I. INTRODUCTION

Rwanda is still suffering one of the most severe tragedies of its history. Its survival both as a Nation and as an independent and sovereign State requires taking up multiple and existential challenges. Indeed, our country is currently being destroyed, economically, physically, and morally. The war launched by the RPF on October 1, 1990 and its ensuing extreme violence that culminated in genocides, damaged the atmosphere of friendliness and peaceful co-existence that had begun to characterise the three ethnic groups of Rwandan society: Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa.

Rwandans inside the country were unable to prevent and to manage the war and its violence mainly because of the virus of regionalism which was inoculated and nurtured by some narrow-minded political leaders, and a pseudo civilian and military elite competing for money and honours at the expense of the well-being and interests of the masses. The virus thrived and expanded particularly because of inadequate training of the Rwandan population in civism, politics, and technology. That is why the population was not prepared to unmask and hold in check ambitious and selfish manipulators and demagogues who used their native region as a fold-away seat to hide their inability to propose a direction and a far-reaching national action plan and thus to win enough followers dedicated to its implementation.

That is why that war itself must be considered as one of the vicissitudes that have characterised and accompanied the struggle for political power in Rwanda since the 16^th century. Indeed, until today, bad governance in Rwanda is basically illustrated by discrimination, exclusion, restriction or preference based on regional origin or ethnic identity. As a consequence, bad governance suppresses civil liberties, tramples down fundamental human rights in politics, economy and in social, cultural and other sectors of public life for equal citizens of a same nation. In this country with limited national resources, the struggle for power often masks the struggle for the control of resources and the appropriation of mechanisms and circuits of their social distribution.

Since the RPF victory in July 1994, hundreds of thousands of Hutu have been thrown into overcrowded and inhumane prisons without any consideration to due process; four to five suspects live crammed into one m² cells and the International Community has chosen to remain silent about their tragic fate. The current government in Rwanda has no political or social base, it is not representative of the population. It is a government that took power through military force by an ethnocentric oligarchy, which so far has not been able to win the hearts of the people over which it rules and to set the country back on its path to economic and social development.

The mainly tutsi Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF)’s oligarchy has embarked on a policy of socio-political exclusion as a way of governing. It has set up a police state and a dictatorship that has gone so far as to extend its hold and domination over NGOs, human rights organisations, churches, private press, support organisations for local projects, and the entire civil society. In fact, the RPF regime rules through terror, through massacres of civilian population, arbitrary arrest and detention, through disappearances, torture, and systematic repression of real or potential opponents. These practices have always been used in areas under RPF control throughout the war. Until 1993 this Front had already massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and forced another million of civilians into flight. This massive and desperate population fleeing RPF established overcrowded makeshifts including in Kigali suburbs. However, thanks to a media and diplomatic misinformation campaign conducted by the RPF and the inability on the part of the then Government to argue its case, those severe human rights violations and abuses along with other violations of international humanitarian law were never sufficiently exposed and supporters of the "conspiracy of silence" still refuse to recognise and qualify those abuses.

Outside Rwanda, especially in Eastern ex-Zaire, currently Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the RPF regime launched deadly attacks and massacred more than 200,000 Hutu refugees in 1996 /1997. These crimes were recognised as acts of genocide by the United Nations Inquiry Commission set up by the Security Council Resolution N^o 1997/58. The same regime is also committing acts of terrorism in countries hosting Rwandan refugees, assassinating political opponents, while at the same time running a demonising campaign against the refugee population, indiscriminately calling them "criminals". The regime publishes wild lists of suspected "genocidaires" branding all his critics as criminals.

While dialogue constitutes the necessary requirement for healing the wounds of each other for achieving reconciliation, and for laying down the foundations for lasting peace, the RPF has remained deaf to constant calls for dialogue since it took over power in Kigali. The RPF should remember that, during the Dar Es-Salaam Regional Summit on February 19, 1991 about Rwandan refugees, it was agreed upon that Rwanda could never enjoy stability as long as all refugees did not have the right to go home and no political dialogue was established between RPF and Rwandan Government. What was true for former refugees is still true for nowadays refugees. Moreover, RPF intransigence and its sectarian policy constitute an obstacle to the realisation of minimal conditions allowing a voluntary and peaceful return of refugees to their home country in safety and dignity. These conditions can be summarised as follows:

• Guaranteeing collective and individual safety;
• Setting up a true national army, representative of the people and at the service of the people;
• Respecting the right to private property, civil liberties, and political pluralism;
• Setting up Institutions representative of the people through the organisation of free, democratic, transparent and fair elections.

In order to put an end to this situation, Rwandans who advocate peace and justice created the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR).

The RDR is a political organisation whose aim is to establish a Rule of Law, Justice, Democracy, Republican values and Truth on the Rwandan tragedy, as the foundations for true reconciliation, sustainable development and peace. This Rule of Law must be established without any kinds of exclusion and must respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter for Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The RDR has clearly and unequivocally condemned genocide, all crimes and other violations of human rights committed against the Tutsi; it has also condemned genocide, all crimes and other violations of human rights committed against the Hutu; all crimes and violations of human rights committed against the Twa; all crimes and violations of human rights committed against expatriates.

The RDR invites all Rwandans to honour the memory of all victims without exception and to avoid using, for political benefits, the tragedy which has plunged into mourning the families, the Rwandan people, and the whole world.

