The perpetual, neglected conflicts

(1)

The perpetual, neglected conflicts

A comparative study of ethnic tolerance in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda post civil war and genocide  

Author: Medina Sobo

Supervisor: Emil Uddhammar Examiner: Martin Nilsson Semester: HT20

Subject: Political Science Level: G3/C

Course code: 2SK31E

Bachelor’s thesis

Kalmar Växjö

(2)

Abstract

This study aims to examine Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda's tolerance and reconciliation processes after the conflicts by answering the research question 'How can we explain the similarities and differences between Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda’s reconciliation processes in terms of ethnic tolerance among its inhabitants post civil war and genocide?'. An explanatory theory based on Brounéus’ perspectives and recommendations on reconciliation is used throughout the study. The main findings are that both countries have had diverse approaches and have not fulfilled the requirements for achieving ethnic tolerance and reconciliation.

Key words

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, ethnic tolerance, reconciliation, civil war, ethnicity, identity, genocide

(3)

Definition of terms

Ethnicity: “The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition” (Oxford Dictionaries 2018). In Rwanda it is social status that determines the ethnic group, whereas religion determines the ethnicity in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Mamdani 2001:45; Berry 2018:105).

Bosnian-Herzegovinian: The citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, regardless of ethnicity (Mahmutćehajić 2000:18-19).

Bosniak: The Muslim inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Counts as an ethnic group of the country (ibid; Berry 2018:105).

Bosnian Croat: The Roman Catholic inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Counts as an ethnic group of the country (ibid).

Bosnian Serb: The Christian Orthodox inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Counts as an ethnic group of the country (ibid).

Hutu: A Rwandan ethnic group based on historical social divisions. Forms the majority of the population (Mamdani 2001:44).

Tutsi: A Rwandan ethnic group based on historical social divisions. The victims of the 1994 genocide (ibid).

Twa: The indigenous people of Rwanda. Counts as a minority group of the country (ibid).

Entity: In this study, the term defines a geographically divided territory that has its own independent existence. Entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1) The

Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and 2) Republic of Srpska. Also 3) Brčko District, even though it qualifies as a district (DEI 2012; DPA 1995:47-48). 

(5)

List of abbreviations

DPA: Dayton Peace Agreement

FBiH: Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina

ICTR: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IRMCT: International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals MRND: National Revolutionary Movement for Development RPF: Rwandan Patriotic Front

RS: Republic of Srpska

SFRY: Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia OHR: Office of the High Representative 

(6)

1. Introduction

“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

– Martin Luther King¹

The 20^thcentury was an exceedingly eventful era, which is the least one can say about Europe and Africa at this period of time. In Europe, new empires took place and expanded in different territories, great wars occurred, new nations were born, along with many other happenings. In Africa, many of the once colonized countries in the continent became independent which lead to numerous new nations that built up their countries and its new political arena (Miller 1995:119).

Admittedly, the conversions of countries that gain independence generally starts with disorders in many forms that could turn into chaos, and putting communities to risk (Ray 2016:800).

Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda are two countries that are so far geographically from each other, but very close in history for its brutal past. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a relatively young country on the Balkan peninsula located in Southern Europe. It has a rich history, being a part of different empires such as the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well as being located between the Roman Catholic-west and the Christian Orthodox-east, showing great diversity among its residents (Berry 2018:105; Velikonja 2003:185-186). In the middle of the 20^thcentury, South Slavic countries formed a union that is known as the Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Nevertheless, the union fell in ruins in the 1990s after tragic conflicts between its people that divided the territories once again. The multicultural Bosnia-Herzegovina proclaimed its independence and was in carnage for four years, which was stated as the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II (Donais 2005:8, 103). The aftermath resulted in a peace agreement that was declared in 1995 that divided the country into two parts of ethnic principle and made the country’s political

(7)

system extremely severe and complex. This political division equaled a division among the country’s residents as well (Landguiden 2018 [1]; PABH 2009).

Republic of Rwanda, on the other hand, was once a colonized country in Africa that gained its independence from Belgium in 1961. The country has mostly been inhabited by two ethnic groups and its indigenous people that were each prioritized and favored by the colonizers at different points of time in history, which continuously led to divisions and conflicts between the groups that eventually resulted in a daunting genocide in the 1990s. After the civil war, reconciliation between the ethnic groups has been operated constitutionally and somehow in practice, despite the fact that the country still is marked by the genocide. However, Rwanda is going towards a more authoritarian direction that does not allow an opposition which might break the tolerance among its people once again (Landguiden 2018 [2]; HRW 2017).

Most wars in history have been fought between different countries; nevertheless, internal divisions between different groups of people in a country can cause conflicts that might escalate into a civil war. The fragility dilates in these situations —more than in wars between different countries— as the civil wars tear the country and its people apart. In worst case scenarios, the groups in conflict can feel so much animosity towards each other that a desire grows to eliminate the other, and genocide comes to pass. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda went through that path, and their fates came to change the future of their nations.

Tolerance and reconciliation are great factors to peace-making between parties and people, but it raises questions on how it should be implemented in post- conflict countries and whether it can succeed at all.

(8)

1.1. Problem formulation

Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda have been overshadowed in today’s historical education; that is first and foremost their history, but also their current political situations. The countries’ brutal and slightly similar history both occurred almost simultaneously which today, years later, is interesting to look into on account of the groups of people that were in conflict and their current relationship post civil war. Accordingly, what will be examined is how tolerance among the people in each of the countries have developed post civil war —and most importantly, why that is— to thereafter discuss similarities and differences, and also possible reasons for the diverse outcomes in regard to the countries’ history and reconciliation processes. Thus, these cases can provide a broader perspective and understanding on the concepts of reconciliation and tolerance.

1.2. Aim and research questions

The aim of this study is to compare Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda’s ethnic tolerance after the 1990s’ civil wars and genocides among the residents of each country, to thereafter examine if one reconciliation process succeeded more than the other and why that is.

In regard to the purpose of this study, the research question, along with two sub- questions that will help answering the research question, are the following:

How can we explain the similarities and differences between Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda’s reconciliation processes in terms of ethnic tolerance among its inhabitants post civil war and genocide?

