on what we could realistically accomplish. That was when we came up with our main platform of focusing primarily on civic education, a peacebuilding program and advocacy for other programs with which to coordinate and support our efforts.
Have you found many partners? Has coordination been successful?
You know, there are now many peace actors in Rwanda, many people working for reconciliation. This includes international NGOs. Immediately after the genocide, some of us were very annoyed at the international community. We asked questions like, “Where were they when we needed them? Why did they ignore us?” But we quickly realized that there was also a challenge directed at our selves. Why did we let genocide happen? Blame was only an excuse to not face this question.
So, today there are many people, both Rwandans and people from the international community, working in Rwanda. But even though there are so many actors, they are not well coordinated. We need to ask ourselves how we can create synergy between them.
In what ways have the NURC worked with religious leaders and the churches?
In addition to our civic education programs, we also run peacebuilding programs. Here we try to form partnerships with grassroots groups, including faith groups. In particular, we are trying to coordinate with faith leaders to promote interfaith initiatives. This is a rather new project of the NURC. In March 2009 we organized our first interfaith forum in which we encouraged faith groups to plan their reconciliation efforts more systematically. This also proved to be an important forum for faith groups to share their experiences with one another. And as each community gave their reports, you could see how this also inspired some communities to plan to do more. Sort of like a peer review system where the success of some groups motivated others to expand their efforts.
Do you plan to expand this initiative?
For a long time the work of faith communities was not coordinated. These forums are an attempt to do that, so we plan to continue them twice a year. Most important is the opportunity for these communities to share their work and talk about what is working and what is not.
We also hope to coordinate with faith communities in other ways. For example, we have requested that faith leaders expand their ministries into the prisons, since we think they can be valuable partners in facilitating the healing process between perpetrators and victims. They may even be able to coordinate certain types of healing workshops.
You also mentioned a third area in which the NURC is involved—research. Can you please speak about what you are doing in that area?
We are conducting a variety of research projects. Three major ones are on the origins of the conflict, the role of women in reconciliation, and a series of opinion polls on the gacaca court systems, land reform, and democratization. These polls were mainly conducted from 2003 to 2008, and we are now in the process of analyzing the results. We believe they will be a valuable tool in bringing out issues that still need to be addressed.
In addition to these projects, we invited the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, based in Cape Town, South Africa, to conduct an impact assessment on the work of the commission up until that point.
It is also our hope to create a type of reconciliation barometer for Rwanda, so that we can better evaluate the impact of our work.
That sounds like a very difficult task. Is it possible?
Measuring reconciliation in Rwanda is the biggest challenge of the commission. One way in which we are attempting this is through focus groups, much like those with which we started. We are focusing on ways to measure the level of trust in local communities—that is to say the level of social cohesion and inclusion. In addition, we are interested in the level of interpersonal trust that has been built. Here I mean the ways in which perpetrators have confessed and victims have forgiven them, as well as the extent to which ownership of the reconciliation process has been accepted at the grassroots level.
So at the qualitative level setting up indexes to measure these things is a difficult task. However, we feel that we need to be more systematic than we have done in the past. We know that indicators will never be perfect, but they can help guide the process. For example, the focus groups have brought up interesting issues that are helping us plan our future work.
Can you provide some examples?
For example, these focus groups have made it clear that many people worry about equal opportunities for education and employment, good governance, land reform, and justice. Some people still feel that the gacaca court system was not the right forum to pursue justice in Rwanda. These discussions have made it very clear that reconciliation crosscuts every social sector. Everyone needs to be involved.
What do you feel will be the biggest challenge to reconciliation efforts in Rwanda over the next few years?
Reconciliation starts and ends in the hearts of people. One day someone may not want to reconcile, and the next they may have changed their mind. This can work in the other direction as well. What if there is an economic crisis in Rwanda? Will people go back to the old ways of hating one another?
Also, we must remember that reconciliation is about more than justice. The NURC focuses on trust building, creating a cohesive society with less social divisions and a strong respect for the values of peace.
Now we are focusing more on empowering local communities and people. Reconciliation is a long term process, and I would like to say again that everyone is needed.
Finally, what is the future of the NURC?
My wish is to see the NURC fade away. People have started to own the process, and we are here to support them. But eventually I hope that we will no longer be needed. The project of unity and reconciliation will be that of all the people of Rwanda.
Ms. Ndangiza, thank you very much for your time today.
As you may know, the NURC was established by Parliament in March 1999 in order to facilitate, coordinate, and promote unity and reconciliation across the county. Our main focus has been in four main areas: education, training, research, and publications. Of course, we have also reached out more broadly by denouncing discrimination and intolerance of any kind in Rwandan society.
