“…I COULDN’T EVEN KILL A CHICKEN…”
FEMALE PERPETRATORS OF THE 1994 RWANDAN GENOCIDE:
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Robin Lawrie
Thesis submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for:
MA Holocaust & Genocide Studies,
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Thesis supervisor: Dr Kjell Anderson
Date submitted: Wednesday 01 July 2015
Table of
Contents
Abstract
2
Introduction
3
Chapter 1 - Features of a Gendered Society
4
Chapter 2 - The Call to Arms
9
Chapter 3 - Truth & Reconciliation
35
Chapter 4 - Competing Narratives & Sleeping Giants
41
Conclusion
48
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to, through better understanding the role of women as agents of genocide in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, examine precisely how and why the role of Rwandan women has been largely perceived to be outside of the circle of perpetrators when in fact huge numbers of women were complicit in the genocidal policies and actively took part in direct and indirect violence at both high and low levels. Further to this, the dangers of not properly acknowledging the role of women as perpetrators in the process of truth and reconciliation will be explored in order to better inform our understanding of how such processes must work if they are to succeed. To achieve this ambition interviews with female perpetrators convicted of genocide related crimes will be consulted, examples of propaganda examined, theories about women, gender and violence discussed, and recent studies of the topic surveyed.
Introduction
The overwhelming majority of studies of genocidal violence have, when examining the role played by the perpetrators of such violence, focussed solely on men. The role of women in genocide, this study will focus on the Rwandan genocide of 1994, has predominantly been represented as that of the victim. This representation is consistent with traditional gendered perspectives found in most scholarly work on genocide, many established schools of thought relating to gender studies and feminism, and with the traditional role of women in Rwandan society both before and after the genocidal violence. Misunderstandings regarding the role of women in genocide are further reinforced by the role and experience of women in the truth and reconciliation process as well as in depictions throughout the global media. Despite the fact that many women have been indicted and convicted of genocide related crimes the prevailing narrative within and outside of Rwanda, and concerning genocide in general, depicts women as outside of the circle of perpetrators; a victim, a witness, a bystander or perhaps an unwilling accomplice. There is a reluctance to properly elucidate the role that many women played in the Rwandan genocide, it is the purpose of this thesis to not only show how and why this has come to pass but to also examine the potential dangers of not properly understanding, and representing in the process of truth and reconciliation, the role played by a particular perpetrator group.
Any understanding of the full extent and nature of the role of women in the Rwandan genocide is incomplete, and representations inaccurate, if they do not acknowledge the extensive and varied role played by women in the perpetration of violence. During the Rwandan genocide female perpetrators took part in indirect and direct violence and operated in what has come to be known as high and low-level perpetrator roles. Women occupied leadership roles, incited and ordered other men and women to commit acts of murder and barbarism including sexual violence on Tutsi women and children, some women even took part in the rape of Tutsi men and boys. Through better understanding how and why women participate in genocidal violence, as well as how this experience differs to that of male génocidaires, we are able to enhance our knowledge of the process of genocide and the motivations of those involved as well as challenge and explore ideas about gender and patriarchy and how they relate to genocide and violence. Through studying the Rwandan case in more detail it opens up the possibility for further scholarly work comparing the role of women in other examples of genocide which will in turn lead to a better understanding of whether this level of mass female involvement was specific to the conditions in Rwanda or if women are more likely to be involved in political and genocidal violence than previously assumed.
Chapter 1 – Features of a Gendered Society
While this study will focus on the diverse role played by women during the violence of the Rwandan genocide, to properly understand and contextualise these actions an examination of the role and function played by women in Rwandan society is necessary. The time of genocide was, in a similar manner to other example of collective violence, one of social upheaval and exception where normal or ordinary types of behaviour were often abandoned and abnormal extraordinary behaviour adopted. As will be shown despite the extraordinary nature of the situation those Rwandans who were involved in the violence, both male and female, did not collectively reimagine or temporarily implement new social models that would govern their behaviour and allow them to accomplice their deadly goal. Perpetrators of the genocide naturally relied upon and modified the traditional roles historically played by men and women in Rwandan society when planning and implementing the genocide.
Sara Brown, a doctoral student at the Strassler Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, discusses the traditional role of women in Rwandan society. Brown notes that in Rwandan society, ‘women were denied by law the right to inherit land and where female participation in politics was marginal, the notion of female agency depended upon male permission and was limited by what was considered ‘acceptable’ behaviour for a female in the existing social construct.’1 This analysis describes a strongly patriarchal society where women existed largely without agency. While it would be unfair to conclude that all women were without agency and that
all women conformed to their expected role within society, it is clear that the majority of women did
not experience the same degree of autonomy and independence as Rwandan men. This assumption can be easily illustrated by examining the amount of women who held positions in government institutions and positions of social power. Nicole Hogg concludes that this number was indeed very small, she argues that in pre-genocide Rwandan society women with visible and legitimate agency were a tiny minority.2 Hogg, a former legal adviser for the International Committee of the Red Cross, examines a number of Rwandan proverbs that typify traditional attitudes towards women such as ‘a woman’s only wealth is a man’, proverbs such as these further demonstrate that Rwandan women were seen as passive and were necessarily viewed as being unable to commit violent acts such as genocidal massacre.3
1 Brown, Sara E. ‘Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 16, No. 3 (May 2013), pp. 448-69, p. 455
2 Hogg, Nicole. ‘Women’s participation in the Rwandan genocide: mothers or monsters?’, International Review
of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 877 (Mar 2010), pp. 69-102, p. 94
In ‘Loose Women, Virtuous Wives, and Timed Virgins: Gender and the Control of Resources in Rwanda’ social anthropologist Villia Jefremovas provides an example of three women who illustrate the difficulties faced by Rwandan women who wished to express individual agency.4 Jefremovas discusses three particular women, the only three encountered in her study that operated their own large enterprises in Rwanda, and observes the difficulties they and other women have faced in attempting to control wealth and resources as well as gain access to means of production. Through Jefremovas’s study a clear picture emerges of the strict role that the majority of women in pre-genocide Rwandan society were expected to fulfil and the cultural and legal framework which was used to reinforce this patriarchal model.
