Over a 100-day period from April to July of 1994, nearly 1,000,000 Rwandan people were massacred. Noted as one of the worst genocides in history, the battle between the Hutu and Tutsi people of Rwanda was the result of socially constructed antipathy, struggles for political legitimacy, as well as economic deterioration. The origin of racial or “tribal” animosities can be traced to efforts of a struggling government/ruling class who worked to fabricate and then exacerbate racial differences between the Rwandan Bahutu and Batutsi. This, in turn, incited hostility and resentment between the two groups, which subsequently led to the devastating Rwandan genocide in 1994. Much in line with the theories of Lars-Erik Cederman and colleagues, the ethnic war in Rwanda was partly the result of ethno-nationalist struggles over access to state power, but despite adamant declaration from theorists and historians, the genocide was not solely based on (manufactured) racial animosities, it was largely in response to the political and economic turmoil of the early 1990s.
To begin, it is important to provide sufficient evidence that there were little to no tribal animosities between the Hutu and Tutsi preceding the 1994 genocide. To do so, some context is necessary. The historical origins of the Hutu and Tutsi within Rwanda is a heavily contested topic. German accounts of “tall Batutsi monarchs” immigrating to the area and imposing rule over the indigenous Bahutu, along with several other accounts of the origins of the Hutu and Tutsi, attempted to manipulate historical accounts of physical and ethnic differences between the Rwandans. In doing so, the differences were intended to affirm the “animosities” between the two groups, when in reality, there were very little differences between them.
Before Belgian rule, there was no real difference between the Hutu and the Tutsi; the two identities were based on “material relations of unequal but mutual interdependence.”Meaning that the Tutsi held more economic and political power than the Hutu, but the groups interacted in a civil manner, and even relied on each other to a certain extent. Additionally, there were many cases of intermarriage and mixing between the two groups, proving the existence of positive relations between the Hutu and Tutsi prior to the genocide. In some instances, the terms Bahutu and Batutsi were even used in relation to each other with some fluidity. Though most of the Hutu-Tutsi relations prior to the genocide were civil and even positive at times, it is important to acknowledge some historical clashes.
Before the close of the 19th century, there was a collection of Hutu kingdoms in northwest Rwanda. These small kingdoms held little to no power and would often enter into conflict with the larger, more powerful Tutsi kingdom in central Rwanda. After the intervention of the German military, the two kingdoms were combined at the start of the colonization of Rwanda. This consolidation lead to differences between the northwest and central regions of the country and can bear some of the accusations of animosities between the Hutu and Tutsi people, but cannot explain the genocide.
Although ancient tribal animosities between the Hutu and the Tutsi cannot be used to explain the 1994 genocide, manufactured ethnic divisions do bear some of the responsibility. After nearly 20 years in power, Hutu president, Juvenal Habyarimana was losing popularity among Rwandans. In the early 1990s, after the Tutsi-backed Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) declared their intention to remove him from power, Habyarimana along with close political colleagues exaggerated the RPF threat to the Rwandan people. Using word of mouth and the media to spread their message, the government villainized the Tutsi. These sources of communication and news exacerbated relations between the Hutu and Tutsi and even assigned characteristics to each ethnic group. The Hutu being portrayed as short and having darker skin tones, while the Tutsi were said to be taller and of a lighter skin tone. These accounts originating from Habyarimana and his associates, as well as the media, incited new and furthered already existing animosities between the two groups.
In addition to the manufactured ethnic divisions, the Rwandan genocide can be attributed to a struggle for political legitimacy between the Hutu and Tutsi while also including colonial interference in the country. The colonization of Rwanda by Belgium began when the Tutsi were in power and acknowledged their supposed “superiority”, thus allowing for the Tutsi to remain in power. In the beginning years of Belgian rule, there were very few cases of rebellion against the Tutsi leadership due to the protection and economic security provided for the Hutu. But in later years, a system of “exploitative reciprocity” emerged and eroded relations between the two groups and also resulted in a resentment of Tutsi leadership within the Hutu population.
Further intervention by the Belgians occurred in 1933 with the introduction of identity cards. Being that there were few ethnic differences between the Hutu and Tutsi, it was nearly impossible to assign individuals to a specific “identity”. According to a possibly fictitious account, the Belgians assigned Tutsi identities to those who had more than ten head of cattle and Hutu identities to those with less. As a new group of Hutu emerged demanding majority rule, Belgian interference encouraged the group. Over time, this group of Hutu viewed itself as the “authentic indigenous” ruling elite and encouraged the image of the Tutsi as “alien” to the country. The Belgians need for simplicity in ruling Rwanda ultimately came at a great cost to the Tutsi and Hutu people.
A struggle for political control was also a factor in the 1994 genocide. In the early 1990s there appeared to be a “hard core” within the Rwandan army that had anticipated/planned for genocide. This hard core faction worried for its survival if a power-sharing system with the RPF were to be established. They were willing to go to any length to prevent their end. Their fear led to the previously mentioned method of manufactured ethnic animosities against the Tutsi and, eventually, any allied Hutu to incite violence and ultimately genocide against the group. The main priority of the faction was survival which then morphed into an objective to extend Hutu control throughout Eastern Central Africa, thus the eradication of Tutsi “needed to increase.
The final major factor in the cause of the Rwandan genocide was the deterioration of the economy. Before the 1990s, Rwanda was a relatively wealthy and stable country. But in actuality, it was on the brink of brewing instability, economic decline, and agricultural destruction. The stable economic situation in Rwanda became delicate when coffee prices fell in 1986-7 and State income from coffee sales went from 14 billion to 5 billion Rwandan francs in one year. External debt began to accrue due to troublesome external conditions, existing welfare policies were weighed down due to an increased trade deficit, as well as other economic strife which was then all blamed on a group of traders, merchants, and intellectuals, jobs that were typically held by Tutsi.
In June of 1990, the government implemented a collection of structural adjustment measures after receiving heat from the World Bank and IMF. This resulted in a major hit to Rwanda’s currency value. Following this damage, famine occurred resulting in not only the income of farmers to greatly decrease but the income of the country, as well. Following the fall of coffee prices in 1986-7 Rwanda’s economy took hit after hit. This reality of economic decline in Rwanda corresponds with the greed/grievance theory put forth by Fearon and Laitin, who state that civil conflict is often the result of conditions that favor insurgency like, in this case, poverty (or the threat of pove
rty) and political instability.
Instead of responding in a reparatory manner, working with opposition parties to have funds released by the World Bank, extremist politicians, military officials, in addition to business and media companies focused their energies on genocide as the only solution to their problems.