The RDR remains convinced that the Rwandan conflict is of a political nature and that its solution is bound to be political. The RDR continues to believe in the virtues of dialogue and negotiation as the best ways of settling conflicts. It maintains that no sustainable development is conceivable as long as there will be Rwandans in exile and as long as the majority of the population inside Rwanda will be excluded from the governance of the country by an ethnocentric and bloodthirsty dictatorship.

The RDR invites all its members and other Rwandan democrats to mobilise and to work hard in order to put an end to the untold suffering of the Rwandan population by establishing a Government of Broad National Consensus, a legitimate government which can guarantee the respect for human life, liberty, basic human rights, in replacement of the RPF repressive and dictatorial regime.

The ethnic bipolarisation along with automatic reflexes of solidarity which came into being under the different oligarchic regimes that followed one another in Rwanda constitute the causes for permanent tensions within Rwandan society. In order to definitely put an end to the refugees problem and to the Rwandan crisis, the history of Rwandan politics, society, and economy must be submitted to a critical analysis without any complacency with the aim of uncovering the causes, circumstances and aims of cyclical conflicts and to offer realistic and lasting political solutions that will allow the establishment of a nation founded upon a Rule of Law, offering security and protection to every citizen. Since ethnocentrism and regionalism are the main evils that have characterised bad governance in Rwanda, to eradicate them is to find the solution to the Rwandan crisis.

During the recent history of Rwanda, political power was characterised by absolutism and exclusion. The current territory of Rwanda grew out of bloody wars waged by Tutsi kings against Hutu kingdoms. Subsequently, a repressive regime against the Hutu was instituted. This ethnic evil has left an indelible mark on the socio-political evolution of Rwanda from the feudo-monarchic regime through the colonial and republican regimes up to the current RPF regime.

There is no firm, complete agreement between historians and researchers on the exact definition and origins of Rwandan ethnic groups (Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa). However, it is widely known that all tensions in Rwanda are political in nature, ethnic rivalries being only a corollary of political tensions, a corollary often used as an instrument instead of solving a fundamental issue, that is, a fair sharing in political, economic, and cultural power, and social justice as well.

In general, any group of people living on a same area, speaking a same language and sharing a same culture is considered an ethnic group. Therefore, strictly speaking, the notion of Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa does not correspond to the traditional definition of an ethnic community, because, on one hand, the three groups live on a same territory and on the other hand, they speak the same language, KINYARWANDA, and their cultural differences cannot be easily recognised, especially by foreigners. The Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa have always shared a same view of the world; they have always consulted the same soothsayer and venerated the same common ancestor's cult. They all believe in the same Imana and Gihanga (a mythical founding ancestor); they fought in the same army against slave-traders and neighbouring kingdoms.

According to this definition, the Hutu, Twa, and Tutsi should constitute one and same "ethnic community"; they should not be three different ethnic groups. Ethnologists and anthropologists, like other ordinary Rwandans, have drawn on physical features to distinguish between Twa, Tutsi, and Hutu. Despite mixed marriages, which reduced these differences, still today as yesterday, every Rwandan, whether he openly expresses it or conceals it knows by education or tradition from his parents and ancestors, to which group he and his family belong. In fact, the sense of ethnic identity may be outspoken or strategically repressed. In reality, the word used in Kinyarwanda when a Rwandan is asking another Rwandan if he or she is Twa, Hutu, and Tutsi, is the word "ubwoko" which encompasses some aspects of ethnicity and caste. For Rwandans, the terms Twa, Tutsi and Hutu are so crystal clear that they do not constitute an issue in terms of understanding. On the other hand, when explaining these notions to foreigners, some Rwandans use only notions corresponding to their current political interests and views.

At any account, the main issue is not the existence of ethnic groups in Rwanda as defined by Rwandans themselves or by ethnologists. On the contrary, this social diversity is an invaluable social asset. The notion of ethnic group becomes an issue when some people use their socio-political identity to discriminate against or oppress other groups. It is this kind of discrimination, according to the 21/12/65 International Convention on the Eradication of all kinds of discrimination, that constitutes ethnocentrism. This evil must end given that it causes enormous damages to Rwandan society. Before showing how we plan to eradicate that evil, we must first explain how it was practised throughout the Rwandan socio-political history.

In Rwanda ethnic discrimination started when the Tutsi ruling classes initiated a political strategy to perpetuate their hold on power and legitimise their domination over Rwandan society. Ideologues of that period manipulated existing myths and purposefully rearranged them to their own advantage with the view of creating a domination ideology that assigned a pseudo-superiority to the Tutsi over the Hutu and the Twa. This ideology which sanctified the superiority to one group over the others is ethnocentrism which still affects all of us today. This "ethnocentric" ideology was maintained, nurtured and disseminated through a specialised oral literature, which was transmitted orally by specialists. The main body of that literature can be found in the following corpuses: the historical narratives (IBITEKEREZO: 15^th century), the genealogies (UBUCURABWENGE: 16^th century), the esoteric code (UBWIRU: 16^th century), the dynastic poems (IBISIGO: 17^th century), the panegyric poems (IBYIVUGO: 18^th century), the songs (INDIRIMBO: 18th century), and the pastoral poems (AMAZINA Y’INKA: 19th century). The main features of ethnocentrism are present in this literature: the superiority and/or inferiority complex, exclusion on socio-political basis, and a drive for power monopolisation by one ethnic group.