• How was the political situation and the relationship between the ethnic groups pre civil war and genocide, and what is the current position of the countries?

• What actions have been taken and implemented by respective country to attain reconciliation in terms of ethnic tolerance?

(9)

1.3. Demarcation

To being able to continue with this study in a correct way, it needs to be delimited. The matter concerns looking at Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda in their present state of tolerance post civil war and genocide. It is important to understand the limitations of studying the factors that influence today's situation in both countries; due to this, the research will only focus on the social tolerance between the ethnic groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda - which from this point will be mentioned in the generic term ethnic tolerance. The intention to this is that it focuses on the ethnic attribute and not other groups in the society suffering from lack of social tolerance in various forms. Such other groups could for instance be of gender, LGBTQ, and professional characteristics. Also, other aspects in political system, internal and external relationships will not be used as subjects of comparison. When following this, fulfilling the aim of this study will be possible as the focus lays on tolerance between the ethnic groups which is important since they were catalysts for the civil wars and genocides that occurred. The possibility to receive a general explanation to whether or not a country is more successful in their reconciliation process than the other and why that would be the case is given when using these demarcations.

It is clear that there are other possible theories and perspectives that could have been presented than the ones that will be presented in this study. Conducting a statistical study by collecting data from value studies, surveys, or interviews would have been a preferable way to really dig into the subject and give clear results. Nevertheless, the time is limited, and there are some important units missing out in either one or the other country which then makes it more preferable to make an analysis of the findings.

(10)

2. Theoretical framework

This section will present previous research on the concept of tolerance and reconciliation that will explain the steps towards achieving tolerance between the ethnic groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda. By that means, it will help with the findings of the study in accordance to the research questions. A summary of the theoretical background will be reviewed at the end of this chapter which will be implemented and pervaded through this examination.

2.1. Ethnicity and nationality

First and foremost, it is important to know the differences between ethnicity and nationality that are two terms that might be of a confusing kind.

David Miller argues in his book On Nationality how this is understandable due to the fact that the terms are of common type as they involve a group of people identifying with one another (1995:19-21). To easily explain the differences between them, the people of an ethnic group share a common recognition with elements such as language, religion, history, inheritance, and culture. Nationality, on the other hand, originate from a group of people being native to a specific state or geographical area; however, nationality can also derive from an ethnic community that becomes a natural source for national identity (ibid).

2.2. Tolerance

Tolerance, toleration, being tolerant; what this concept is meaning and being encompassed by as discourse can be interpreted in different ways.

Tolerance is a phenomenon that is getting more frequently used in political- and social sciences. Erik Lundberg stresses in Mechanisms of Tolerance: an Anthology how this elusive concept is one of the most argued ideas within research in social sciences. Nevertheless, it is possible to point out principal dimensions of the concept by pointing out various instances on how it can be defined (2017:12).

(11)

Interposing to begin with, the general stance of tolerance is closely related to the liberal ideology where tolerance is seen as a fundamental value. Accomplishing the liberal position on tolerance is of course not that easy. In contrast to this ideology fully accepting broad diversity of lifestyle choices, it does not tolerate the intolerable. This reasoning is most willingly applicable to laws that are restricting freedom of speech, for instance. On one hand, it is fine for one to express their religious beliefs; however, this is not acceptable if the beliefs arouse ill-willing and prejudice towards those who do not comply with the beliefs (Heywood 2012:34-35). Also, liberal principles include not allowing intrusion into the private sphere; a government searching for control of its people would be to oppose these principles (ibid :29, 31).

Lundberg continues explaining how the concept of tolerance usually concerns the diversity in a society of groups of people sharing a particular identity of race, ethnicity, religion, culture, or social class. In political science, the term indicates that the society without discrimination accepts others’ political views, faith, and ethnicities than those who are currently dominating. However, a distinction can be drawn between political- and social tolerance; the political having to do with individuals’ political rights such as participating in elections, freedom of expression and other matters in political life, whereas the social focuses more on individuals’ and group of individuals’ relationship between each other (2017:14).

Moreover, Lundberg keeps naming tolerance as an objective, broad-minded, and fair attitude toward those whose views, faith, practices contrasts from one's own;

including differences in cultural, racial, and ethnic origins (ibid :8-9).

Discussing the importance of tolerance could be due to societies that have raised concerns and xenophobia towards different groups of foreign people coming to settle in their communities. Refugee migration is a clear example of this, where it has been visible in the past few years how people refuge their homes that have become war zones to seek peace in another country; in most cases far from their homes (ibid :7-8).

(12)

UNESCO established the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance in 1995. It acknowledges several elaborated articles to promote tolerance in societies; these are the meaning of tolerance, state level, social dimensions, education, and commitment (1995:71-72). The meaning of tolerance according to UNESCO is divided into four perspectives:

1. “Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.”

2. “Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others.”

3. “Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law.”

4. “[…] accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.” (1995:71)

The declaration observes and enlightens ways to oppose intolerance. By requiring law enforcement, education, access to information, local solutions, and individual awareness, tolerance and reconciliation is achievable (UN [n.d.] [1]).

2.3. Reconciliation 2.3.1. Definition

According to Cambridge Dictionary, 'reconciliation' is unraveled as “a situation in which two people or groups of people become friendly again after they have argued” and “the process of making two opposite beliefs, ideas, or situations agree” (Cambridge Dictionary [n.d.]). In other words, reconciliation is when two or more parties in dispute unite and restore previous friendly relations. The basic idea of reconciliation comes from divinity, where Christianity, for instance, believes that the concept of reconciliation is between God and humanity through Jesus. However, the idea is viewed differently in various faiths (Brounéus 2003:21).

(13)

Reconciliation can be viewed as both a goal and a process; the goal is the ambition of achieving, and the process is the method used to attain that goal.

Determining a reconciliation process is the indispensable way to work towards that goal (Bloomfield et al. 2003:12). An evident factor to planning a reconciliation process comes from the historical events and the relations of the various groups divided in the society; also the groups’ perceptions —equal as different— of what occurred in the past are as significant (ibid :40).