The loss of lineage rights placed women in a position where they only gained rights to use the means of production through men and they lost the right to control any surplus... … [In Rwanda] women’s wealth and power are defined by the positon of their husbands, lovers or fathers… …Women can, by indirect means, gain considerable power and enjoy substantial wealth, but they cannot easily safeguard that position.5
Jefremovas explains that in order for Rwandan woman to express agency in such a way, to control wealth and power, it would be necessary for them to play the public role of ‘virtuous wives, exemplary widows and dutiful daughters’ but notes the many difficulties that would still face Rwandan women attempting to express agency through the control of local resources.6 Citing the three women who were able to operate large enterprises Jefremovas notes that:
In Rwanda, women have great difficulty laying social claims to rights under the law, because they have few social rights under customary law. In the case of these three women, the capacity to control resources does not automatically confer the unlimited right to control over the income generated… …Mediatrice, Devota, and Vestine are able to control scarce resources and hire labour through the income they generate… …However, their capacity to maintain this position is negotiated through their public roles as wives, daughters and lovers of the men who legally and socially own the enterprises and have ultimate claim over the resources.7
It is in this context that we must attempt to investigate and understand the role that ordinary women played in the violence. Rwandan women were seen as passive and without agency, in this respect when they did commit acts of violence their actions were all the more shocking and therefore not only more likely to be misunderstood, but also more likely to be deliberately misrepresented through a desire to maintain and reinforce traditional gender roles that served to sustain and preserve the patriarchal model to which the majority of those within Rwandan society
4 Jefremovas, Villia ‘Loose Women, Virtuous Wives, and Timid Virgins: Gender and the Control of Resources in Rwanda’, Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, 1991, pp. 378-395
5 Ibid, pp. 390-91 6 Ibid, pp. 384-86 7 Ibid, p. 391
conformed.8 In order to not fall into the trap of allowing commonly held stereotypes and gender bias to affect our conclusions political scientists Ackerly, Stern and True argue that we must ‘study silence’ and that ‘research [regarding female agency] has to rely on methods of deconstruction’.9 Simply put we must go beyond readily available statistics and gendered assumptions if we are to properly assess the role ordinary women can and have played in violence.
Sexual violence directed towards male and female Tutsi became an important tool of the genocidal violence pursued by Hutu extremists such as the Interahamwe and other perpetrators of the genocide. When considering the role that sexual violence and rape played in the violence and the everyday lives of Rwandan women prior to the genocide it becomes clearer still that Rwandan society was organised in a patriarchal manner that allowed men to dominate women in almost all aspects of culture and life. Quoting the Rwandan Ministry of Gender and Promotion of the Family Project, Nicole Hogg observes that:
From a young age, the [Rwandan] girl… …experiences different forms of violence that she does not discuss… ….According to the tradition, physical violence is perceived as a punishment. In most cases, women accept it as such… …The inferior status of woman [and] her ignorance encourage her into submission and expose her to rape and sexual services… …The woman is obsessed by the behaviour that is expected of her. She suffers from a total dependence on her husband.10
Hogg is however keen to point out that, regarding the diverse roles played by women in Rwandan society, the ‘norms are always subject to exceptions’.11 While acknowledging that Rwandan society in the years prior to the genocide was strongly patriarchal and that women in general did suffer from their subservient roles and outmoded notions, by Western standards, regarding the rights of males to physically and sexually assault their spouses and family members, Hogg is confident in her assertion that by 1994 ‘gender relations within the traditional Rwandan family were more equal than is often acknowledged... …more complex than often depicted.’12 It would appear that sexual violence and other methods of male domination and female subjugation did cause many women to exist with very little agency of their own, however, upon closer examination it can be seen that gender roles in Rwandan society were beginning to be addressed and there were examples of women who had already broken away from their traditional roles. As will be discussed the genocide presented an
8 Brown, p. 16
9 Ackerly, B. Stern, M. & True, J. ‘Feminist Methodologies for International Relations’ in: Ackerly, B. Stern, M. & True, J. (eds) True Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 1-16, p. 12
10 Hogg, p.72 11 Ibid, p. 72 12 Hogg, pp. 73-74
opportunity not just for these women who were already subverting gender norms, but for all women to exercise agency in a manner previously not possible.
Lisa Sharlach, professor of women’s and gender studies at the University of Alabama, analyses the role of women as perpetrators rather than victims and believes that, ‘few in the West realise the extent to which women participated in the Rwandan genocide’.13 Brown agrees with this assertion and discusses the gendered lens through which we view violence, she believes that genocide in general is typically characterised as a male crime and that this is particularly true in Rwanda. Brown notes that the Rwandan people’s propensity to make gendered assumptions about female passivity and the role of women means that they are fundamentally unable to comprehend how ‘mothers became monsters’ and have struggled to come to terms with the extent and nature of the role ordinary women played in the genocide.1415 This contradiction – between the way women are viewed in Rwandan society and their actions during the genocidal violence – is highlighted particularly well in interviews with female perpetrators conducted by Adler, Loyle and Globerman in their study focusing on the complex role played by women during the Rwandan genocide. They maintain that there existed a, ‘subtle and complicated interplay between accepting their [women’s] role as homemaker and compliant spouse and, at the same time, forming and acting on political beliefs in making decisions to participate in genocidal activities.’16
Feminist scholars Laura Sjoberg and Caron Gentry, in their excellent work Mothers,
Monsters, Whores, further analyse how and why the narrative regarding the role and agency of
ordinary women as perpetrators of violence in Rwanda has been misunderstood and misrepresented. They conclude that women have been made, ‘invisible but central to [the] genocide’, and explain that the actions of the few high-level perpetrators, such as Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, have been ‘explained-away [as the] exception to the rule of women’s purity’.17 The complex and contradictory role that many women assumed during the genocide is, for many Rwandans, an uncomfortable truth that does not easily fit within the dominant patriarchal narrative and perception of female agency. The view of female perpetrated violence as somehow illegitimate has, as will be discussed, resulted in a tendency to not apply the same degree of scrutiny to the
13 Sharlach, L. ‘Gender and Genocide in Rwanda: Women as Agents and Objects of Genocide’, Journal of
Genocide Research, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1999), pp. 387-99, p. 392
14 Brown, p. 7 15 Brown, pp. 16-17
16 Adler, R. N., Loyle, C. E. & Globerman, J. 2007. ‘A Calamity in the Neighbourhood: Women’s Participation in the Rwandan Genocide’, Genocide Studies and Prevention, Vol. 2, No. 3 (2007), pp. 209-33, p. 222
17 Sjoberg, L. & Gentry, C. Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics, London: Zed Books, 2007, p. 172
actions of female génocidaires and must be considered at all times when making an honest and accurate assessment of the myriad roles played by women during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Chapter 2 – The Call to Arms
This chapter will provide an examination of the level and extent of involvement in the Rwandan genocide by female perpetrators. The traditional narrative surrounding this subject will be explored and compared to the reality of the matter. It will be demonstrated that contrary to traditional perspectives that posit women’s agency within the limited bounds discussed in the previous chapter, female génocidaires participated in the genocide in a variety of ways, committing acts of both direct and indirect violence. The role or ‘ordinary’ women as well as those in leadership roles will be discussed and both groups’ motives will be considered. With the ambition of including a wide variety of accounts from female perpetrators of the genocide, as well as from their victims and survivors, this thesis will source information from several studies whose authors conducted interviews in Rwanda at different times in the years since the genocide. Although these studies all focus on the same perpetrator group, namely Hutu women convicted of genocide related crimes, it is important to note the differences in intent and methodology as well as the academic background of the respective authors who conducted the interviews that will be used to demonstrate how and why women were involved in the 1994 genocidal violence that marked Rwanda and its people.