This ideology was propagated and constantly reinforced over five centuries of domination to the point that the masses ended up accepting and integrating it in their everyday lives. This "racial" discrimination ideology made its way into Rwandan culture to the point that the individual who was "servant", therefore "inferior", or "master" therefore "superior", believed to be so through natural law (by God’s will: naturalist ideology). The "masters" (Tutsi) used power derived from that ideology they had hammered out to exploit those they considered their "servants" or "inferiors" (Hutu and Twa).

Contrarily to what some revisionists of Rwandan history want the world to believe, when Europeans set foot in Rwanda at the end of 19^th century and early 20^th century, they found a society deeply divided and systematically hierarchical, a country ridden with internal tensions. Unfortunately, in order to easily establish and strengthen their domination, colonialists maintained, reinforced and systematised Rwandan traditional hierarchical system and social injustice initiated by Tutsi ruling classes. More importantly, they favoured the education of Tutsi elite at the expense of other ethnic groups.

2.1.3. Negative solidarity and collective culpability

In Rwanda, the hierarchy myth between ethnic groups has had as a major consequence the globalisation phenomenon which consists of having the whole ethnic entity endorse individual responsibility that should be borne by individual members of that ethnic group. Thus, despite the fact that people from the same ethnic group do not have the same qualities or vices, politically-motivated wars have tended to make people believe in the existence of a malefic will aimed at linking inescapably the fate of each individual to the fate of his ethnic group. As a consequence, it seems almost impossible for "normal" individuals with different ethnic identities to imagine that they can have and defend the same ideas, the same political opinions, or the same socio-professional interests. Therefore, slowly, most Tutsi and Hutu have ended up believing that the survival of their ethnic group or even the protection of the interests of their ethnic group cannot be defended by someone from a different ethnic group. An individual who attempts to play such role is rather considered a mere puppet. In other words, people have been accustomed to believe that their individual success naturally depends upon the success of their ethnic group.

This belief is so deeply rooted in the minds of most Rwandans that it has impeded the rise of other kinds of solidarity based, for example, on common life conditions, same profession, same work conditions such as worker unions, professional associations, pressure groups, or multiethnic political parties. Even when such types of solidarity or associations attempt to emerge, they suffer from the ethnic phenomenon interference. Thus, through propaganda and demagogy, oppressed and politically ignorant masses are led to believe that when a member of their ethnic group is King, President, Minister, or a major Chief they hold some share in his power. For instance, during the short periods of political pluralism of the1960s and the 1990s, political parties originally not based on ethnicity became increasingly ethnic rallies instead of becoming rallies of individuals sharing a same political platform for the country. Likewise, existing human rights associations were quick in denouncing human rights violations against Tutsi and remained silent or played down the facts when the Hutu were victims of human rights abuses and vice-versa.

This psychological conditioning, deeply rooted in the minds of Rwandans leads them to believe that every Hutu or Tutsi must automatically supports anyone of his ethnic group no matter what good or wrong he might have done. In the course of Rwandan history, Tutsi and Hutu leaders have utilised and exploited ethnic solidarity in order to conceal conflicting interests between themselves and the masses. That is why in the 1950s, in order to maintain the status quo, some Tutsi who did not have anything to do with the ruling Tutsi clan were forced to participate in a fierce struggle against the Hutu who advocated political change and this resulted in the loss of many human lives. Likewise, in the wake of the September 25, 1961 referendum, which was supervised by the United Nations and which put an end to Tutsi-dominated monarchic and feudal institutions, many peaceful peasants -Tutsi herdsmen not interested in state power- were forced to flee, expelled by other Hutu peasants on the account of their solidarity with Tutsi regime that had exploited Hutu peasants for four centuries.

After 1959, Hutu peasants celebrated the victory of GAHUTU. They had no idea of the fact that, very soon, a handful of people belonging to a greedy civilian and military middle class would betray the ideals of the Revolution without any regards to the interests of the masses.

Between April and July 1994, hundred of thousands of innocent Tutsi were massacred on the account that they belonged to the ethnic group from which most Rwandans believed came the fighters who assassinated President JUVENAL HABYARIMANA. Automatic solidarity to the crime was attributed to the Tutsi and the whole group was held responsible for the harsh conditions in which lived millions of Rwandans displaced by the war launched by the RPF on October 1, 1990 from Uganda.

Likewise, until today, many members of the Hutu community have not recognised and duly condemned the genocide committed against the Tutsi and other horrors and atrocities inflicted upon them by fellow Hutu in 1994. When they analyse current events in Rwanda where the RPF military junta rules through the oppression of one section of the Rwandan population, they tend to minimise or to forget this horrible past so that no useful lesson can be drawn from it. Some people refuse to give testimony of what they know and what they have seen. This negative solidarity has as a corollary, the collective culpability by which innocent Hutus fall victims.

Under current RPF regime, every Tutsi is invited to share in the victory (INTSINZI) no matter what his social condition may be, as if all Tutsi are benefiting from RPF take-over. Tutsi are asked to cheer the speeches of "liberators" and to celebrate the glories of "heroic fighters" who saved them from genocide. Denouncing the genocide against the Hutu committed by RPF and still going on since October 1990 and other human rights abuses, arbitrary detentions of hundreds of thousands of people held in inhumane conditions, the plundering of private property, and the exportation of violence and war in other neighbouring countries is considered as an act of high treason against one’s ethnic group, a coward betrayal against liberators, an obvious sign of collaboration with the enemy (the Hutu), collectively branded "Interahamwe".

