The leading academic literature on Rwanda tends to focus on the Hutu-Tutsi dichotomy, either directly or indirectly, thus resigning the historical narratives of the Twa to a footnote, permanently buried in history. Based on interviews and focus groups, as well as personal testimony provided by three Twa civil society leaders, this chapter explores Twa perceptions and experiences of national unity and reconciliation during the post-genocide period. As a component of this, our chapter examines popular perceptions of the Historically Marginalized Peoples (HMP) label, a quasi-legal category generally associated with the Twa, within the broader framework of the government's unity-building and reconciliation campaign. This snapshot of Twa interactions with government policy and practice shows that Twa often feel excluded from efforts to foster national pride, unity and reconciliation. Equally, the majority of Twa object to the use of the HMP label, and many emphasize the continued relevance of Twa identity and culture at a community level.
Seen as one of Africa's most visionary and enlightened autocrats, Paul Kagame's presidency is often contrasted with the violence and ethnocentrism of his discredited predecessors. Drawing on rarely analysed primary sources, this article disputes this simplified narrative by revealing striking continuities in the ruling elite's rhetorical repertoire in the late colonial period (1956–1959) and present-day Rwanda. Both then and now, rhetorical calls to remove ethnic labels from public discourse in the name of national unity are key resilience strategies designed to shape regime relations with domestic and international audiences in ways that reinforce power concentration by a small (largely Tutsi) elite. Changes in the distribution of power and the scale of anti-Tutsi violence (most notably in 1994) help explain why a similar rhetorical strategy failed to prevent the dismantling of the Tutsi oligarchy in 1961 while strengthening its contemporary counterpart.
All websites referenced were accessible in November 2020. This edition of the Digest covers the period from June 2020 to September 2020.
COVID-19 and its containment measuresWhile the effects of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and its COVID-19 disease continue to be felt by all, new and pre-existing inequities continue to be exacerbated amid efforts to cope with and contain the pandemic. In September 2020, Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, argued that COVID-19 is not only a pandemic, but in many places, a syndemic, 'characterized by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person's susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes'. 1 Containing and mitigating the negative effects of COVID-19 is a political choice, and recognizing this crisis as a syndemic in places where containment and mitigation efforts have failed 'allows us to recognize how political and social factors drive, perpetuate, or worsen the emergence and clustering of disease'. 2 As discussed throughout the current and preceding issue of the GSP Digest, promoting an equitable and sustainable transition and recovery from COVID-19 will require 'a larger vision, one encompassing education, employment, housing, food, and environment'. 3 As of 30 September 2020, a total of 33.6 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported globally since 30 December 2019 according to the World Health Organization (WHO), resulting in over 1 million deaths. 4,5 From June 2020 to September 2020, the Americas were the epicenter of COVID-19, with signs of a second wave threatening in Europe by the end of September 2020. The WHO transitioned from daily to weekly epidemiological reporting in August 2020 and began providing a weekly operational update as well. 6 For a list of relevant databases tracking COVID-19 policy responses across countries, please see GSP Digest 20.3.
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.