Lisa Sharlach, Associate Professor and Director of Women's and Gender Studies at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, published a study in the Journal of Genocide Research (1999, 1:3) entitled ‘Gender and genocide in Rwanda: women as agents and objects of genocide’.18 One of the first attempts to elucidate the true extent to which women were involved in the genocidal violence, Sharlach’s study attempts to explain not only how and why women were involved but to put this violence into the context of traditional Rwandan society and it’s deeply engrained gender roles. Through the use of secondary research and interviews with members of several non-governmental organisations including the Association of Widows of the April Genocide (AVEGA), Rwanda Women’s Net, and Pro-Femmes-Twese-Hamwe.19 Glaringly absent from Sharlach’s early study on the role of women as perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide is interviews with women convicted of genocide related crimes. While Sharlach does provide anecdotal evidence of the type, severity and intensity of violence perpetrated by women as well as their motivations and the manner in which they were mobilised she largely relies upon judicious selection of secondary sources and the questionably bias opinions of NGO’s whose interest lies in maintaining the traditional narrative of women as victims and peacemakers rather than killers, looters or even rapists. Despite this lack of direct evidence from perpetrators and, due in large part to the fact her study was published only 5 years after the genocide, little analysis of the manner in which female perpetrators were dealt with 18 Sharlach, Lisa
by the Rwandan government post-genocide, Sharlach provides insightful and useful quotes from Rwandan women that serve to partially explain the process by which women’s agency changed and individuals often exceeded the norms of their prescribed gender roles.
The 2010 study by Nicole Hogg, former legal advisor for the International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘Women’s participation in the Rwanda genocide: mothers of monsters?’, provides much greater detail regarding the role of women as perpetrators and the diverse manner in which they were involved in the Rwandan genocide.20 Hogg’s research includes excerpts from interviews with a variety of NGO’s, government representatives, and a great deal of useful information discovered from her interviews with ’71 detained female genocide suspects’.21 Hogg seeks to understand the violent agency adopted by many women throughout the genocide and makes important distinctions between the role of ‘ordinary’ women and those in leadership positions. While Hogg does identify where her respondents are imprisoned (Kigali, Butare, Gitarama and Nsinda), and when relevant provides detailed information of the crime(s) each respondent has been accused and/or convicted of, we are not given any insight into individual respondents’ name, age, socio-economic background or for that matter any information that may allow us to make further observations regarding the Rwandan women charged with complicity in genocide. Hogg explains the necessary absence of this information as being due to her interviews being ‘conducted under condition of confidentiality’.22 Hogg’s conclusions focus on the role of women who took part in the genocide ‘in the context of gender relations in pre-genocide Rwandan society’, 23 in this respect the focus of her study is concentrated on the question of how and why women ‘participated in the bloodshed’ as well as providing some insight into women’s role post-genocide and their misrepresentation in the process of truth and reconciliation.
The third text which this thesis will draw from and utilise in order to demonstrate the nature and extent of female perpetrators role in the Rwandan genocide was published in the International
Feminist Journal of Politics (2014, 16:3) by Sara E. Brown of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and
Genocide Studies at Clark University.24 ‘Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide’ explores the issue of women as perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide and ‘includes interviews of female perpetrators as well as victims and witnesses of direct violence committed by women’.25 Brown includes in her research 28 interviews personally conducted in Rwanda with a variety of ‘individuals living in Rwanda who could speak about female actors during the Rwandan genocide. Interview 20 Hogg, Nicole 21 Hogg, p. 69 22 Hogg, p. 70 23 Hogg, pp. 101-102 24 Brown, Sara E. 25 Brown, p. 448
participants included community and government stakeholders, incarcerated females serving time in Works for General Interest (TIG) programs, survivors of the genocide and individuals rescued over the course of three trips in 2010, 2011 and 2012.’26 Brown does not identify her respondents, perpetrators and victims, but does provide some detail regarding their geographic location. Her selection of sources, both primary and secondary, are very useful in that they provide a great deal of insight into the wide range of female agency expressed during the Rwandan genocide and the reaction other Rwandans had to this temporary change in social gender norms. Additionally Brown admits to an ‘agenda to insert feminist theory and female agency into the existing narrative and literature [regarding the Rwandan genocide]’ and that her study is ‘rooted in the belief that women are capable of vicious agency during times of violent upheaval.’27 In this respect Brown’s study in general and interviews in specific are useful to this thesis as they provide clear evidence of contradiction between the reality of female involvement in the Rwandan genocide and the traditional narrative preferred by government and people alike.
Although not the only other source of information to be utilised for evidence of the involvement and motivations of Rwandan women, ‘A Calamity in the Neighbourhood: Women’s Participation in the Rwandan Genocide’ by Reva N. Adler, Cyanne E. Loyle and Judith Globerman published in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal (2014, 2:3)28 will provide valuable insights into ‘women’s motivations for active participation [in direct and indirect violence]’.29 Adler et al focus their study on the feelings, emotions, pressures (real and imagined) and third-party actions that contributed towards ‘ordinary’ women choosing or being forced to become perpetrators of mass-violence. While their sample size if relatively small in comparison to other contemporary studies such as the aforementioned work of Nicole Hogg and Sara E. Brown (10 compared to 71 and 28 respectively), Adler et al provide more detailed quotes as well as a great deal of useful information relating to the personality and socio-economic status of each woman interviewed.30 This approach is useful in that greater scope is left for comparative analysis of respondents’ individual motivations and actions. While Adler et al use this information to better understand ‘the roles that young and older women play in catastrophic violence… …[and] what a public-health-based approach to long-range, primary genocide prevention might look like’,31 their study is also useful when discussing, as this thesis will, how and why women’s role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide has been misunderstood and/or misrepresented.