1. Period before 1959

Under the pre-colonial and colonial regimes, the core of power was held by some Tutsi families, especially the BANYIGINYA and the BEGA. Except for the coup d’état of RUCUNSHU, which some how upset power traditions, kings usually came from the Banyiginya clan while the Abega clan provided queen mothers who co-reigned with their sons.

A major part of today Rwanda was ruled by a monarch who had absolute power over people and property (cattle, land, and harvest….). He was assisted by chiefs who belonged inevitably to a few Tutsi families. Thus, access and participation to power was denied to Hutu and Twa who made up 85% and 1% of the Rwanda population and to most Tutsi then evaluated at 14% from which a small minority wielded power.

Political and social order rested upon an institutionalised system of inequality and repression in which a small minority of Tutsi dominant class exercised real power; the Hutu was at the mercy of the ruling class. This closed system, which didn’t allow a peaceful transfer of power, regularly resorted to intrigues, political assassination and to other forms of violence as a way of settling problems and disputes related to the access to power.

The MWAMI (King) and his entourage remained deaf to political, social and economic demands voiced by Hutu in the mid 1950’s and violently repressed their drive for emancipation. This blockage and repression explain the violence that was utilised to bring about political transformations and social change in the context of the 1959 Social Revolution which culminated in the instauration of the Rwandan Republic in 1961 and the Independence, on July 1, 1962. This break away from the past gave birth to a profound social transformation, ending the bondage and the illegitimacy of Tutsi domination over other ethnic groups. Furthermore, modern institutions were set up, based on the principle of the independence and separation of the legislative, judiciary, and executive powers.

b. Period of the First Republic: 1959-1973

This period was marked by the activities of four main political parties: the Democratic Republican Movement (Mouvement Démocratique Républicain: MDR-Parmehutu), the Rwandese National Union (Union Nationale Rwandaise: UNAR), the Masses Social Promotion Association (Association pour la Promotion Sociale de la Masse: APROSOMA) and the Rwandese Democratic Rally (Rassemblement Démocratique Rwandais: RADER).

In the wake of the 1959 Social Revolution, the adoption of a republican regime, and the country’s independence, most Tutsi leaders went into exile with the Mwami, Kigeri V NDAHINDURWA. These refugees and their descendants have always longed to regain power by force in Rwanda. The attacks launched by those mainly Tutsi refugees from neighbouring countries in the 1960s, resulted in, among other consequences, the victimisation of many Tutsi accused of collaborating with the enemy, a phenomenon that bred other new waves of refugees, maintaining of a climate of suspicion, and the adoption of a policy of exclusion of Tutsi from local administration, the security services and the army.

After the revolutionary euphoria, UNAR party disappeared from Rwandan politics as a consequence of a mass exodus of its leaders while APROSOMA and a fraction of RADER were absorbed by MDR-Parmehutu. In the 1965 legislative and presidential elections, only MDR-Parmehutu candidates took part in legislative and presidential elections of 1965. In addition to this power monopolisation by one party, from 1968 on, other political opinions within the same party were stifled. This radicalisation was accompanied by the concentration of power in the hands of President KAYIBANDA. This created a political discontent, which lasted until the social disturbances at the end of 1972 and early 1973; these troubles in turn were used as a pretext for the military coup d’état of July 5, 1973.

2. Period of the Second Republic (1973-1994)

Under the Second Republic, the phenomenon of power concentration in hands of one individual was maintained and even emphasised by a small civil and military oligarchy. Instead of restoring the multi-party system, President HABYARIMANA created the National Revolutionary Movement for Development (Mouvement Révolutionnaire National pour le Développement: MRND) and embarked on a policy of regional and ethnic balance. Five years after the establishment of a military and authoritarian regime, the 1978 Constitution gave excessive powers to the President.

During this regime, recruitment of Tutsi into the army, security services, and the local administration was very limited. To circumvent their political exclusion, Tutsi invested their energies in business, industries, and the church with great success thanks to connections they created with some high ranking dignitaries within the regime, as a result they wield real influence in Rwandan society, economy, and politics.

3. Period of RPF Regime (1994 to ...)

The influence of Tutsi refugees, which was decisive in the political evolution of Uganda with a massive participation of young Rwandan Tutsi refugees in the YOWERI MUSEVENI guerrilla war (1981-1986) enabled these refugees to organise both militarily and politically and to set up an infiltration network of power circuits in Kigali.

On October 1, 1990 RPF launched its attack on Rwanda under the pretext of bringing democracy, the return of refugees, and socio-economic development back to Rwanda. However, it very soon became obvious that all these reasons were mere pretexts. As a matter of fact, RPF chose to attack Rwanda at a time when a democratisation process was under way spurred by a combination of internal and external pressure. On the other hand, the attack took place on the eve of the visit of Rwandan refugees to Rwanda. The visit was part of an action plan aimed at finding a definitive solution to the Rwandan refugee's problem in Uganda. This action plan was established under the agreement concluded on July 30, 1990 between Rwanda, Uganda, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

As to the socio-economic development, although the Rwandan economy started to run out of steam from 1985, the fact remains that Rwanda was one of the few African countries that had achieved a remarkable economic development. Despite numerous obstacles, particularly due to the lack of mineral resources and a very high demographic growth rate, Rwanda had the best development indicators compared to her neighbours, including Uganda from where the war was launched. In fact, the evolution of events in Rwanda has shown that the RPF was interested in securing total power through force with the aim of establishing a pseudo-nationalist, dictatorial and vindictive regime. That is why RPF is determined to govern without political parties, without free, transparent and fair democratic elections.