The NURC started its work with a series of focus groups held throughout the country. From 1999 to 2000 we completed focus groups in about 154 districts, each group averaging about 300 people, and those people were representative of multiple levels of society. While this was a way of doing a conflict analysis of the genocide and the period leading up to the violence, it also helped create a sense of ownership by ordinary citizens from the very beginning.
What did these focus groups involve? Were there specific questions you asked?
To start, we asked three main questions. First, do you think unity and reconciliation are possible in Rwanda? Second, what do you believe were the underlying causes of the conflict in Rwanda? And, third, if you believe unity and reconciliation are possible, what needs to be done to accomplish that goal? These were, of course, very difficult questions. Reconciliation meant different things to different people. And, some people did not think it was even possible. Others were very concerned about the emphasis on reconciliation and not on justice. Remember that the gacaca courts had not yet started at that time. So many people asked why not justice first and reconciliation later?
On top of this, there were differences in opinion on what or who should be the focus of reconciliation efforts. Were we aiming to reconcile Hutus and Tutsis? Or was the focus primarily on perpetrators and victims of the genocide? And what about Rwandans who had lived outside of the country for a number of years and were now returning? Was reconciliation not needed between them and Rwandans who had not left the country? Finally, it was suggested that the government and the people needed to be reconciled, since many blamed the genocide on the government leadership. In the end, the answer was everyone! But then we had to ask, "How?" How do you reconcile people? And, at so many different levels? And how do you do it without people feeling that it is imposed on them?
Because many people were concerned about justice far more than reconciliation, we also had discussions about what to do if unity and reconciliation were not possible. People seemed to agree that they wanted peace, but if reconciliation wasn’t possible how do you find peace? People felt especially strong about peace for the younger generation. In the end, most people agreed that even though reconciliation was a very difficult and painful subject, it was important. And also that people should not be pushed on it, but should be let to go at their own pace.
What did people identify as the main causes of the conflict?
There were four main areas people seemed to agree on. First, many people saw bad governance, bad leadership, as a major cause of the conflict. This was not only recent leadership, but leadership throughout Rwanda’s history—pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial—although colonial and post-colonial leadership is seen as particularly responsible. People see the leadership, not all Rwandans, as the ones who promoted discrimination along ethnic lines, who didn’t promote respect for human rights. People also see the genocide as planned by the leaders, and not only political elites but also university, medical, and religious elites. Even in the schools, discrimination was taught, and the groundwork for the genocide was laid.
Second, people identified a culture of impunity as contributing to the genocide. Throughout Rwandan history so many atrocities have been committed. And people who have committed acts of violence have not received justice; they have not been held accountable. This created a culture which does not respect human rights. Even some perpetrators during the genocide acted as they did because they believed that there would be no accountability afterwards.
Third, people identified illiteracy and poverty as a cause of the conflict. In fact, if you go through our prisons today you will find that many of the genocidaires were illiterate or very poor. These people were easily manipulated. When leaders told them they must kill Tutsis or they will lose their land or that they can get land by killing Tutsis, this motivated many poor people to act.
Finally, people identified the distorted nature of Rwandan history, especially how it was taught in schools, as a cause of the conflict. Since much of our history was written by our previous colonial masters, much of it was distorted, especially along ethnic lines. Text books showed Tutsis as a natural enemy of the Hutus. And even as early as the first year of schooling, children would be told to stand up when identified as either Tutsi or Hutu. Such things entrenched the ethnic differences from the very beginning of one’s life.
How did the NURC provide after reflecting on the results of these focus groups?
Of course the NURC recognized that it could not do everything, so we decided to focus on a few core programs and then also advocate for other things that needed to be done and hope to pick up partner organizations along the way to help in those areas. For example, we focused on creating a reconciliation and peace curriculum for the education sector, but we could not take on the total structural reform of education in the country. That was something for the Ministry of Education.
Can you talk about the specific programs of the NURC?
We have many programs, but our primary initiatives focus on education, programs for youth, and outreach to prisoners. In terms of civic education, we work in two main forums. First, we have designed and conducted workshops and seminars for the traditional classroom setting. This curriculum focuses on conflict resolution skills and peacebuilding. Second, we organized and continue to organize a number of homegrown initiatives, referred to as ingando. (Note that the term ingando is taken from the Rwandese verb kugandika that refers to the halting of normal activities to reflect on, and find solutions to, national challenges.) Traditionally when communities faced problems, they would gather together and analyze what was happening—for example, the causes and impact of the problem and ways to manage it. We recognized that the need to reflect on the genocide required a community forum to ask what went wrong, learn how people had been affected, and share lessons learned.
