nic hatred in 1994, which has made Rwandans cautious about an uncontrolled media, and which is a critical factor in understanding the policies of recent years. More damning, Sundaram seems to espouse a form of liberal fundamentalism –“ free speech at any price!”- that is questionable in contemporary Africa. Rwanda is a relatively new state, negotiating a tricky balancing act between order, development and democracy. From this perspective, free speech may be less of a priority than the containment of conflict and the establishment of well-managed infrastructure.
Although Sundaram’ s account concludes in 2013, less zealous visitors to Rwanda today would notice certain differences that are at odds with his account. It is possible to have fairly open discussions about Rwandan politics in bars and at public gatherings. A change in policy in 2014-15 resulted in a proliferation of TV stations and newspapers and represents some kind of liberalisation. In any case, unless the government erects and zealously maintains a Chinese-style firewall, the Internet will continue to provide uncensored information to those who want it, undermining the impression we get from Bad News: that the Rwandan people are living under a cloak of ignorance and simply accept the government version of events without question.
Problem with this approach
Both of these works aim to overturn an official narrative that is largely taken for granted( they argue) because of ongoing guilt about the 1994 genocide. A core problem with this approach is one of balance: in their efforts to persuade you that you have been lied to all your life, revisionists will rarely present the official narrative in a reasonable way. Instead of balancing their alternative accounts so that the audience can decide for themselves, their assertions are left unchallenged by either competing historical data or logical propositions to the contrary. In Untold Story, this actually seems to be the intention – it is explicitly a counter-propaganda film. In Bad News, the story unfolds over time, so that there is some room for other voices to explain the official line or the realpolitik, but these are rendered in the most sinister tones.
On their part, the authors of the works under review could reasonably argue that the official narrative is omitted for the reasons:
There is neither space nor the need to present all sides of the debate. Anyone wanting balance – the official narrative- can find it anywhere: online, in Rwandan newspapers, in academia, in Hollywood movies on the subject, etc.
Essentially, these works are ripostes to the official line- to‘ what we all know already’ – they are, in fact, the balance itself, allowing viewers to finally judge for themselves.
However, one could equally reply:
There is neither a fair summary of the opponent’ s position nor a clear indication that there is insufficient time to provide a properly-balanced argument. Instead, both works present the official narrative as a malign deception from the start.
It is optimistic to assume that people watching Untold Story would follow up with any research at all. Most will probably just say“ so now I know the Truth!” and change channel. Meanwhile, Bad News concerns a story that is very difficult to follow up with research – a small media project that occurred several years ago; the lives of unknown, private individuals; the unseen information policies of a nation-state – and so we have to take Sundaram’ s word as Truth.
The arguments in Untold Story and Bad News are presented in such a way as to automatically negate the official narrative, by claiming that the government always lies and is constantly concealing the Truth. Their argument can often be reduced to:“ they are hiding something; you would only hide something if it was the worst thing imaginable; therefore they are up to the worst things imaginable.”
However, it is also possible that, as in many other states, the Rwandan government keeps secrets for a number of reasons – the presence of official secrets is not a sign that all the conspiracy theories are true.
Finally, it is very presumptive to assume that readers and viewers are knowledgeable and disinterested enough to balance the information conveyed in Bad News and Untold Story. The authors of this article talked to several young Rwandans who had seen Untold Story. They declared passionately that they had now seen the Truth that had been hidden from them all their lives. They unquestioningly viewed the claims in this TV documentary as hard facts, rather than as theories.
Takeaway
Let us assume that there are reasonable arguments for more free speech and an open dialogue about history in Rwanda. Arguably, more subtle arts of persuasion would be required. If you beat people over the head with your arguments or claim that everything they think is ideological nonsense, they will ignore you. You must begin on the same page and negotiate differences. If the Rwandan government have a red line that you should never cross in your arguments, then it is merely provocative to deliberately cross that line – impressive and entertaining for a foreign audience, but insulting and distancing for the Rwandans. People will understand your Truth better if they find it themselves.
The best we can do as journalists is to listen to different accounts, compare the relevant details, synthesise them fairly and then present them to our audience so that they can decide for themselves. This may be the only way we can navigate together through the shadowy terrain of history, hand-inhand, and supporting each other so that we do not lose our balance.
OCTOBER 2016 EDITION- 35