Karen Brounéus is an associate professor in peace and conflict research at Uppsala University. Her research focuses on truth and reconciliation processes post domestic armed conflicts (UU [n.d.]). Brounéus has made publications commissioned by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) with the purpose to increase knowledge in the general notion of reconciliation and the importance of development cooperation in process of it in societies of post-conflict countries. Her report Reconciliation - Theory and Practice for Development Cooperation introduces an overview of reconciliation and views on development actions in the processes of post-conflict countries (2003:1, 3).

2.3.2. Reconciliation in different perspectives and methods

Brounéus stretches various perspectives to the reconciliation process whose aim is to explore key issues concerned of each aspect. These are religious, socio- cultural, and political perspectives.

The religious perspective is, again, the perception of God and humanity reconciling due to human sins. This perspective stretches today the importance of giving people the freedom to practice their specific religious customs and respecting others’ faiths (Brounéus 2003:21). As in the religious perspective, the socio-cultural aspect focuses on the importance of giving people room to practice their culture. Likewise, it explores cultural or traditional methods for reconciliation by identifying the cultural dimensions of the conflict (ibid :22-23).

(14)

The political aspect of reconciliation stresses how states or institutions that have been an actor in an internal conflict handles the reconciliation process. Denoting peace could be one political act for reconciliation by officially apologizing (ibid : 26).

Brounéus continues mentioning actors responsible for the reconciling that are carved up into three various levels:

- Top-level: Strong, respected leaders are often seen in the top-level methods for reconciliation, as well as international and domestic criminal tribunals for legal justice in the area of conflict. This level is important as actors that hold themselves accountable could be a great factor for reconciliation, along with punishment for crimes that are considered here.

- Middle-range: This method includes media and the truth commissions. This could perhaps be the most important level as it balances the other two levels and can make a huge impact on both of them. For instance, media plays a major role in the population in conflict’s conduct and attitudes; also, the truth commissions have an impact on the society

- Grassroots: The people are to reconcile are in this level. Examples for work are supporting and recognizing local methods for reconciliation and meetings for leaders that are in the groups of conflict (2003:4-5).

2.3.3. Brounéus’ recommendations for reconciliation and development

The ten following recommendations are indicated by Brounéus for development cooperation and reconciliation in post-conflict countries:

1. National and local initiatives: Misery, abuse, trauma, loss, and grief are some of the things including in war. Reconciliation programs coming from the outside in the middle of the pain that war victims feel might be perceived as arrogant; additionally, setting an obligation for reconciliation on victims is a risk. Brounéus stresses the importance of international involvement, such as having international criminal tribunals for justice (ibid :32-33). However, she

(15)

arguably explains that it is feasible that national and local initiatives would be rewarding for the victims, as they derive from the same place sharing the history, culture, religion, and legal system. Encouraging national initiatives that aim for recognition of past affliction, and that work to alter previous enemies’ destructive attitudes will foster a reconciliation process (2003:

54-55).

2. Analysis of the conflict: Being able to promote reconciliation, an analysis of the conflict needs to be made (ibid :55).

3. Timing of the reconciliation process: In order to work with reconciliation in a post-conflict country, the possibility of revived violence needs to be very small. Timing of taking action in reconciliation is therefore crucial (ibid).

4. Different options of how to deal with the past are considered: Acknowledging and accepting the past is important to attain reconciliation (ibid).

5. Support governments to provide medical, economic, and psychological compensation: Not giving war survivors compensation would risk hurting the people who have already been mistreated. Economic justice is vital for reconciliation and to give the survivors hope to move on (ibid :56).

6. Recommendations are followed up and implemented: Various truth commissions of post-conflict countries propose recommendations for future reconciliation (ibid).

7. Establishment of “peace media”: Implementation of peace media is one of the most important factors to support. Media is considerable as it can encourage positive processes of reconciliation. Examples of what could be broadcasted could be truth commissions and children's programs working on preventing prejudice and developing tolerance (ibid).

8. Preservation of documents from the period of internal conflict: In case of truth-seeking processes at a later time, documentation from the time of the conflict needs to be retained (ibid).

9. Cooperation and coordination among actors involved in the reconciliation process: This step is essential for reconciliation (ibid :56-57).

(16)

10. A successful reconciliation process in one country can never be imported as a magic formula to another (ibid :57).

2.4. Overview

To summarize the theoretical background, the study will implement Brounéus’

perspectives, methods, and recommendations for reconciliation and development as explanatory factors to tolerance among the ethnic groups of the countries post civil war and genocide. However, this study will modify the theory by selecting what is considered to be the most reasonable requirements and steps to fulfill a sensible analysis to understand the aspect of ethnic tolerance within the wider context of reconciliation.

The figure below will be used and form the basis to the analysis and discussion of the study. The significant requirements and recommendations used in this theory are crucial to reconciliation and agreement between the ethnic groups of each country. In this study, reconciliation in terms of ethnic tolerance will be operationalized into the following indicators that will be used as a base for the comparison of the two cases. The following categories will be measured as 1) Failed, 2) Moderately, and 3) Achieved.

Figure 1: Requirements for tolerance and reconciliation

Bosnia-Herzegovina Rwanda Public administration

Legal justice

Public apologies

National and local initiatives

Different options of dealing with the past

Peace media

Common narrative

(17)

3. Method and material

3.1. Method

This essay is constructed as a comparative case study of explanatory ambitions.

Usually, explanatory studies seek answers to correlations and variables that different situations are assumed to have. Since the purpose of this study is to explain the differences in ethnic tolerance post civil war and genocide in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda, an explanatory purpose is the most suitable (Esaiasson et al. 2007:35). The two countries will be the units of analysis of this study. The theoretical approach will be consuming a theory as it involves the cases of this study to be explained by a specified theory. In that sense, the cases are more focused on than the existing theory.