Over the past few years, ingandos have been conducted across the country in coordination with local communities. Ingandos usually involve residential camps, bringing together between 300 and 400 people per program, for between two weeks and two months depending on time available and focus of the sessions. These have been important ways through which people who have a strong distrust for one another can interact. People are brought together and share meals, take classes together, and build trust. In this way we wipe away the old prejudices.
We have run ingandos for four main groups. First, some four million returnees came back to Rwanda following the end of genocide, and we quickly realized the challenge of reintegrating them into the community. For example, in neighboring countries where refugees had fled there was propaganda that it was still not safe in Rwanda. Also, people who remained throughout the genocide were weary of those returning. So our biggest challenge was building trust and confidence, as well as disseminating accurate information about the situation in the country, about the new Rwanda. We stressed the need for people to learn to live together and respect one another. We also emphasized that people should not take the law into their hands upon their return. If they recognized perpetrators upon their return, they should report this to the police or judiciary, not take justice into their own hands.
Second, we work with ex-combatants, especially early on, around 2000 to 2001. During these ingandos we focused on how to reintegrate ex-combatants back into society. We focused on educating them about a culture of peace and tolerance. In addition, we sought to build a sense of individual and collective responsibility for what had happened.
A third group we work with is youth, mainly those at the university level. Recognizing them as our future leaders, we run ingandos during their long holidays and focus on civic education. We challenge our youth to think about the future of their country and what they can do. We also teach conflict resolution and peace skills. And, we invite political and civic leaders to speak to these youth.
Fourth, we have run ingandos since 2003 for some 70,000 prisoners released by the presidential pardon for prisoners of category two and three. These include perpetrators who had confessed, the elderly (over 65 years of age), the terminally ill, children below 18 years of age, and those who were determined to be innocent of the charges brought against them. The decision of the president was taken in order to further promote restorative justice and reconciliation.
To aid in this process, we ran ingandos for prisoners to participate in before returning home. Naturally there were many concerns on all sides. Prisoners worried whether they would be accepted back into their communities, asked how they could, or if they should, ask for pardon from their victims that survived, how to handle things if their wife had remarried, etc. Many prisoners were also traumatized by what they had done, so these ingandos were a way to address those issues too. Some victims from the communities were also unhappy, arguing that these people had tried to kill them and were now being released to finish the job.
One thing we stressed during these ingandos was how perpetrators could work with victims through community associations, as a vehicle for trust building and as a way to give back to the community they hurt. Such perpetrator-victim associations are now quite common in Rwanda and may focus on dance, art, poetry, crafts, etc., but they are also a way of beginning a conversation between perpetrator and victim and promoting reconciliation. Some associations even build homes for victims, a type of symbolic reparation by the perpetrators.
In the end, unity and reconciliation in Rwanda is based on very practical initiatives.
In addition to the ingandos, can you please talk about some of the other NURC programs?
One thing we have focused on is creating networks throughout the country to further promote the message of unity and reconciliation. For example, we have tried to work with popular artists and dancers because we know this will draw people in, especially young people. We have also focused on networks of women. Mothers have a strong role in the home, and if they accept and promote unity and reconciliation, their family members will follow.
The youth are another group with which we have worked a lot. Initially we worked mainly with university level students, but other students also showed a strong desire to become involved. There are now some 500 student clubs for peace and reconciliation in secondary schools. In addition, our university students now want to coordinate with these secondary school clubs to run programs in primary schools. There seems to be an agreement among many young people that they want to be different then the older generation. You see, in the past, much of the hatred against Tutsis or Hutus was from parents. So these clubs can encourage new thoughts through activities like drama, sports, or arts and crafts.
We are now even starting debate clubs in our universities, and we hope to add these at the secondary level soon. In one recent debate, the topic was whether it was better to identify as a Rwandan or along ethnic lines as a Hutu or Tutsi. Both sides argued their points, and the debate helped to bring out much of what was in the hearts and minds of people. These debates are important tools for encouraging dialogue, as well as helping change old behaviors and thoughts. Our students and young people are building peace on the ground in these and many others ways.
How has the NURC coordinated with partner organizations to tackle some of the broader issues you mentioned—those that cannot be the sole responsibility of the NURC?
In 2000 we organized the National Summit for Reconciliation, which brought together representatives from all levels of society—grassroots, policy makers, teachers, women, religious leaders, and others—to discuss what needed to be done in Rwanda in order to move toward a deeper sense of reconciliation. This meeting was very high level—chaired by the president of Rwanda. And it was such a successful tool for sharing opinions, lessons learned, and best practices that it is now held biannually, with some 1,000 people attending each summit. We also invite representatives from other countries who have experienced similar periods of violence and discrimination to share their experiences. For example, representatives came from South Africa, including Mbeki, and Mozambique to our first summit in 2000. And we have even had representatives from non-African countries join us, such as from Germany.