26 Brown, p.453 27 Brown, p. 450 28 Adler et al 29 Adler et al, p. 209
30 For details on the respondents including age, marital status, education and occupation see Adler et al, pp. 215-216
The Dominant Narrative
The conventional and dominant narrative surrounding women’s involvement and role in the Rwandan genocide posits women as victims, of murder as well as of sexual violence, as bystanders, or, in particular cases where irrefutable evidence demonstrates a women’s involvement in genocidal violence, female perpetrators are treated as unique, as monsters, anything but ‘ordinary’. Discussing perspectives on female perpetrators Alette Smeulers determines that the contemporary insight regarding most perpetrators being ‘just very ordinary people… ….is however, limited to men: it seems that the assumption that female perpetrators cannot be ordinary women is still prevalent today.’32 Discussing how the actions of women during the genocide are remembered and understood by Rwandans the Executive Secretary of IBUKA, an umbrella association ‘composed of fifteen member organisations, which work to perpetuate the memory of genocide and provide support to genocide survivors’,33 remarked that ‘it is somehow very difficult for us to understand how a lady can become a killer, as a mother’.34 Brown herself observes that ‘the role of female perpetrators has been muted in the mainstream narrative… … [and] in the perceptions of the Rwandan people’.35 Throughout her interviews with government representatives as well as members of NGO’s and witnesses to the genocide a similar attitude and viewpoint is expressed regarding the actions of women who took part in the genocide. Respondents, in particular those from whom represent the Rwandan government are hesitant to speak about women as perpetrators of violence and, when pushed for details, tend to trivialise or at least minimise the extent to which they understand women to have taken part in the genocide:
Normally in Rwanda we are used to see men doing bad things like killing or fighting and other things. In our culture, women are the people who are, who are peaceful, [and] who respect the people, the things. Actually it’s very strange to hear about women participating in the period.”36
Most of the truth from women we don’t know. We won’t discover all the truth about the participation of women because you see… … this phenomenon, you can’t have someone to testify [about] it, even in Gacaca… … The genocide, it’s not something easy to understand.37 The second respondent aptly demonstrates why the dominant narrative within Rwanda does not properly acknowledge the role of female perpetrators complicit in the genocide. Acknowledging and 32 Smeulers, Alette ‘Female Perpetrators: Ordinary or Extra-ordinary Women?’, International Criminal Law
Review, Vol. 15, 2015, pp. 207-53, p. 229 33 http://survivors-fund.org.uk/what-we-do/local-partners/ibuka/ 34 Quoted in Brown, p. 449 35 Brown, p. 461 36 In Brown, p. 461 37 In Brown, p. 461
publically discussing women taking part in violence and subverting the traditional gender roles discussed in Chapter 2 of this study is, for most Rwandans, simply too great a taboo to discuss. Seeking to further understand how women’s actions during the genocide were understood in the context of Rwanda’s broadly patriarchal society Brown presents an alternative theory explaining why the role of female perpetrators has been misrepresented. She suggests that any violence committed and any temporary change to the strict gender roles experienced by Rwandans was simply that, temporary, and therefore by nature ‘not legitimate and… … not subject to the same critical analysis as male participation in the genocide. This, in turn, influences common narratives of the Rwandan genocide and the role of female perpetrators’.38
Although some in Rwanda would perhaps have preferred to remove all record of women’s involvement in the 1994 genocide some played such a central and well-documented role that they were impossible to ignore. These women, amongst them Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and Valerie Bemeriki, as well as their actions and motivations will be discussed in some detail later in this chapter, our focus here is how women in positions of leadership, power and responsibility have been represented in the dominant narrative surrounding the Rwandan genocide. Nicole Hogg finds that contrary to the reality of their involvement these women have been depicted in two starkly different ways by Rwandans – helpless women with little real power who were dominated by their male colleagues, or aberrations whose personalities were not reflective of the norm and their actions therefore unrepresentative of their gender.39 As evidentiary proof she notes the comments of Venuste Bigirama of The Association of Solidarity between Rwandan Women (ASOFERWA) who argues that, ‘women who held positions of power, who were in the minority, were dominated and influences by men. If there had been more women in power, the atmosphere would have been different and these women could have prevented the others from participating in the genocide’.40 In order to understand how and why female perpetrators have been portrayed as having somehow betrayed their gender we must again consider the position of women in Rwandan society, to accept that women were intrinsically able to organise and take part in such hideous acts of violence would be to contradict deeply embedded assumptions about the innate passivity and peaceful of women as well as the patriarchal dominance enjoyed by males. In order to maintain this narrative women such as Pauline Nyiramasuhuko have regularly been ‘de-gendered and treated as ‘non-women’, since ‘real women’ do not commit crimes, or dehumanised and treated as ‘monsters’, that is, even worse than male offenders’.41 While undoubtedly a successful and popular narrative neither of these 38 Brown, p. 461
39 Hogg, pp. 100-101 40 Hogg, pp. 100-101 41 Hogg, p. 100
explanations for the violent agency evidently expressed by women in leadership roles adequately explains their actions or that of ‘ordinary’ women. Brown describes the mainstream narrative as having fallen into a ‘mental rut’ and explains that, ‘Nyiramasuhuko is unique but only because of her high profile, visibility and position in the government… … Painting her as a deviant anomaly rather than an example of the participation of women during the Rwandan genocide does a great disservice to our understanding of genocide… … It does not explain the elderly grandmother who killer her grandchild or the women who dropped stones into the well [to execute a Tutsi].’42 While examining the true extent and nature of the involvement of women in leadership roles this thesis will demonstrate that predictably these women were neither coerced and dominated or ‘monsters’ who betrayed their gender but complex and varied people with individual as well as overlapping motivations who were capable of both good and evil and expressed differing degrees of agency and support for genocidal policies.
Participation and Perpetration
The involvement of ‘ordinary’ women in the 1994 genocide, the nature of their involvement and the extent to which women were involved in the genocide stands in stark contrast to the traditional narrative discussed above and articulated by the majority of Rwandans. Hogg remarks that ‘the degree to which the male civilian population took part in the genocide is a matter of much speculation, the extent of women’s participation is perhaps even more controversial’.43 Three perspectives are generally expressed which will be labelled the traditional, moderate, and revisionist perspective. The traditional narrative, as discussed, asserts that the overwhelming majority of ordinary women were not involved in the violence in any manner. This perspective can be summarised by three quotes from a female genocide suspect at Butare prison who, despite accusations of her own involvement, claimed that ‘women just stayed at home and cried whenever we heard about people killed’.44 Alice Ndegeya of SERUKA (Association pour la Promotion de la Contribution Active de la Femme Rwandaise au Development) demonstrates the moderate perspective in her estimation that only a ‘minority’ of Rwandan women actively or even passively took part in the genocide.45 What has been labelled the revisionist perspective includes the conclusions of the studies focused upon in this thesis and can be seen in their earliest expression in the African Rights publication of 1995 ‘Rwanda–Not So Innocent: When Women Become Killers’.46 42 Brown, p. 460
43 Hogg, p. 77 44 In Hogg, p. 77 45 Hogg, p. 78
Further interviews conducted have drawn the majority of academics to conclude that, due to reasons that will be discussed in greater detail in chapters 4 and 5, the amount of women who did participate is likely impossible to quantify but it is fair to assume that ‘many is a reasonable, albeit vague and slightly unsatisfactory, term to employ’.47 Furthermore it can be safely concluded that despite the dominant narrative surrounding the event those women who were involved played an important role and were no less complicit in the genocide than their male counterparts. Two interviews with genocide survivors by Lisa Sharlach testify to this fact:
“When Pro-Femmes and all the beautiful women's organizations are saying, “the future of Rwanda is women.” Ah, no, it is not, this is just a joke… …During the genocide, it was horrible. You had women who were killing like men. But also what they were doing was horrible, they were hunting, telling where people were hiding, or going, taking clothes or jewellery from the bodies. Also, what I found was very, very hard, if the women had been in solidarity and organized hiding, then there [would have been] a way. But they didn't even help to hide.”48 “There were some women who were very active in the genocide… … This shows that every time the women is not a, not peaceful;, like we think in our society. In the genocide, when the woman was not able to kill you, they refused yo to go in the house. It was the—every time, it was the woman who refused other women to be in her house. If the husband accepted to put you in the house, the woman refused. If you are going in the bush, near the—they call the militia and say, “She is here!” Women had a great role in the genocide here in Rwanda.”49
With the knowledge that ‘ordinary’ women did play an important role in the Rwandan genocide we can begin to explore who these women were and what their involvement included before going on to make an assessment of their motivations.