The research approach to this examination is qualitative, thus the assay of secondary sources. Managing this is based on careful reading and analyzing different material chosen for this study which will be providing the basis of the analysis and conclusions. Through a textual analysis, the written material will be compiled and processed; that is literature, newspaper articles, governmental documents, journal articles, and other material being used for the research (Esaiasson et al. 2007:237). The texts were analyzed by looking at the variables chosen for the study; being tolerance as the dependent one, and having reconciliation as the independent variable. Choosing other methods would make it harder to find the answers to the study. A quantitative study could be done in this research, but since that method involves interviews and surveys, it is not preferable hence the data that needs to be collected that thus requires time which in this matter is limited (Esaiasson et al. 2007:224). Accordingly, the most evident variant for analyzing the results is through a qualitative, comparative case study.

When it comes to this research design, there are two customized comparative designs that focus on comparing two or more nations; the 'most similar systems design’ (MSSD) and the 'most different systems design' (MDSD). Concretely,

(18)

MSSD uses similarities between countries as variables, while MDSD uses differences between countries. MDSD is the design that will be the most suitable for this study as we want to explain the different outcomes in the ethnic tolerance post civil war and genocide (Anckar 2008:390-391). The flaws noticed in this design for this research is that both countries are similar in many ways, which could be used in a MSSD study. Both had ethnic conflicts that resulted in a genocide in the same time period. However, the cases are different and MDSD would be more appropriate as the study measures different outcomes of the reconciliation processes of the countries.

Moreover, case studies have become increasingly common as a method into building and testing theories for studies in political science. However, this study will focus and consume only one theory that has the elements crucial to explain the questions of the research. The cases get to be the central focus of the study.

The disadvantage of consuming a theory rather than testing theories is that there is not enough space given to look into and observe the problem objectively by putting many perspectives into it (Esaiasson et al. 2007:42). Yet, the examination aims to focus on the cases and explain the study by consuming the theory chosen.

3.2. Material

The material for this study will be processed by going through the empirical background, the chosen theory, previous research, the countries’ constitutions and political situation, various reports from authorities and organizations together with news articles that are publishing events and happenings in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda. Several materials will be collected through different databases where adaptable literature and scientific articles that explain the theories and the empirical background can be found.

Critically reviewing all the material being used for the study is crucial. The reason why material needs to be reviewed is to make sure it is as reliable and trustworthy as possible. Four criteria are included in the principles of critical

(19)

reviewing (Esaiasson et al. 2007:314). Authenticity is the first criteria that is looking for the credibility in the source found. In order to investigate authenticity, the sources found are compared and the facts found need to be equivalent (ibid :317-318). The independence criteria is the second one that stands for impartiality. The source should not be dependent on the narrator’s influence on the topic (ibid :319). An example to this is how this study has been conducted by choosing various narrators with different links to the cases and facts explained in their work. Many news articles in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian, English, and Swedish has been used which increases variation on views. The languages are fine to use in this paper as the comprehension is well and will not cause any harm to the reliability of this study. Simultaneity as the third criteria is looking at when the source was established and if that has any significance for the information given in the source. It announces that if the time span between the event and when the source was written, one has reasons to doubt if the source is reliable. The last, but not least, criteria is tendency that discusses the actual content of the source as it looks for a certain perspective or twisted depiction in it (ibid :321).

Validity and reliability are important outsets for making this essay as reliable as possible. Internal- and external validity are two directions. Internal validity focuses on the conclusions that are descriptive or explanatory, and which are based on the units of analysis chosen for the study. External validity intends to see the possibilities in generalizing the conclusions (Esaiasson et al. 2007:64).

One Search at Linnaeus University’s web portal has given access to many databases collecting scientific articles, journals, and other literature crucial to strengthen the sources used in this study. Other web pages such as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch are considered to be satisfactory sources on account of the reliability of sources used in their rapports. 

(20)

4. Empirical background

In this chapter, an empirical review will be given so the reader can get a glimpse of today’s Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda, its demographics and politics. To further proceed with the analysis in the next chapter, the history of the territories needs to be introduced and explained as well as with the current position.

4.1. Bosnia-Herzegovina 4.1.1. Background and history

Bosnia-Herzegovina is located in Southern Europe on the Balkan peninsula. It is a relatively small country inhabited by roughly four million people. Neighboring countries of Bosnia-Herzegovina are Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro. There are three constituent languages in the country; Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian - although all of these practically are the same language. Adding up; Sunni Islam, Christian Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism are the most common religions in the country (Donais 2005:8).

During the time Bosnia-Herzegovina was a part of the former SFRY, the country was located in the heart of the federation — between the Roman Catholic states Croatia and Slovenia to its west and the Christian Orthodox states Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia to its east; this making Bosnia-Herzegovina the 'interlink' of the two religious blocks. These blocks have remained from centuries back whereof the people within Bosnia-Herzegovina’s territory have acquired from both sides. Additionally, the Ottoman Empire took control of the territory in the mid-15^thcentury and four centuries to come that influenced its Sunni Islamic faith among the Bosnian-Herzegovinian inhabitants that increased the religious diversity in the area (Berry 2018:104). During the Ottoman period, tensions started growing among the residents of Bosnia-Herzegovina where the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat elites started enunciating visions of “Greater Serbia” and

“Greater Croatia” for greater territorial control (Velikonja 2003:14, 272).

(21)

The Ottoman Empire weakened in the 19^th century whereas the Austro- Hungarian Empire took over the territory in 1878. This contributed to further tensions between the Bosnian Serbs and Bosniaks in the area that resulted in hundred thousands of Bosniaks leaving their homes to reside in places back where the Ottomans ruled; so the emigration rendered a plurality of Bosnian Serbs in the territory, whereas the remaining Bosniaks inhabitants became a religious minority in the empire (Berry 2018:105-106). The Serb nationalism rose once the rulers of the empire formally annexed the Bosnian-Herzegovinian province; so did a desire for a union of the South Slavic countries which led to various movements fighting for unification. The assassination of the accessor to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina’s capital Sarajevo that was caused by the Bosnian Serb and Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip (ibid).