The majority of Rwandan people have always opposed RPF’s ideology. Thus, throughout the war, the population fled areas conquered by RPF and even rejected its candidates during the popular consultations of 1993, which were organised in the "buffer zone", an area that was under RPF influence. Furthermore, upon its victory in July 1994, more than 2.5 million people chose to flee the country rather than be subjected to a regime imposed on them by military force. Playing on geo-strategic and economic interests of some great powers, RPF decided to hunt down and massacre refugees, especially in RDC (ex-Zaire) where several hundred thousands refugees perished under an accomplice watch of the International community. At the same time, over one million people were forced to go back to their country. Many of those who were forcibly repatriated have either been arbitrarily arrested or merely murdered.

After the RPF victory, its regime in Kigali has become totalitarian and discriminatory. It has established façade institutions because real power is held by a small military and civilian oligarchy belonging mainly to the Tutsi ethnic group. This ethnocentric oligarchy has marginalised other political shades of opinion and is determined to transform the Hutu into second class citizens, while using some of them for cosmetically for the system’s image. Those who refused to become instruments of these political cosmetics had to flee the country or were either assassinated or arrested. The RPF still continues to refuse the broadening of the base of political and social institutions of the country, preferring instead to pursue the massacres of civilian populations who, yesterday as today, are opposed to its ideology. Without a social base and a political legitimacy, the RPF can rule the country only through violence and extreme terror. Its system offers Rwandans only one alternative: to submit or to die.

Exclusion is basically a politico-economic phenomenon. Exclusion becomes more dreadful as national resources and the competition to control them become fierce. Ethnic discrimination is fostered by leaders worried about losing the power they acquired through violence, leaders worried about losing benefits and privileges related to their position of power. Taking over power through war, violence, coups d’état or assassinations drives new leaders to hold on power because they fear justice or revenge from those they have excluded.

Exclusion and marginalisation of ethnic groups are often accompanied by the refusal on the part of the group in power to recognise the grievances of the rival group. Refusing to examine communities' demands and to recognise historical realities condemns both individuals and groups who consider themselves victims to develop hostile attitudes towards individuals or groups from which come the governing oligarchies, thus forcing members of the oligarchy to resort to a permanent violent repression. That is why the first major project of a governing oligarchy is to institute mono-ethnic armies. These armies that function as ethnic militias readily use physical elimination of real or supposed opponents or adversaries.

Ethnicity is a reality that existed in Rwanda prior to the European colonisation. Instead of denying this obvious fact and repressing its problems by calling it a mere colonial fabrication, we must rather tackle it and seek a just, fair and lasting solution to it for the communities as well as their individual members. The refusal to discuss the ethnic issue during the Arusha Peace talks (1992/1993) is one of the causes of the failure of the Arusha Peace Agreement.

If Hutu and Tutsi want to prevent oligarchies (Tutsi and Hutu) from leading them to mutual extermination, these two communities must engage in true discussions aimed at finding ways and means that can enable them to live in peaceful cohabitation, respecting each other, without any claims to hegemony of one group over the other stemming from outdated historical considerations about cultural, military or numerical superiority. In order to achieve this goal, together we must go back into the origins of Rwanda’s evils and together we must make an objective reading of historical facts. In this context, the historical and social existence of Hutu, Tutsi and Twa ethnic groups must first of all be agreed upon and thus fail some revisionist efforts aimed at rewriting Rwanda’s history or manipulating historical facts. The goal of that national debate is to achieve a "modus vivendi" which would enable both Hutu and Tutsi to live in a peaceful cohabitation and to settle their differences without resorting to war or violence. This new model of social organisation must be founded upon legal and specific institutions designed to ensure peace, reconciliation and good understanding between the communities.

Hopes for eradicating ethnocentrism must be founded upon an appropriate legislation aimed at preventing exclusion and marginalisation and at punishing ethnocentric behaviours, speeches and propaganda. But such legislation must be prepared and enacted by an elected parliament, truly representative of the national and social body of Rwanda, ethnically neutral and sufficiently independent from the military and civilian oligarchy controlling the executive branch. Obviously, obedience to this new legislation requires building up an efficient legal system, which must also be ethnically neutral and independent from military or executive interference. This is far from being the case in Rwanda today.

As each people must determine, in a sovereign way, its own destiny, the will of the people must be considered as the pivot of that new social structure. However, new legal and institutional mechanisms must be designed to hold in check the consequences of a popular will and of a mullet-party government, given that the latter tend to defend the interests of their constituencies to the detriment of national interests. Thus other forms of representation must be designed to avoid the struggle for political power from stifling specific interests of some groups or individuals and to pre-empt any form of exclusion, discrimination and marginalisation.

It is imperative to strengthen and improve the training of the population in technology, politics, and civism in order to prevent civilian and military oligarchies from demagogically manipulating ethnicity and thus plunging popular masses into permanent conflicts. Every citizen must become aware of his rights, duties, and interests and be able to defend them without using the ethnic umbrella. Free and independent mass media must inform the population of the grave danger of ethnic confrontation and its severe consequences on the survival of communities and of individuals as well. Individuals must learn to free themselves politically and psychologically from the weight of ethnicity and make their own choices. They must learn to refuse blind and automatic solidarity with their ethnic group since this behaviour facilitates ethnic manipulation and leads necessarily to exclusion and extremism. People must be able to distance themselves from civilian and military oligarchies that use them as a springboard for gaining political power and other profits related to it. They must be able to create other kinds of solidarity rather than ethnic solidarity, which can bring about tolerance and peaceful cohabitation. They also must learn to respect other people’s lives and recognise their dignity and their rights, not because they belong to the same ethnic group, but because they are human beings. In so doing, one can hope to abolish the culture of collective culpability which goes so far as to extend the wrongdoings of past generations to current and even to future generations.