While examining the role played by ordinary women who were complicit in the Rwandan genocide this study will compare anecdotal evidence from a variety of sources including those already discussed. Hogg defines ordinary women as, ‘those who did not hold leadership positions or influential roles within the Rwandan media during the genocide…. …. [and] were rarely among the ringleaders of the genocide’.50 Lisa Sharlach observes that, ‘Hutu women from all walks of Rwandan life participated in the killing’,51 and African Rights listed among female perpetrators prostitutes, nuns, medical personnel and schoolgirls.52 A woman convicted of genocide related crimes serving her sentence in Gitarama Prison explained that while, ‘it was mostly men who killed, women who were out in the fields and saw Tutsis hiding called out their hiding spots. Many men and women also stole from dead Tutsis.’53 This explanation provides little in the way of detailed analysis of the roles women 47 Hogg, p. 78 48 Sharlach, p. 392 49 Sharlach, p. 387 50 Hogg, p. 76 51 Sharlach, p. 392 52 African Rights, pp. 214, 155-165, 67 53 Hogg, p. 78
played but does illustrate that in the opinion of this woman at least, female perpetrators were restricted to indirect violence through looting and assisting their male counterparts to search out victims. Another suspect interviewed by Hogg, a Hutu woman who had been married to a Tutsi man at the time of the genocide, provides a great deal more information and a more honest and frank assessment of the extent to which women were involved.
I think the majority of women participated in it, but in ways different to men. Their participation was limited to three aspects:
1. Refusing to hide Tutsis – for the most part, women were not interested in participating in the genocide in a positive sense, but the vast majority did not want to help Tutsis either… 2. Assisting the killers – women assisted the killers by preparing the meals, fetching drinks and encouraging their men. Women brought provisions to the roadblocks and fed their men at home. No women criticised their men for being killers. This was not because they feared their husbands but because they believed in the need to kill Tutsis.
3. Information – women knew a lot. Their eyes were open. In particular, women exposed the hiding places of Tutsis.54
In an interview conducted by Sara Brown with Odette Kayirere, Executive Secretary of
AVEGA, the crimes of ordinary perpetrators are ranked according to frequency and intensity:
1. Exposing those in hiding by ululating when Tutsi were found in order to draw the Interahamwe;
2. Stealing resources and looting; 3. Murdering Tutsis, often children.55
While this interview to some extent corroborates the information provided to authors by female perpetrators it is the only one to include acts of direct violence amongst the principle activities of female perpetrators. It is important however to note that direct violence is ranked lowest in terms of intensity and frequency and that this information is not provided by a perpetrator and therefore the manner in which these observations were made is unknown to the reader. With regard to indirect violence and the role of supporting or assisting the killers as described previously, Adler et al argue that women who created, ‘nurturing environments for husbands, sons, and brothers to rejuvenate from the trauma of mass killing… … may be seen as complicit in this crime.56 It would therefore be accurate to characterise the involvement of ordinary women in the Rwandan genocide as being more likely to commit acts of indirect violence (such as looting) as oppose to direct violence.57 While this characterisation may appear to suggest that the role of female perpetrators was less important or secondary to male perpetrators this is simply not the case, ‘indirect violence is no less dangerous or murderous a crime than direct violence.58
54 Hogg, p. 79 55 Brown, p. 458
56 Adler et al, pp. 227-228
57 For a definition and distinction between direct and indirect violence see Brown, p. 458 58 Brown, p. 459
The traditional narrative surrounding women as perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide suggests that very few women participated in direct violence, this notion is given further credence by examining, as this study has, the gendered society that existed in Rwanda for decades prior to the violence. While there exists a general consensus that those women who did participate as perpetrators generally restricted their actions to looting, revealing hiding spots and supporting men in their activities (indirect violence) there are many examples of ‘ordinary’ women who engaged in direct violence during the Rwandan genocide. An erudite analysis of the various studies available leads us to conclude that enough women admit to or have been reported to have taken place in direct violence during the genocide so as to safely state that they should not be considered an anomaly and labelled as ‘non-women’ as they so often have been. Hogg notes that, ‘the nature of women’s conduct during the genocide was diverse and included directly taking part in the killing… … the number of ‘ordinary’ women who were directly involved in the killing… …. Is such that they should not be considered an aberration.’59 Brown cites, among many examples of interviewed women who freely admit to their involvement in direct violence, the story of an elderly women who murdered her grandson reportedly at the request of her daughter and out of fear that the Interahamwe would kill her entire family if the half-Tutsi infant was discovered.60 These examples attest to the fact that women committed direct violence during the Rwandan genocide but generally cite examples of women who felt forced to commit acts of violence or did so out of an often self-serving desire to save themselves or others, to sacrifice one life for the sake of several more who might die as a result of hiding a Tutsi member of the family, friend or neighbour. It is perhaps not unsurprising that most female perpetrators interviewed, in a similar fashion to their male counterparts, fall short of describing themselves committing acts of butchery and extreme violence and rather prefer to depict themselves as further victims of a pervasive and inescapable evil that consumed the country.
French journalist and author Jean Hatzfield provides evidence that women sometimes, although certainly not with any regularity, took the place of their husbands in the killing fields. Hatzfield quotes Pio, a Rwandan woman convicted of genocide-related crimes and serving prison time in Rwanda, who claims that, ‘there were even healthy men who sent their wives to replace them for a day on the expeditions but that didn’t happen often because it was not legitimate’.61 Adler et al reinforce this perspective observing that not only were female perpetrators responsible for the deaths of many Hutu, ‘women killed directly, with a variety of modern and more traditional
59 Hogg, p. 78 60 Brown, p. 458
weaponry.’62 A respondent who denounced neighbours to the Interahamwe during the genocide confirms that not all women, especially those who were already accustomed to breaking social norms and taboos, were forbidden from taking part in the mass killings:
There were some bad-mannered girls whose friends were Interahamwe. They must have walked together with their Interahamwe boyfriends and thus saw their deeds. When you keep on exchanging ideas with someone, you may find room within yourself to accommodate those ideas. That’s why some women participated in the killings.63
Another respondent provides a detailed and at time harrowing description of her involvement with the Interahamwe and how she came to be a killer:
There came a time when [my husband] tried to sensitize me [to Hutu Power ideology]...I then thought, ‘‘this is going to be difficult for me,’’ but he told me that it was obligatory... …So I agreed to participate. They sent me to a homestead while armed with a rifle and when we surrounded the house I shot...people inside. I regretted it after I killed them. I knew that I had done something wrong and I felt that if I continued killing I would also die. I went home and told my husband how I had decided not to [kill again]… … He told me then, ‘‘If you don’t continue...you will have to die also.’’...Thereafter, I kept the rifle but avoided him.64
Both respondents appear to try and remove or deflect responsibility for their or for female perpetrators in general involvement in direct violence and the genocide despite their admitted involvement over a prolonged period of time with a group already notorious for violence prior to the genocide. This is perhaps to be expected and serves as a reminder that when dealing with testimony and interviews we must always be aware of the nature of each source and any innate bias which might affect the efficacy of the information they provide (thankfully Adler et al have done an excellent job in providing information about their respondents).