What are some of the most important lessons you have learned from these summits?
First, it was obvious when people began to share their experiences that we needed to have a much deeper understanding of reconciliation than with which we started. We needed to recognize that everyone needs to be engaged in the process. We also sensed the deep need people had for justice—some sort of accountability for perpetrators. From the first summit, we also reflected as a commission on what we could realistically accomplish. That was when we came up with our main platform of focusing primarily on civic education, a peacebuilding program and advocacy for other programs with which to coordinate and support our efforts.
Have you found many partners? Has coordination been successful?
You know, there are now many peace actors in Rwanda, many people working for reconciliation. This includes international NGOs. Immediately after the genocide, some of us were very annoyed at the international community. We asked questions like, “Where were they when we needed them? Why did they ignore us?” But we quickly realized that there was also a challenge directed at our selves. Why did we let genocide happen? Blame was only an excuse to not face this question.
So, today there are many people, both Rwandans and people from the international community, working in Rwanda. But even though there are so many actors, they are not well coordinated. We need to ask ourselves how we can create synergy between them.
In what ways have the NURC worked with religious leaders and the churches?
In addition to our civic education programs, we also run peacebuilding programs. Here we try to form partnerships with grassroots groups, including faith groups. In particular, we are trying to coordinate with faith leaders to promote interfaith initiatives. This is a rather new project of the NURC. In March 2009 we organized our first interfaith forum in which we encouraged faith groups to plan their reconciliation efforts more systematically. This also proved to be an important forum for faith groups to share their experiences with one another. And as each community gave their reports, you could see how this also inspired some communities to plan to do more. Sort of like a peer review system where the success of some groups motivated others to expand their efforts.
Do you plan to expand this initiative?
For a long time the work of faith communities was not coordinated. These forums are an attempt to do that, so we plan to continue them twice a year. Most important is the opportunity for these communities to share their work and talk about what is working and what is not.
We also hope to coordinate with faith communities in other ways. For example, we have requested that faith leaders expand their ministries into the prisons, since we think they can be valuable partners in facilitating the healing process between perpetrators and victims. They may even be able to coordinate certain types of healing workshops.
You also mentioned a third area in which the NURC is involved—research. Can you please speak about what you are doing in that area?
We are conducting a variety of research projects. Three major ones are on the origins of the conflict, the role of women in reconciliation, and a series of opinion polls on the gacaca court systems, land reform, and democratization. These polls were mainly conducted from 2003 to 2008, and we are now in the process of analyzing the results. We believe they will be a valuable tool in bringing out issues that still need to be addressed.
In addition to these projects, we invited the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, based in Cape Town, South Africa, to conduct an impact assessment on the work of the commission up until that point.
It is also our hope to create a type of reconciliation barometer for Rwanda, so that we can better evaluate the impact of our work.
That sounds like a very difficult task. Is it possible?
Measuring reconciliation in Rwanda is the biggest challenge of the commission. One way in which we are attempting this is through focus groups, much like those with which we started. We are focusing on ways to measure the level of trust in local communities—that is to say the level of social cohesion and inclusion. In addition, we are interested in the level of interpersonal trust that has been built. Here I mean the ways in which perpetrators have confessed and victims have forgiven them, as well as the extent to which ownership of the reconciliation process has been accepted at the grassroots level.
So at the qualitative level setting up indexes to measure these things is a difficult task. However, we feel that we need to be more systematic than we have done in the past. We know that indicators will never be perfect, but they can help guide the process. For example, the focus groups have brought up interesting issues that are helping us plan our future work.
Can you provide some examples?
For example, these focus groups have made it clear that many people worry about equal opportunities for education and employment, good governance, land reform, and justice. Some people still feel that the gacaca court system was not the right forum to pursue justice in Rwanda. These discussions have made it very clear that reconciliation crosscuts every social sector. Everyone needs to be involved.
What do you feel will be the biggest challenge to reconciliation efforts in Rwanda over the next few years?
Reconciliation starts and ends in the hearts of people. One day someone may not want to reconcile, and the next they may have changed their mind. This can work in the other direction as well. What if there is an economic crisis in Rwanda? Will people go back to the old ways of hating one another?
Also, we must remember that reconciliation is about more than justice. The NURC focuses on trust building, creating a cohesive society with less social divisions and a strong respect for the values of peace.
Now we are focusing more on empowering local communities and people. Reconciliation is a long term process, and I would like to say again that everyone is needed.
Finally, what is the future of the NURC?
My wish is to see the NURC fade away. People have started to own the process, and we are here to support them. But eventually I hope that we will no longer be needed. The project of unity and reconciliation will be that of all the people of Rwanda.
Ms. Ndangiza, thank you very much for your time today.
Opens in a new window