The assassination started a crisis in Europe that escalated into World War I in 1918. In spite of the atrocities in this world war, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was established at the end of the war that eventually united the South Slavic people.

World War II started in 1939 where the Partisans, the Communist National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, fought against the Axis powers; and for the monarchy to fall to establish a socialist, federal republic under communist rule.

During this time, puppet governments established in various parts of Yugoslavia that wanted greater autonomy; in most cases, independence from the unity. One puppet government that wanted to create a “Great Croatia”, homogeneous of only Roman Catholics identified as Croats, were the Ustaša. They were supported by the Nazis that together targeted Serbs, Jews, Roma, Communists, and disabled people. The Partisan resistance movement led by Josip Broz, called

“Tito”, fought these extremist groups in the territory until the victory came in 1945; and Tito took over the territory. SFRY was formed and pushed religion into the private realm and abolished political power from places of worship, religious schools, forbade people to wear clothing that was symbolized for that specific religion such as women with veils; all of this to prevent discrimination and to give all residents equal opportunity (Berry 2018:108-110).

(22)

After 35 years of rule, Tito passed away in 1980 with no successor; instead, heads of states were established every year in Yugoslavia. The economy failed in the federation, and hyperinflation arose which divided the people in the country even more (Berry 2018:115). Recommencing dreams of “Greater Serbia” and

“Greater Croatia” once again came to life that gave nationalist politicians space to perform their policy they were not able to when Tito was alive. This lead to tremendous consequences.

4.1.2. Civil war and genocide

The consequences of nationalism that grew led to the fragmentation of Yugoslavia when Slovenia and Croatia gained independence in 1991 (Berry 2018:116). Due to the situation that flourished in SFRY, Bosnia-Herzegovina gained its independence in 1992 where a majority of the people, that mostly consisted of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats, voted for independence in a referendum. The separatist movement of the Bosnian Serbs strongly opposed to the independence on account of the continuing desire to be a part of the Yugoslavian union together with Serbia and the remaining states; a huge conflict and occupation of large areas of the country occurred (ibid :117; Donais 2005:68-69).

Bosnia-Herzegovina was at war for four years. The ground for the long-lasting, violent conflict was owing to the fact that the country had a heterogeneous religious society where all ethnic parties wanted different; Bosniaks together with smaller groups of Bosnian Croats and Serbs wanted independence, Bosnian Croats wanted to belong to Croatia, and Bosnian Serbs wanted to belong to Serbia. Civilians who had lived together with all ethnic groups had to pick side all of a sudden and were drawn into propaganda that was spread; close friends, neighbors, and other people in relationships became enemies because of their ethnicities. Bosnian Serb forces took control over more than half the Bosnian- Herzegovinian territory that they wanted to reclaim for Serbia (Berry 2018:117-119). Over a million people escaped Bosnia-Herzegovina during the

(23)

Herzegovinian region on the southern part of the country, another conflict started in 1993 between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosniaks that dominated the area. In Mostar, the UNSECO-world heritage bridge Stari Most was destroyed which was invariably told it symbolized the unity of the different peoples (Berry 2018:127).

Despite the fact that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina killed around 250,000 people, some happenings were more conspicuous. The country’s capital Sarajevo was under siege during the whole war; the Prijedor region held concentration camps; one of the worst genocides that occurred in the country happened in the small town Srebrenica.

4.1.3. Political system

The complexes of the nation and the opposition among its people come with the political system that was built after the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The least one can say about the constitution of this country is that it is beyond intricate (Sida [n.d.]). To make it all intelligible, and to be able to explain the Bosnian-Herzegovinian political structure, the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA) needs to be clarified. The constitution was constructed by this peace agreement that was signed in 1995 to end the conflicts in the country after four years; it came into action in 1997 when the DPA was fully implemented to the state (Berry 2018:131). It was signed by representatives of the three constituent groups in the country; Bosnia-Herzegovina’s the Bosniak president Alija Izetbegović, Croatia’s president Franjo Tuđman, and SFRY’s president Slobodan Milošević (DPA 1995). The DPA determined two constituent entities; the Bosniak and Bosnian Croat 'Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina' (FBiH) and the Bosnian Serb 'Republic of Srpska' (RS). The agreement consists of 12 annexes that more than the constitution in Annex 10 discusses peace settlement, human rights, displacement, among other matters post war in the country.

How Bosnia-Herzegovina governs is severe to compile easily. To start with, the Directorate of European Integration (DEI) that is held by the Bosnian- Herzegovinian national government, indicates three levels of governance. The

(24)

first level is the national government; second, the two entities RS and FBiH, and Brčko District; and lastly comes the ten cantons subordinate to FBiH (DEI 2012).

Figure 2: Levels of governance

The three levels are governed in various ways where the DPA has made it possible for the second and third levels to govern for themselves and be autonomous, relatively independent from one another. The national government’s main role is to handle foreign policy while the two entities, RS and FBiH, handle domestic affairs. The ten cantons are functioning as districts in the entity FBiH that do not entitle as much autonomy and authority as the entities themselves, but are nonetheless governed in ways that are classified as independent from the FBiH to a limited extent where each and every canton form a majority of either Bosniaks or Bosnian Croats (DEI 2012). The Brčko District is a region in Bosnia-Herzegovina that does not belong to an entity nor serving as the entities in the country; the district is autonomous and governs itself. This is the area that the DPA could not complete; it is multi-ethnic and not as segregated as the two entities (Donais 2005:153). Furthermore, for RS, the Brčko District is geographically becoming a problem since it is blocking the northern and eastern parts of the entity to meet (DEI 2012; Appendix A).

The national government handles, as mentioned, foreign policy; other than that, it focuses on other foreign affairs, immigration, asylum, air traffic control, trade policy along with other points. The government has a bicameral Parliamentary Assembly that consists of 'the House of Representatives' as the lower house, and 'the House of Peoples' as the upper house. The lower house has 42 members in total elected by party-list proportional representation. 28 members are elected from the entity FBiH, and 14 from the other entity RS, in a four years term. The

1 National government

2 RS FBiH Brčko District

3 Cantons (DEI 2012)

(25)

upper house has 15 delegates equally allocated among the three constituent groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina: five Bosniaks, five Bosnian Serbs, and five Bosnian Croats. The parliaments of the constituent peoples designate these delegates; in turn, the delegates are responsible for ensuring no law in Bosnia- Herzegovina gets ahead unless all three groups agree on it (DEI 2012).