As well as involvement in indirect violence such as looting and providing information/support, women also expressed violent agency and committed acts of direct violence either through joining or being coerced by the Interahamwe. Apart from this there is one other notable example of how female perpetrators, ordinary women, were involved in direct violence during the Rwandan genocide. This form of violence is described by Brown as being, ‘glaringly absent from the supra-narrative of the Rwandan genocide… …due to notions of masculinity that dominate Rwanda’s gender paradigm.’65 Janvier Forongo, the Executive Secretary of IBUKA advises that there have been, ‘a number of reported instances [in which] women forced young Tutsi boys to have sex with them out of a desire for revenge and to dishonour the victims.’66 Brown recounts the story of an 62 Adler et al, p. 212
63 Adler et al, p. 223 64 Adler et al, pp. 223-224 65 Brown, p. 459
anonymous victim of female-perpetrated gang rape who was subjected to three days of abuse while drugged and tied to a bed, the victim asserts that he was not alone in having experienced female-perpetrated rape and that he felt great shame for having been a victim in this manner: ‘It was so shameful. Very, very shameful… … To be raped is something unusual. It’s unbelievable.’67 Why these experiences are absent from the traditional narrative of the Rwandan genocide are perhaps obvious; rape is, in particular in Rwanda, seen to be experienced exclusively by women and any male cast as the victim would, rather than receiving sympathy, understanding and support, more than likely be stigmatised, de-masculinised and possibly even ostracised from their community. The idea alone that Rwandan women are capable of violence, let alone sexual violence, is an insult to many Rwandans, the thought that Rwandan women are anything but the victims of sexual violence does not find any room in the common narrative. The fact that were still women actively involved in Hutu extremism, including committing murder, has done very little to change this opinion.68
Women in leadership roles and positions of responsibility played an important part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi. Amongst the 2,202 Category One genocide suspects related to the Rwandan genocide, 47 are women.69 Category one suspects as related to Rwanda are defined by Human Rights Watch as, ‘those responsible for leading and instigating the genocide, well-known killers, and rapists’.70 If one is to accept the traditional narrative regarding the Rwandan genocide or look at the role of most women prior to the genocide 47 female category one suspects is a surprisingly large number. It is therefore necessary to examine how many women were in positions of responsibility during the genocide and examine some notable examples of women who held positions of great power and influence. In the position of Prefect or Bourgemestre, a position of considerable importance and responsibility with regard to the implementation of the genocide, as expected due to the still largely patriarchal character of Rwanda society no women were employed by the Rwandan government. Out of 1472 Conseillers who operated on a sector level at the beginning of the genocide, 17 were women which equates to 1.2% of the total – hardly enough to control policy or to have prevented genocide but certainly not an insignificant number and very much a contradiction to the notion that women did not hold positions of responsibility and were restricted to the home.71 Lisa Sharlach provides anecdotal evidence to suggest that these women were Further down the hierarchy of responsibility we can begin to see that more and more women 67 Brown, p. 459
68 Sharlach, p. 393; African Rights, Rwanda: The Insurgency in the Northwest, London: African Rights, 1996, p. 6
69 Hogg, p. 90
70 Human Rights Watch, ‘Rwanda: Justice After Genocide – 20 Years On’, 28 March 2014, Available online: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/28/rwanda-justice-after-genocide-20-years [Accessed: 06 May 2015] 71 ‘Rapport National du Rwanda aux Nations Unies pour la Quatrième Conférence Mondiale sur les Femmes, Beijing, September 1995’, Kigali, 1995, p. 15
were attaining positions of responsibility and influence, although exact figures are not available for women who occupied the position of Responsable, an administrative leader with responsibility for the cell level, Nicole Hogg notes that through anecdotal evidence it can be surmised that female
Responsables were commonplace at the time of the genocide.72
Of all the women who participated in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, former Minister of Family and Women Affairs, is the most infamous and perhaps most revealing example. Nyiramasuhuko is the only woman to be indicted by the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on charges relating to genocide and crimes against humanity,
she was convicted and found guilty on 24 June 2011.73 Nyiramasuhuko, along with her son, was actively involved in the organising, implantation and incitement of violence including murder and rape. She is an example of the murderous and destructive potential of the indirect violence that characterised much of female perpetrators involvement in the genocide, Brown describes how Nyiramasuhuko, ‘did not need to directly lift a machete and kill to be guilty of acts of violence… … she ordered and supervised abductions, detentions, murder, rape and torture that were perpetrated by the Interahamwe and her son.’74 Witnesses testifying at Nyiramasuhuko’s trial characterise a woman completely convinced of and committed to the Hutt power ideology and genocidal policies, a women who acted with extreme brutality who was resolute in her determination to humiliate as well as murder the Tutsi, in particular Tutsi women:
Nyiramasuhuko’s victims were reportedly often forced to undress completely before being taken to their deaths and numerous individuals claim that the former minister incited, witnessed, and even ordered the rapes of some of these women, including by her son… …One witness claims that the Minister told the killers that they ‘needed to rape all Tutsi women because they are arrogant’, and that after this statement, some girls were immediately raped and killed…. … the militia she [Nyiramasuhuko] was supervising chose women for gang rapes and girls they sequestrated to make them their wives.75
What motivated Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, why did she take on such an influential and practical role during the genocidal violence that swept across Rwanda? Quoting ICTR investigator Maxwell Nicole Hogg states that Nyiramasuhuko, ‘was convinced by the propaganda… … The myth of the beautiful, arrogant Tutsi woman led to jealousy… … and an inferiority complex.’76 Such motives hardly do justice to image of a ‘monster’ that has often been attributed to women in leadership roles and in particular Nyiramasuhuko. Her defence walked a well-worn path by, unsuccessfully, 72 Hogg, p. 94
73 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, Judgement and Sentence, pp. 1455-56
74 Brown, p. 459
75 Nyiramasuhuko Amended Indictment, para. 6.37; Witness No. 44 (QBP) quoted in Hogg, p. 92 76 Hogg, p. 93
attempting to characterise Nyiramasuhuko as a typical Rwandan woman and mother, somebody with little real agency and ‘no real power’ in government to whom violence was repulsive, even impossible.77 Her defence team describe Nyiramasuhuko as ‘very nice, a mother hen’,78 and in an infamous BBC interview in 1995 Nyiramasuhuko herself contended that, ‘I [Pauline Nyiramasuhuko] couldn’t even kill a chicken. If there is a person who says that a woman, a mother, could have killed… I am ready to confront that person.’79 As will be discussed in the following chapters female perpetrators in leadership roles as well as ordinary women have used this defence strategy with varying success, it has helped to influence and shape the narrative surrounding female perpetrators which depicts women as either the ‘mother’ that Nyiramasuhuko claimed to be or the ‘monster’ she was characterised as throughout her trial and as a result of her conviction.
