Building on previous studies of women's formal, descriptive, and substantive representation in Rwanda, this article examines women's symbolic representation, defined as the broader social and cultural impact of the greater representation of women in the Rwandan political system. It explores the cultural meanings of gender quotas by analyzing popular perceptions of women, of women's roles in politics and society more broadly, and of changing cultural practices vis-à-vis gender. Data were gathered over 24 months of ethnographic research conducted between 1997 and 2009 and by ongoing documentary research. The study finds that although Rwandan women have made few legislative gains, they have reaped other benefits, including increased respect from family and community members, enhanced capacity to speak and be heard in public forums, greater autonomy in decision making in the family, and increased access to education. Yet there have also been some unexpected negative consequences, such as increased friction with male siblings, male withdrawal from politics, increased marital discord, and a perception that marriage as an institution has been disrupted by the so-called upheaval of gender roles. Most significantly, increased formal representation of women has not led to increased democratic legitimacy for the government.
The 'fast track' approach for increasing women's representation in politics through the adoption of electoral gender quotas has replaced the 'incremental approach' (waiting for cultural, political and socioeconomic developments over time) in recent years. Scholars have disagreed whether increasing women's representation in sub-Saharan Africa where legislatures are weak and executives are strong is meaningless or may even undermine democracy; or increasing women's representation results in significant substantive or symbolic representation effects. This article compares two divergent cases: Botswana, a stable multiparty democracy in southern Africa and Rwanda, an increasingly authoritarian single party dominant state in east Africa. In Botswana, gender quota campaigns have raised awareness but have been unsuccessful in achieving quotas, and women's parliamentary representation is low and continues to fall. In Rwanda, a constitutional gender quota, including reserved seats combined with voluntary party quotas for women have resulted in a majority female lower house of parliament-the only such parliament in the world. These cases suggest that a democratic state is not necessarily more likely to adopt gender quotas or have more women in parliament than a less democratic one and that there are other factors that are more important in determining both. Moreover, in single party dominant systems with limited democracy, like Rwanda, elected women are able to represent women's interests. And campaigns to adopt quotas, even when unsuccessful as in democratic Botswana, can contribute to substantive and symbolic representation effects even with only limited descriptive representation. Thus, the conditions under which and the ways in which women's interests are represented must be understood broadly.
Based on long-term fieldwork in urban and rural Rwanda between 1997 and 2002 as well as on recent focus groups and interviews conducted in May and June 2007, this article explores local perceptions of the Gacaca process and asks whether Gacaca is fulfilling its primary goals to ''end impunity,'' promote reconciliation, and establish, in the words of Paul Kagame, the ''real truth of what happened during the Genocide.'' The findings indicate that how well Gacaca is functioning varies a great deal from community to community. The most important variable appears to be the character of the inyangamugayo (''persons of integrity'') who serve as both judge and jury in the Gacaca system. Regardless of how well Gacaca is operating, in communities where research was conducted, the process has increased conflict in local communities (or at least brought it to the surface) and intensified ethnic cleavages in the short term. Since the Gacaca process began its pilot phase in 2001, community-based organizations that had reestablished or built new crossethnic relationships have faced extreme difficulties as other people (both Tutsi and Hutu) within the community have tried to destroy solidarity across ethnic lines. Increasing ethnic cleavages in the short term would not necessarily be a negative outcome if the long-term prospects for building a peaceful society were good. Unfortunately, given local perceptions of widespread injustice in the Gacaca process, the latter is not the case.
Based on long-term fieldwork in urban and rural Rwanda between 1997 and 2002 as well as on recent focus groups and interviews conducted in May and June 2007, this article explores local perceptions of the Gacaca process and asks whether Gacaca is fulfilling its primary goals to ''end impunity,'' promote reconciliation, and establish, in the words of Paul Kagame, the ''real truth of what happened during the Genocide.'' The findings indicate that how well Gacaca is functioning varies a great deal from community to community. The most important variable appears to be the character of the inyangamugayo (''persons of integrity'') who serve as both judge and jury in the Gacaca system. Regardless of how well Gacaca is operating, in communities where research was conducted, the process has increased conflict in local communities (or at least brought it to the surface) and intensified ethnic cleavages in the short term. Since the Gacaca process began its pilot phase in 2001, community-based organizations that had reestablished or built new crossethnic relationships have faced extreme difficulties as other people (both Tutsi and Hutu) within the community have tried to destroy solidarity across ethnic lines. Increasing ethnic cleavages in the short term would not necessarily be a negative outcome if the long-term prospects for building a peaceful society were good. Unfortunately, given local perceptions of widespread injustice in the Gacaca process, the latter is not the case.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.