Rwandans must be taught to honour the memory of all innocent people who fell victims of the various political conflicts which are part of Rwanda’s history and to avoid selective memory which generates frustrations, feelings of humiliation and foster claims to some sort of ethnic superiority. Selective memory triggers feelings of resentment, injustice, and hostility inciting the other not to recognise or to minimise crimes committed by members of his or her ethnic group; it constitutes an obstacle to tolerance and reconciliation. Rwandans must learn the values of peace through a culture of dialogue, tolerance, and free and independent media.

On a closer look, cyclical conflicts revolving around the exercise of power are aimed at controlling or seizing limited national resources. To civilise this struggle for power, the economy must be freed from state control. Equal opportunity to set up a business must be offered to all citizens so that all can enjoy the benefits of their work without using ethnicity as a springboard or finding it an obstacle. A quick development of the private sector and the rise of a strong and independent civil society will discourage both military and civilian leaders from attempting to use public wealth for their own private or family benefits. Conversely, citizens will realise that ethnicity does not have much weight in having their own rights respected and guaranteed. They will realise that someone from another ethnic group can guarantee their rights and work for their interests.

The temptation to surround oneself with people from one’s own ethnic group also stems from the desire to preserve illegally acquired goods and wealth. That is why before taking and leaving office, public office-holders must be compelled to declare their property and wealth. Corruption, influence trafficking, illegal acquisition of wealth, and spoliation must be severely punished.

Legal boundaries must be set up to the exercise of power and the powers of the Executive branch, especially those of the President and other top officials must be reduced in order to avoid the concentration of power in the hands of a military and civilian oligarchy. Holders of public offices must be chosen through a periodical process of multi-party free and fair elections.

The powers of the Legislative and Judiciary branches must be strengthened so that they can effectively control the action of the government and the activity of other social and economic operators. A stable, professional, and open-to-all public service, with clear and transparent recruitment and promotion criteria can constitute a powerful beacon against vassalisation through politics and the establishment of "baronies".

Political pluralism, especially the institutionalisation of political opposition both as a safeguard and as a possibility of a peaceful transfer of power, is crucial for preventing ethnocentrism.

Because the army and the security services have been used by the different ethnic groups to muzzle or repress the will of the population and to maintain exclusion or the marginalisation of the other ethnic group, solving the Hutu-Tutsi conflict requires setting up a true national army, balanced and neutral en terms of ethnic polarity.

In the West and in Africa, some political quarters and powerful lobbies are reinforcing ethnic polarisation and encouraging the current RPF regime to maintain its radicalism and intransigence through a manichean rhetoric and practice, systematically reductionist and opposed to the legitimate interests of the Hutu community, globally demonised and abusively regarded as the only responsible for Rwanda’s tragedy. If the International Community wants to work for reconciliation and avoid antagonising furthermore these ethnic groups it must recognise massacres and injustices that were committed against the Hutu ethnic group as it rightfully did for the Tutsi ethnic group. Extensive studies on hidden aspects of the Rwanda’s crisis must be conducted with the help of the International Community and their conclusions made public.

The international community knows very well that the aid it provides generously to Rwanda is used selectively to help one category of the victims of Rwanda’s tragedy while the other categories, generally the Hutu, are not cared for by the current RPF regime. This complacency strengthens ethnic feelings of resentment and constitutes an obstacle and a delaying factor to reconciliation and peaceful cohabitation. International aid mechanisms and co-operation must be reviewed to ensure that all Rwandans, without any consideration to ethnicity, benefit from that aid.

Just like ethnocentrism, regionalism is a consequence of a lack of the rule of law. Regionalism is a deviation both in governance and social behaviour, a deviation fundamentally characterised by an egocentric seizure of political power and the appropriation of limited national resources. Regionalism is essentially practised through exclusion, discrimination, restriction or preference based on people’s regional origin.

As understood today, regionalism, unlike ethnocentrism, is an evil that appeared after Rwanda’s independence. The recent political history of Rwanda shows that political leaders have tended to surround themselves with individuals from their own region because of fear of a democratic transfer of power and of heavy pressure from power-greedy advisers whose sole aim was to remain in power at all costs and to monopolise the distribution circuits of limited national resources by purposely manipulating the Constitution and other republican laws.

In 1968, when some parliamentarians used their constitutional rights and moved to implement the conclusions of the Report of the National Assembly Commission of Inquiry (Commission for the Control of the Government on Administrative, Economic and Judiciary Affairs) on the management of national affairs and the development of the country, an internal crisis broke out within the MDR-Parmehutu party and within the government. The crisis resulted in the exclusion of "deviant" parliamentarians, mostly from the North. Some parliamentarians sensing their power threatened desperately tried to amend the Constitution with the aim of allowing President Grégoire KAYIBANDA to remain in power. The Kayibanda’s last government comprising 50 per cent of all ministerial portfolios held by individuals mostly from few communes of Gitarama was a climax of a regionalist drift. As a result of this exclusion compounded with the presence of some ambitious military officers, the North became the centre of contest and dissent. These events led to the coup d’état of July 5, 1973, which ushered in the Second Republic.