The widow of former President Habyarimana, Agathe Kanziga, fled Rwanda seeking refuge in France soon after the genocide began and to this day has not been extradited to face charges related to the planning and implementation of the Tutsi genocide. Kanziga is accused of being heavily involved in the creation of two important and influential tools – the extremist radio station Radio
Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) and the newspaper Kangura – which were utilised to
indoctrinate, radicalise and mobilise Hutu men and women. Kanziga also stands accused of organising the creation and training of the Interahamwe as well as creating and distributing assassination lists containing the names of prominent opposition political personalities including the Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana.80 Despite being described as having played a ‘dominant role’ and being ‘among the hardcore of this group [the elite group of Rwandan leaders named the Akuza or Little House who planned and implanted the genocide]’, Kanziga, in a similar manner to Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, has opted to defend herself against such serious allegations by claiming ignorance to the planning of the genocide and characterising herself as a woman of no real power, somebody who merely performed ‘classic functions of protocol and representation… …she also stressed her role as mother of eight children, claiming to have passed her time preparing meals for her family and taking care of the garden and livestock.’81
Another female génocidaire in a position of political responsibility who disrupts the traditional narrative regarding the involvement of women in the Rwandan genocide occupied the position of Conseiller in Muhima sector. Witnesses testified to the fact that Euphrasie Kamatamu assisted in the implementation of roadblocks in Muhima Sector and, in partnership with her son, 77 Hogg, p. 93
78 Hogg, p. 93
79 Hazeley, Josephine, ‘Profile: Female Rwandan killer Pauline Nyiramasuhuko’, BBC NEWS, 24 June 2011, Available online: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13907693 [Accessed: 10 January 2014]
80 Hogg, pp. 90-91 81 Hogg, p. 91
patrolled the roadblocks, took part in the inspection and looting of murdered Tutsi and ordered the execution of at least one man.82 Kamatamu argued a familiar defence claiming that she was innocent of all charges, that she had no real power and was therefore unable to stop the genocide or prevent the Interahamwe from killing Tutsi in Muhima sector.83 Tried and convicted as a category one genocide suspect Kamatamu failed in her attempts to convince the courts of her innocence, despite her protestations that she, ‘gave out guns to the citizens to protect themselves, but not to kill Tutsis’, the courts ruled that Kamatamu had ‘directed the massacres in the Muhima sector [against] Tutsis and so-called accomplices, victims who were executed as soon as they were discovered, which brought the whole of Muhima to fire and blood.’84
The degree to which RTLM and Kangura influenced male and female perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide is a subject of some debate, their particular influence on women will be discussed in greater detail when discussing the motivation and mobilisation of ordinary women. One of the most prominent presenters on RLTM was Valerie Bemeriki and although she did not take part in any direct violence and did not hold a position of political responsibility she demonstrates another aspect of indirect violence that was instrumental in perpetration of the Rwandan genocide. Brown asserts that, ‘the radio station’s staff [were] instrumental in mobilising violence, they were a necessary element of the implementation of genocide… … [and] they were all the more necessary in order to propagate and spread the genocide throughout the nation.’85 Human Rights Watch note that Bemeriki ‘repeatedly incited violence’,86 while African Rights cite opinions that Bemeriki and other women were, ‘Some of the most racist Milles Collines broadcasters’,87 it is clear to see that Valerie Bemeriki is another example of women who not only actively took part in the Tutsi genocide but in reality played an influential role in the violence.
Labelling women in leadership roles as having been exceptions to the rule of female passivity does a disservice to the truth. There were very few women who occupied position of power in Rwanda, it would appear that these women were as susceptible to the Hutu Power ideology and propaganda as their male counterparts and just as likely to be involved in the genocidal violence. This state of affairs suggests to this author at least that the 1994 Rwandan genocide was a time where many women broke, at least temporarily, the social norms of their gendered society by expressing violent agency, or, that these women continued to operate within the confounds of their gender’s 82 African Rights, Rwanda–Not So Innocent: When Women Become Killers, London: African Rights, 1995, p. 23, pp. 134-142
83 Hogg, p. 95; African Rights, Rwanda–Not So Innocent, p. 8 84 Both quoted in Hogg, p. 95
85 Brown, p. 459
86 Human Rights Watch, Leave None to Tell the Story, New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999, p. 678 87 African Rights, 1995, p. 148
expected behaviour, but, during this extreme episode of violence the boundaries of what was deemed necessarily acceptable temporarily shifted. The latter hypothesis would mean that those women who committed acts of direct violence such as murder, assault or rape, are the only female génocidaires who acted outside of Rwanda’s gender norms and the group who one would expect to be demonised post-genocide and in the dominant narrative. This view is best expressed by Victor Karega of the Rwandan Ministry of Gender, Family, and Social Affairs who is quoted by Sharlach as stating that, ‘we understand that [women guilty of indirect violence] to some extent. Because the genocide that occurred in Rwanda was planned and organised by the national machinery… … it was somehow [seen] as a duty’.88 Adler et al argue that those women who ‘passively’ took part in the genocide by ‘cheering killers on, looting property, and denouncing victims… … conducted themselves within the limits forged during the 1973 pogroms. While remaining within traditional gender norms… … these women nevertheless lent support to the eliminationist Hutu Power agenda’.89 Although it is true, as Nicole Hogg argues, that, ‘Traditional notions of appropriate gendered behaviour nevertheless limited and shaped women’s participation in the bloodshed… ... [and] influenced responses to that participation’,90 it is not only women in leadership roles and those who committed acts of direct violence who have been demonised. Rwandans have struggled to accept the role of women as perpetrators even when their behaviour was consistent with gender norms during the genocide. A respondent from the study undertaken by Adler, Loyle and Globerman who restricted her activities to those deemed to be acceptable during the 1973 pogroms and in line with the experiences of many other women observed that she still received a great deal of scorn from her community when her involvement was revealed:
When I went back home, my mother asked me if I wasn’t feeling bad about things that I did in [the genocide]...and I told her that I never did anything bad...I don’t know what they think now. Perhaps they think that I lied to them, [because] they don’t come to see me.91
This refusal to properly acknowledge or discuss the role women played in the genocidal violence will undoubtedly have a negative impact on Rwanda and its people, the reasons why the actions of female perpetrators have been misrepresented and ignored in the mainstream narrative and perspectives on the dangers this may cause to the delicate process of post-conflict truth and reconciliation will be reviewed in chapters 5 and 6 of this thesis.