Other than the bicameral national government, the entity of FBiH also has bicameral parliament functioning in the same way as the national government;

only differing in number of seats. The RS, however, has a unicameral system called the National Assembly that consists of 83 members. Both entities are elected in a four-year-term. Brčko District has its own assembly of 29 members (DEI 2012).

Specific to the political system in Bosnia-Herzegovina, is the authority that was created by the DPA in Annex 10 in purpose of controlling the implementation of the agreement into the country and its civilians (DPA 1995:111); the Office of the High Representative (OHR). The elected High Representative is governing the authority and working with the institutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the international community to ensure that the country develops into a peaceful democracy taking responsibility for its own matters. Also, the OHT is granted the power of dismissing elected officials if they do not adjust to the country’s regulations and the DPA (OHR 2018; Berry 2018:130-131). 

(26)

4.2. Rwanda

4.2.1. Background and history

Rwanda is a small country located in the central-eastern part of Africa sharing borders with Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, and DR Congo. For its size, Rwanda is the most densely populated country in the continent with a population of approximately twelve million (Landguiden 2018 [2]). The inhabitants belong to various ethnic groups that derive from one core group —the Banyarwanda— that shares the same culture and language. Three subgroups are within this one - Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa. The language spoken is Kinyarwanda; but even this language is divided into sublanguages in accordance with the ethnic groups.

Also, English and French are very common as well due to the colonizations. Yet another thing acquired from the colonialists was Christianity which today is the most common religion in Rwanda where both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are found (ibid; Mamdani 2001:92).

Going far back in time, Rwanda was established in the 11^th century as a monarchy; called the Kingdom of Rwanda. During this time, the Hutu and Tutsi people belonged to the same clan. When the German colonialists first settled at the end of the 19^th century, the distinction between the peoples in Rwanda took place that was grounded on the peoples’ physical appearance. According to them, the Hutus appeared to be smaller, wider-built, and darker; while the Tutsis were the taller, thinner, lighter ones. A political social structure was shaped through this distinction by the colonialists where the Tutsis, that ruled the Kingdom, were the stately and wealthy ones, and the Hutus were stockier and used for manual labor (Mamdani 2001:41, 44; Berry 2018:31-32). When the Belgians took over the territory after World War I, the gap between the Hutus and Tutsis widened.

The colonizers catered to the Tutsi rulers and later introduced identification that categorized each Rwandan individual as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa. Until the point of this implementation, a Hutu family that became successful and upgraded in social status could become a Tutsi which would not be feasible after this (Mamdani 2001:101).

(27)

Rwanda's ethnic division is profoundly rooted in its society. The Tutsi dominance through the centuries under the kingdoms and during the colonization period ceased with a Hutu revolt in 1959 that lead to independence in Rwanda in 1962.

The rebellion led to killings of Tutsis that were targeted, whereas hundreds of thousands fled to the neighboring countries. The Hutu-lead Rwanda saw the chance to take every opportunity that was taken from them under centuries of Tutsi rule (Mamdani 2001:126-127). Grégoire Kayibanda became the first elected president in Rwanda after its independence and lead the Hutu emancipation movement 'Parmehutu’ that enforced the right of the majority ethnicity in the country to govern and advocated the supremacy of Hutus. In 1973, the Hutu General Juvénal Habyarimana became president of the country after setting off Kayibanda; and he established a military government and replaced the ruling Parmehutu party with a new party called 'the National Revolutionary Movement for Development' (MRND) that implemented a single- party system (ibid :137-138). Meanwhile in Uganda, a civil war emerged where many of the Tutsi refugees from Rwanda participated to facilitate the conditions for Rwandan refugees that were persecuted by the, then, Ugandan regime; one of them was the current Rwandan president Paul Kagame. In Rwanda, the repression of Tutsis consisted (ibid :17, 138; Uddhammar 2013:406), and the long-term goal for the Rwandan Tutsis in Uganda was to return to their country.

The war in Uganda led to success for Kagame and his colleagues that started up plans to invade Rwanda together with other Tutsi refugees (ibid :174-175).

4.2.2. Civil war and genocide

The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was established in 1987 for a repatriation of all the Tutsi exiles to live up their dreams (Berry 2018:40), and in 1990 they launched a guerrilla invasion in Rwanda that started the Rwandan Civil War. The purpose of this was to impose the Habyarimana regime to approve power-sharing and the return of Tutsi refugees; this being answered by the Hutu regime an ultimate cleanse of the Tutsi people in the country that compiled of 15% of Rwanda’s population (ibid :42). The civil war should have come to an end in

(28)

1993 when the Arusha Peace Treaty came to place that made an agreement between the Rwandan government and the RPF to share power (Arusha Accords 1993). However, the parties came to many disagreements and uncertainty in many areas; and the treaty showed its greatest failure when President Habyarimana together with other political officials was on a plane and it got shot down, killing the president (Berry 2018:47-48). This was the breaking point for the Hutus to start the persecution and killings of Hutus that was the start of the 100-days-genocide that ended lives of around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus that did not want to participate in the killings, were related to or married to Tutsis (Berry 2018:50-52, 59).

RPF had taken over and secured many parts of Rwanda by the end of the genocide that lead to mass emigration of Hutus to other areas in the country and the neighboring countries (Mamdani 2001:234); especially when the genocide was brought to an end by RPF victory that drove out the Hutu militias to the then Zaire - today’s DR Congo. Shortly after, RPF took control over the government and established what was called 'Government of National Unity' that were to follow the agreements of the 1993 Arusha Accords. It designated two moderate Hutus as president and prime minister, and the RPF leader Paul Kagame as vice president and the minister of defense; the whole government was to be split between the Hutus and Tutsis (Berry 2018:59; Uddhammar 2013:406).