After 1973, regionalist factions fighting for the control of power used the military, the school system and the university for political purposes both as relays and instruments of partisan, divisive propaganda, instead of using them to hammer out national unity. In employment sector, especially for top positions in the civil service, regionalism was practised through appointments to diplomatic missions and other well-paid posts. Later on, when multiparty politics were again allowed, the challenge to this supremacy was at the centre of the internal opposition’s demands.

After the 1973 coup d’état, the army became the centre of power. Recruiting and career management were based on regional preferences and this practice strained relationships between military officers from the North and those from the South.

Intelligence services, an other instrument of power, were instituted and structured to buttress a regionalist regime. Thus, candidacy for a political office, appointment to diplomatic positions, promotions in high positions of the civil service, and access to higher education were vetted by the secret services which used the criterion of supposed loyalty to the regime as the main criterion for selection. In most cases, people from the North were automatically deemed more loyal to the regime than those from the South.

The virus of regionalism did not spare the country’s legal system. Thus, only ministers from the south were accused of embezzling public funds while some ministers from the north notorious for the embezzlement of public funds were never accused.

The assassination of Parmehutu leaders from the south worsened regionalism in Rwanda, especially due to the fact that they did not pose any threat to the new military regime, which had just deposed them. The ill and inhumane treatment of President Grégoire Kayibanda, the main hero of the 1959 Revolution, had a deep negative impact upon the majority of Rwandan population and frustrated more deeply the people from the centre and the south, his native region.

Rwandan elite has been deeply divided along regionalist lines. After the war broke out in October 1990 and in the wake of the establishment of political pluralism in June 1991, political opposition leaders, mainly from the centre and the south, believed that time was ripe to oust northern leaders from power and to make a come back to power. Due to a weak analytical capacity, some of those political leaders sought alliance with the Rwandese Patriotic Front backed by the Ugandan Regular Army (NRA) and made public their goal to overthrow President Juvénal Habyarimana and his entourage and region. Playing on this antagonism, the RPF succeeded in dividing Rwandan political forces and the Armed Forces to the great loss of both Northerners and Southerners, for all of them lost their portion of power and were indiscriminately condemned to exile, discrimination, or marginalisation by RPF, which all of them had helped to seize power.

The after-effects of regionalism are still alive among some exiles who accuse people from other regions of being responsible for Rwanda’s collapse and the main cause of their exile and predicament. Other Rwandans, unaware of what is at stake in Rwanda’s crisis, justify their isolationism and their inability to work with other Rwandans by a pathological fear of becoming once again entangled in a regionalist regime after their eventual return to Rwanda.

The last category of regionalism-sick Rwandans is those who silently distrust or openly contest any leadership among refugees, not because of their ideas, their political program, their achievements, but merely because these leaders do not come from their region. This mistrust, suspicion, and constant demonising of other Rwandans combined with the inability to engage in an open debate with others and to emerge as leaders of a community larger than one’s own region, leads to the incapacity of working with others to establish as quickly as possible a rule of law in Rwanda.

Today’s regionalists continue the work done in the past, especially within political parties, which are now under the gag of the RPF. In fact, regionalism is the main factor which has led Rwandans to mishandle the war initiated by the RPF and not to be able to find appropriate solution to it, a solution that would have spared Rwandans the tragedy and the horrendous conditions related to the exodus. Maintaining this evil is to prolong the suffering of the Rwandan people; this is unacceptable and criminal.

Regionalists provoke feelings of resentment and hostility among the victims of their exclusion or injustice; these feelings in turn drive the victims to adopt the same attitudes and behaviours in their own regions. In so doing, nobody is anymore concerned about national interests and the sentiment of patriotism vanishes.

If regionalism has made so much damage in Rwanda it is because it allowed people in power to become quickly rich at the expense of the rest of the population. Because of their inability to develop each region’s potentials and to create new resources, the different regional factions were only engaged in a fierce competition for the appropriation of existing limited resources. Thus, instead of developing the private sector and of creating a thriving civil society, they were competing for limited positions in the public civil service. Instead of building enough needed schools, there was a fierce struggle for obtaining a place in existing public schools. This practice leads necessarily to an unfair distribution of national resources between regions and slows down national development.

Moreover, the drive for power for leaders of different parties, despite their inability to propose a credible national program, has led them during the multiparty period (from 1991-1994), to using their regions as electoral strongholds or bastions for hypothetical future elections which never took place. As a consequence of these behaviours, no national political leaders emerged to rival President Juvénal HABYARIMANA. After his assassination, the country fell into the hands of "handymen" who were incapable of holding in check the violence, massacres and genocide that ensued. Leaders who are at ease only with people from their own regions can logically understand only problems limited to their region, their communes. In the age of globalisation, Rwandans both inside and abroad must marginalise those backwards-minded regionalists so as to allow the rise of a new leadership empowered to deal with today challenges.

Most solutions proposed for fighting ethnocentrism are also valid for fighting regionalism because these two evils are akin. Some of those solutions will be proposed only if there is a need to do so.

Establishing a rule of law in Rwanda would contribute to eradicating both ethnocentrism and regionalism. It is the methods of putting into effect such a rule that must be given concrete expression here.