Motivation and Mobilisation
88 Sharlach, pp. 392-39389 Adler et al, p. 222 90 Hogg, pp. 101-102 91 Adler et al, p. 224
In order for the Tutsis genocide to be properly implemented and in order to ensure a culture of impunity for those involved in the violence the Akazu required the support and involvement of all Hutu, including women.92 Although many convicted female génocidaires, in particular those convicted of crimes related to instances of indirect violence including revealing hiding spots to the
Interahamwe, claim to feel ‘very little moral responsibility’ and do not ‘view themselves as criminals’,
they were an integral part of the genocide and the majority must have been aware that they were complicit in a grave crime, or a part of a necessary undertaking, depending on their perspective.93 As will be shown female perpetrators were similar to their male counterparts, their motivations were as varied and individual as their actions and not easy to neatly summarise.9495 Adler et al and Hogg both attempt to provide a framework to understand and explore the motives of women involved in genocidal violence in Rwanda. This study will examine those two frameworks and assess their usefulness with regard to not only understanding why female perpetrators were involved in the violence but discovering how and why this role was misunderstood and the potential dangers this presents.
Adler et al take a detailed approach to presenting the anecdotal evidence gathered from their respondents, through comparing and contrasting each of their ten respondents’ answers they are able to synthesis a simple explanation for the motivations of female génocidaires that factors in the changing effect (before, during and post-genocide) of environmental themes such as informed beliefs and the consequences of rapid militarisation on prevalent and personal attitudes towards Tutsi men and women. Adler et al argue that female perpetrators experienced one or more of, ‘four experiential pressures that shaped their choices to participate in the 1994 genocide: (1) a disaster mentality; (2) fear of the new social order; (3) confusion or ambivalence about events on the ground; and (4) consonance and dissonance with gender roles.’96 It is noted that due to the environmental themes and the differing nature of each perpetrator, ‘the unique combination of these factors that motivated each female genocide participant in Rwanda in 1994 would shift and evolve with new situations.’97
The ‘disaster mentality’ that influenced many women’s participation in the genocide was brought on by the destruction of President Habyarimana’s plane and the ensuing state of crisis that followed. Adler et al argue that, A large proportion of female respondents describe knowing that 92 Lemarchand, René, ‘The Rwanda Genocide’ in: Totten, Parsons & Charny eds. Century of Genocide:
Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, London: Garland Publishing, 1997, p. 413
93 Hogg, p. 80 94 Hogg, p. 83
95 For a brief explanation of the varied motivations of male génocidaires see Strauss, Scott. The Order of
Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda, New York: Cornell University Press, 2006, pp. 95-96
96 Adler et al, p. 209 97 Adler et al, p. 215
something devastating had happened not only to their country but also to their communities and their everyday lives.’98 For some Hutu women this sense of devastation brought on by the loss of their leader manifested itself as feelings of nerves, despondency and hopelessness, whereas others describe feeling a sense of anger and injustice, a need for retribution and revenge:
I heard on the radio how the plane was shot down, that citizens weren’t supposed to scatter and a curfew was imposed...After hearing this, I never left home, thinking that if I did I would die, leaving my kids to be orphans, which wouldn’t have been the right thing to do.
We were really sad because we had lost our president, who was so important to us...and we were revenging his death… … when the president died we felt as if they [Tutsis] were in one way or another responsible...People really hated Tutsis because everyone knew that they were in support of Inkotanyi. We thought that Tutsis would all be killed, and that nothing would happen afterwards, that no one would be punished for having killed them.99
It is clear that some, although not all, Hutu women felt the effects of this ‘disaster mentality’ and for some, including the second respondent quoted above, this motivated them to if not take actively take part in the violence, certainly support the Interahamwe in their endeavour to murder the Tutsi.
Fear played a large part in the motives of those women who were complicit in the violence of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Although fear of the Tutsi was an influential factor much of the fear expressed by respondents was directed towards the Interahamwe and the chaos and violence they were creating across the country. Many feared being associated with the Tutsis whereas others did not believe that Hutu were safe from the militia either. Fear pervaded all aspects of life as ordinary tasks involved in running the household such as collecting water and obtaining food became dangerous excursions where women risked encountering bloodthirsty killers many of which had no concern with murdering or raping Hutu women despite their having not supported the Tutsi or RPF. One respondent commented that the violence continued unabated for so long due to fear of the social order, ‘I think [people] were afraid to stop the killings, fearing to be associated with Tutsis.’100 Another female perpetrator interviewed by Adler et described how a soldier whom she knew lent her a military shirt and made sure she did not collect water on her own, ‘I put that shirt on every time I needed to fetch water. I always went with his people. Sometimes, it was very hard to pass depending on which Interahamwe were on the road.101 The respondents provide a useful insight into what life in Rwanda was like for many Hutu men and women during the genocide but they do not fully explain why many women condemned other women to die by exposing their hiding spots or chose to loot the bodies of their murdered Tutsi sistren. Hogg goes into greater detail regarding the 98 Adler et al, p. 219
99 Adler et al, p. 219 100 Adler et al, p. 220 101 Adler et al, p. 220
role of fear as a motive for female génocidaires and her analysis will be discussed after exploring the remainder of the framework provided by Adler et al.102
Many respondents that took part in the study of female perpetrators by Adler et al describe a confusion or ambivalence that was felt regarding the reality of the genocide as it happened. While some claim that it was difficult to obtain information about what was happening ‘on the ground’ others express frustration and fear regarding the contradictions they encountered while all the while trying to better understand what was actually happening. One respondent, a student convicted of leading the Interahamwe to a house where victims were hiding, spoke about not being able to obtain information from places like bars as, ‘in Rwandan culture, no woman can spend a night in a bar’, and not understanding how Tutsi children she had known and grown-up with were now enemies of the state, ‘People kept saying that Tutsis were state enemies, but there was nothing, either in or conversations or our daily lives, proving it was true.’103 Adler et al further explain and provide quotes from their interviews to demonstrate how many women felt their involvement in the violence was, ‘haphazard or situational, rather than informed by thoughtful deliberation or strongly held views.’104 Many of these women expressed feeling coerced, tricked or threatened into their involvement, a view expressed by some of those interviewed by Hogg who blamed ‘errors of judgement’ for their involvement.105 Again we must question if these women are admitting to the full extent of their responsibility or telling a story that reflects on them in the best possible light and does not depict them breaking social norms and engaging in behaviour outside of the Rwandan woman’s normal gender role.
The last component to the framework provided by Adler et al is labelled ‘Consonance and Dissonance with Gender-Based Expectations’ includes the motivations of some women who ‘participated deliberately and with conviction’ and is explained thusly:
The ambient themes that conditioned Rwandan women to participate willingly in the genocide, as discussed above and elsewhere, include destructive ideology, rapid militarization of civil society, fear of extremist governance, greed, and overpowering social upheaval. Men and women alike were caught up in the ‘total environment’ imposed by these mutually reinforcing factors… … Women describe being influenced by a subtle and complicated interplay between accepting their role as homemaker and compliant spouse, and, at the same time, forming and acting on political beliefs in making decisions to participate in genocidal activities.106
102 For more information and anecdotal evidence of the role of fear as a motive see Hogg, pp. 83-86 103 Adler et al, pp. 220-221
104 Adler et al, p. 221 105 Hogg, p. 88