4.2.3. Political system

The country went from being a monarchy to become a republic since its independence in 1961. It has had five presidents since its independence, the present one being Paul Kagame since 2000 onwards (Deutsche Welle 2020;

Berry 2018 32-36).

The Rwandan government changed its constitution in 2003 that replaced the constitution of 1991. The main reason to change the constitution was to focus on the genocide and how to prevent it in the future; demonstrating aspiration for prosperity and reconciliation (CJCR 2003; Berry 2018:97). Amendments of the

(29)

constitution have been made, latest through a referendum in 2015 about allowing the president to run for a third term in office, which was approved. Some articles of the constitution show how the government strives to rule the country and promote democracy, secularity, reconciliation, to mention some (CJCR 2003).

The nation has a bicameral legislative branch. The two chambers include 'the Chamber of Deputies', the lower house; and 'the Senate', the upper house. The under house consists of 80 deputies where 53 of these are elected by the people, 24 women are elected by particular councils in conformity with the administrative entities, two are elected by Rwanda’s youth council, and one is elected by a council that focuses on people with disabilities. The deputies are in office for five years (Rwandan Parliament 2018 [1]). The upper house of Rwanda has 26 members being in an eight years term. They are elected by an electoral college mainly consisting of the president, local politicians, universities or higher learning institutions, and other representatives of various organizations in the country. Furthermore, it is divided into five provinces that are ruled by governors appointed by the government, whereas all the provinces are spaced into 30 districts (Rwandan Parliament 2018 [2]).

(30)

5. Analysis and discussion

Before devoting to the answer of the research question of this study, we will primarily need to answer the sub-questions that will be done in this segment by presenting further historical information and today’s situation of the countries.

The two sub-questions were:

• How was the political situation and the relationship between the ethnic groups pre civil war and genocide, and what is the current position of the countries?

• What actions have been taken and implemented by respective country to attain reconciliation in terms of ethnic tolerance?

5.1. Bosnia-Herzegovina

Historically seen, Bosnia-Herzegovina has consistently been a diverse country inhabited by various groups of people. As one of the youngest states in the world, the country’s territory has been a part of various federal realms. During the Yugoslavian era, nationalism did appear in the shadows but was not as strong as the Yugoslavian patriotism that united all the ethnic groups throughout the communist regime (Velikonja 2003:185-186). Nevertheless, the federation did divide and categorize the peoples according to the ethnic groups they belonged to or affiliated with. The basis to which ethnic group one belonged to ordinarily depended on what faith they had or originated from. The nominated ethnicities in SFRY were up until 1971 'Serbs' (Christian Orthodox), 'Croats' (Catholics), 'Slovenes', 'Yugoslavs' and 'other' (Velikonja 2003:224-225; Mahmutćehajić 2000:31). Thus, no Muslim in SFRY had the opportunity to register themselves in their confession of faith or nation like the others could for a long time, in spite of the fact that the Bosnian-Herzegovinian and Muslim population was high in the country (Berry 2018:111; Velikonja 2003:133). What is notable, as well as arguable, is how this has built the basis for the division among the people in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The diverse society in SFRY and the lack of Bosnian- Herzegovinian identification obstructed a large part of the population to identify

(31)

themselves only as Bosnian-Herzegovinians; but as Croats or Serbs from Bosnia- Herzegovina, for instance (Velikonja 2003:290-291).

The political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina pre civil war was a part of SFRY’s.

From what many previous residents would call 'utopia' that Tito invented, to becoming a dystopia in the 1990s. Many were happy with their lives in SFRY where —no matter what ethnic group one belonged to— tolerance was a matter of course. After president Tito’s death, nationalist parties were reborn and took act for their own and their ethnic group’s interests. Propaganda took place and divided the people. In today’s Bosnia-Herzegovina, these parties still take the majority of the seats in the many governments of the country (Berry 2018:116-117). Demonstrable on the ground of the country’s history, the Bosniaks and others identifying as Bosnian-Herzegovinians, have been the ones fighting for Bosnia-Herzegovina’s independence and opposing to separation of the country. Due to nationalism, the gap between the groups widens and many of the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats in the country does not want to associate with the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but to separate and becoming a part of what they perceive as their motherland. Moreover, the religious communities of Bosnia-Herzegovina have seemed to be leaning more toward incitement and estrangement rather than reconciliation and peace (Velikonja 2003:290).

The domination of a specific group of people in various areas could be excluding and discriminating the other groups in society (Higgins 2018). To illustrate this, the table below will show the statistics of demographics in Bosnia Herzegovina according to a specific territory:

Figure 3: 2013 demographics of Bosnia-Herzegovina by ethnic affiliation post civil war

Bosnia-Herzegovina Entity: RS Entity: FBiH Brčko District

Bosniaks 50.1 % 14% 70.4 % 42.4 %

Bosnian Serbs 30.8 % 81.5 % 2.5 % 34.6 %

Bosnian Croats 15.4 % 2.4 % 22.4 % 20.7 %

Others 3.7 % 2.1 % 4.6 % 2.4 %

(32)

To begin with, the most resent Bosnian-Herzegovinian population census that was performed in 2013 by the Agency for Statistics of Bosnia-Herzegovina is displaying the ethnic divisions in various regions of the country. In state-level, Bosniaks compile of around half the population; one-third are Bosnian Serbs;

one out of six are Bosnian Croats; and the rest are registered as others that makes up around one out of twenty. It is visible that most of the Bosnian Serb population reside in the RS, while the Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats dwell in the FBiH. The Brčko District shows the multiethnic diversity with its approximate equal numbers of people of every group, with a small deficit of the Bosnian Croats (BHAS 2013:54).

