In Rwanda , much debate surrounds whether ethnic groups are a colonial creation or predated colonialism . But there is no contention that political organisation was along clan lines . It is also an uncontested fact that Hutus and Tutsis do not conform to the definition of ethnicity . They share the same culture , language , and have lived side by side with each other – unlike much of Africa where ethnic groups are identified with a certain region of the country . Remarkably , there is no recorded inter-ethnic violence between Hutus and Tutsis prior to the advent of colonial rule . Therefore , either Hutus and Tutsis were the most peaceful political rivalries to ever exist in the history of mankind or political power was never organized around them as ethnic identities .
But political violence did in fact take place as a result of inter-clan rivalry and it never resurfaced since colonial rule because contestation for political power had been shifted as a result of creating and politicising ethnicity . This is discussed in greater detail by Burundian academic Professor Jean Bosco Manirabona in this volume .
Crucially , the absence of defining physical markers distinguishing Hutus from Tutsis necessitated identity cards that recorded one ’ s ethnicity . In other words , the greatest marker of ethnicity in Rwanda is an identity card . Without it , there ’ s no ethnic distinction . This explains why genocidal militias that controlled roadblocks during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi systematically asked for identity cards . If Hutus and Tutsis were different , why ask for an identity card to know who to kill or spare ?
Nonetheless , whether in reality Tutsis and Hutus are ethnic groups is a moot point . This identity has been ingrained in the consciousness of the people . But the ethnicities themselves wouldn ’ t be the problem . The problem is that they were weaponized and the respective groups set against each other .
Three aspects about the weaponization of ethnicity are significant for Rwanda . One , unlike elsewhere with a diversity of ethnic groups , the fact of two main ethnic groups made it easy to identify the enemy as opposed to where there are five or more groups . In other words , those to be targeted for elimination are clearly identified and the ability to engineer a consensus to that effect already in place . It is no coincidence that genocide against groups within native populations happened in Rwanda and Burundi with two major ethnic groups . In fact , the threat of genocide in Rwanda ( first reported to the world by the British Philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1963 , referring to the events that had begun in 1959 , as “ the most horrible and systematic massacre we have had the occasion to witness since the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis ”) was first used by the Belgian colonial government to dissuade the Tutsi elite from pursuing independence and its political utility remained for three decades .
With only two ethnic groups , it was easier for the leadership to point to a readily available excuse for governance shortcomings . Sadly , the incentive for addressing socioeconomic challenges was outweighed by the incentive to scapegoat the “ other .” In countries with more ethnic diversity , the “ enemy ” could not be clearly outlined and the resulting expression of leadership failure was rarely as polarized , and genocidal , as the kind that emerged in Rwanda and to a lesser extent Burundi , for example .
Therefore , from the perspective of leadership , it was not desirable to pursue common security . On the contrary , any vulnerability that people felt was blamed on the “ other .” In so doing , people ’ s “ primordial ” desires for protection were weaponized in such a way that they conceive their own security in zero-sum terms . They were made to believe that their ethnicity was the only assurance for their security and it is on the same terms that they perceived their vulnerability . Therefore , security and vulnerability were perceived vertically rather than horizontally - within the ethnic group instead of across as citizens .
The decision to take or save lives follows this path of dehumanization and zero-sum interactions . An unacknowledged life isn ’ t worth saving . The stages of gen-
13