According to Freedom House, Bosnia-Herzegovina is a 'partly free' country with a freedom score of 53 out of 100. Its report shows areas in electoral process, political pluralism, participation, belief, freedom of expression, organizational right among with other matters concerning freedom in a country (Freedom House 2021 [1]). The report starts mentioning elections in the country that are considered generally free and fair. In Mostar, the ongoing disputes among the Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats when it comes to mayoral elections and municipal council polls prevents the municipality to hold elections since 2008 due to violence; this has made its inhabitants questioning the municipality’s freedom of electing which should be taken to not only the national court, but the European court for having politicians that are not represented by the people (ibid; Ramljak 2016). The previous election in the country, in October 2018, raised serious questions in the entity RS that elected their previous president Milorad Dodik to the Bosnian Serb membership of the tripartite presidency. Being a right-wing Serbian nationalist and the current member of the presidency of a country he does not approve of existing (Deutsche Welle 2019).

Irrespective of the ethnic conflicts in the country, religious freedom prevails.

Nonetheless, its communities face hate crimes and discrimination in places where they are a minority (Freedom House 2021 [1]; European Commission 2020:30). Moreover, hence the three constituent groups of the country, other

(33)

religious and ethnic minorities in the country are strongly discriminated (HRW 2012). In the Human Rights Watch report Second Class Citizens: Discrimination against Roma, Jews, and Other National Minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Sejdić-Finci case is brought up as it captures the Bosnian Roma Dervo Sejdić and the Bosnian Jew Jakob Finci’s battle against the Bosnian-Herzegovinian constitution for political discrimination on minorities and not being able to run for presidency. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Sejdić-Finci’s favor (2020; ECHR 2009:38-39), but no amendment has yet been done in the government and authorities in over a decade (HRW 2021 [1]).

In addition to legal justice in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was an international court settled by the UN Security Council for the sake of judging war criminals. ICTY was located in the Hague, the Netherlands and succeeded by the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) when ICTY was dissolved in 2017. ICTY’s main purpose was to serve justice and give an objective judgement on the war crimes of individuals to proceed with reconciliation in the country as soon as possible. However, many high profile politicians and people of the country remain true to their narrative, endorse many war criminals, and keep questioning the judgements the tribunal has made (European Commission 2020:27).

National trials still take place in the authorities and courts of Bosnia-Herzegovina in collaboration with IRMCT on war crime cases. The administration is considered efficient and satisfactory as the cases are distributed to lower courts and offices on a regional level while state-level courts and offices handle more complex cases (European Commission 2020:21; Detektor [n.d.]). However, cooperation between regional legal offices and the neighboring countries is not working efficiently. Many cases are pending due to inaccessibility of accused war criminals that are assumed to have dual citizenship and reside in countries nearby. These countries are prohibited to extradite their own citizens for these types of crimes (ibid :21-22).

(34)

Apart from the lack of cooperation with the neighboring countries that prevents reconciliation, many public figures have publicly apologized for some parts of their ethnic group’s role in the war. For instance, the former president of Serbia, Tomislav Nikolić, has officially apologized for the war crimes in the name of his country (Deutsche Welle 2013). So did the then Croatian president Ivo Josipović for his country’s role in the Bosnian war (NY Times 2010). Other politicians in the region and Bosnia-Herzegovina have also apologized, but the most significant apology would be from the entity RS that expressed their deepest regret of the Bosnian Serb war crimes (Wood 2007). However, many victims and others believe that these apologies are empty and only expressed for their own interests (Deutsche Welle 2013).

All parties of the conflict see themselves as victims and do not want to acknowledge their own role during the war; instead, “the other’s” narratives are questioned. During the civil war, a division took place at schools where each area used its own curriculum and literature; to this day, this exists. This further widens the gaps and segregates the groups as prejudice and the mindset of "us and them"

are discovered on the school bench. In cases where one ethnic group lives in an area where another ethnic group forms a majority, parents do not want their children to learn that their own ethnic group is inferior. Some attempts have been made for a common national curriculum and rewriting the literature in schools so the teaching would be the same throughout the country, but in vain as it has been difficult to carry out (Higgins 2018; Surk 2018).

Unfortunately, there are no national initiatives for reconciliation found in Bosnia- Herzegovina. However, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the ones that invest in most reconciliation initiatives and often receive financial aid from countries abroad. The Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) is an NGO that creates networks promoting values of democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech in the region (BIRN [n.d.]). No data is found of NGOs or other initiatives that have succeeded in contributing to reconciliation in the country.

(35)

Propaganda through media and popular speech in the former Yugoslav republics increased the tensions between the ethnic groups that led to war; and today’s media in Bosnia-Herzegovina has not developed that much. Although there are objective news networks in the country, the private media sector is extensive where large political parties own popular tv-channels and radio stations whose coverage functions on interest grounds (Freedom House 2021 [1]). Journalists in the country are persecuted, threatened, and attacked for their work to silence criticism on political parties and high officials (HRW 2021 [1]).

5.2. Rwanda

The political situation and the relationship between the ethnic groups in Rwanda pre civil war has been emphasized in this study. The Rwandan government legislated the racial difference between Tutsis and Hutus before the decolonization (Mamdani 2001:101). The relationship between the ethnic groups before the civil war and genocide in 1994 was fragile. They had learned to live together, but the hostility existed due to the division, repression, and non-equal treatment for many decades. The formidable civil war that lead to genocide in the 1990s was performable as not only armies made horror, but they also armed and forced ordinary Hutu civilians to kill all the Tutsis and moderate Hutus they could come across; the civilian Hutus that disobeyed to kill people were threatened to be killed or killed instantly by soldiers (ibid :266).

Rwanda has prohibited dividing its inhabitants into their ethnic identities as they all are considered Rwandans (CJCR 2003:9; Freedom House 2021 [2]). An approximate estimation of the demography by 1994 makes up Hutu with 85%, Tutsi 15%, and Twa 1% (UN [n.d.] [2]).

Rwanda’s current political situation is uncertain. According to Freedom House’s report from 2020, the country’s freedom status is 'not free' with a freedom score of 21 out of 100 (Freedom House 2021 [2]). Kagame being in power for two decades has placed question marks on many for the prolonged governing of the country (Specia 2017; Uddhammar 2013:405). Today's constitution of the

The perpetual, neglected conflicts