We must extirpate regionalism not only from politics, but also from our everyday behaviour, and from political attitudes of leaders in particular. Auto-justification efforts about the way leaders behaved during the short multi-party period will remain useless with regard to today challenges. The solution does not lie in the search for scapegoats, but in an honest auto-criticism. Hopes for survival and live tomorrow with dignity must rest upon dialogue and co-operative work with people from other regions. Any other solution is bound to fail.

Everyday regionalism that is propagated by politicians and other mediocre individuals thrives because the population does not have sufficient political education and vigilance to unmask the hidden interests of these irresponsible demagogues. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen basic education of people in civism and politics so that every citizen can become aware of his interests, rights and duties and can promote and defend them.

The population must be constantly informed of the grave dangers of regionalism and its threat against national solidarity. For the same effect, a ruthless fight must be engaged against gregarious mentality and slavish imitation that drive some members of Rwanda’s social elite to associate automatically with people of their native region even in mean acts, injustice, treason, or massacres. Every individual must free himself politically from the weight of his family, commune and region and make his own political choices. Among Rwandan organisations, irrespective of their nature (political, professional, religious, NGO…), constant care must be taken to ward off regionalism-sick people who hinder national reconciliation and paralyse the drive for national cohesion and unity. Once again, the contribution of a private and independent press is essential.

To discourage regionalist endeavours, the organisation of the State must be redesigned with the view of decentralising and de-concentrating the structure of power and its management. The delegation of some powers to democratically elected local bodies closer to the population in such various areas as education (primary and secondary), public health, social affairs, infrastructures, etc. will enable the local population to make its own decisions about the use of available resources. Likewise, the design of a socio-economic and cultural development plan must be decentralised in order to maximise the use of regional resources in combination with resources from other regions.

Just as for ethnocentrism, fighting regionalism requires setting up legal boundaries to the exercise of power: reducing the powers of the executive branch, especially that of the President of the Republic and that of political authorities and making it mandatory that their offices be put at stake through periodical, free, transparent, fair and democratic elections; strengthening the powers of the legislative and the judiciary branches so as to make them independent and empower them to effectively control the action of the government and other political, economic, and social operators. Institutionalised opposition both as a safeguard and as a possibility for a changeover of political power between parties is crucial. A strong, stable, and professional civil service constitutes a powerful beacon against its vassalisation by politics.

To prevent people in power from forming a clique determined to remain in power at all costs, the Constitution must provide for mechanisms allowing early elections and the organisation of a referendum about essential issues. In addition, it must be ensured that key posts in top civilian and military institutions, in the executive branch and main levers of power are not concentrated in hands of people from a few regions. Appointments to these posts must be submitted to the approval of the Parliament to avoid the abuses denounced earlier, that is: regionalism, ethnocentrism, nepotism.

Strong institutions must be established to guarantee democracy and strengthen civic and political education of the population so that they can defend them in case of aggression from groups using force or violence. In the same way, to forestall any regionalist leeway, it is imperative that all different regions be fully represented in all instruments of power such as the army, security services, high administration, and diplomatic representations. Only a policy that seeks and promotes meritocracy can achieve a harmonious and consensual balance.

Regionalism just as nepotism can never be rooted out as long as the State will remain the principal employer and distributor of resources and social prestige. For this reason, promoting scientific and technological research, the rapid development of the private sector, and the rise of strong and independent civil society will discourage leaders from the temptation of making their families, parents and relatives live on public funds. Conversely, citizens will realise that it is not necessary to rely on the services of a godfather or a "sponsor" from one’s native region to have their rights respected or to fulfil their human and social aspirations.

Some people believed and still believe that the solution lies in terror or in counter-terror; they respond to massacres through massacres and use repression and exclusion to achieve military, economic and political superiority. Solutions favouring the concept of power sharing have been defeated by a greedy, a selfish military and civilian elite, imbued with divisive ideologies. There are also people who advocate the partition of Rwanda into two distinct countries or into two autonomous regions within a same country: one region for the Tutsi (Tutsiland) and the other for the Hutu (Hutuland) ignoring altogether the Twa. Finally, others believe that integrating Rwanda into a larger federation including, for example, Tanzania, Uganda and the East of the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaire) would definitely solve the Hutu-Tutsi conflict.

So what should be done to stop those hecatombs which decimate innocent lives and plunge entire populations, especially the youths into despair, violence and hatred? What should be done to uproot this evil and hope for building a peaceful, reconciled and open society? What to do so that what happened in Rwanda since 1990 until today never happen again? These are the main questions the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR) want to answer within the framework of implementing its leitmotiv: "For a Reconciled People in a Rule Law".

A lasting solution to the Rwandan crisis requires a frank and sincere dialogue between authentic representatives of political opposition and the Kigali regime. It also requires reconciliation between the different components of the Rwandan people. To make this happen, all truth about all aspects of the war must be told so that all political and social main actors, whether nationals or foreigners, acknowledge their failures and responsibilities in creating the atmosphere and the conditions that led to the disintegration of the Rwandan society, to the promotion of violence, to confrontation, and to the tragedy.

Indeed, since 1959, the struggle for power has always polarised the Rwandan population between two socio-political components. On one hand, the TUTSI seeking to reconquer through military force the power they lost during the 1961 Referendum, and on the other hand the HUTU determined to keep that power at all costs. It is in such a context that the RPF launched the war on October 1, 1990 and from that day on Rwanda has become the theatre of horrendous political violence: assassinations, summary executions, large scale massacres of innocent civilians. The number of the victims of such violence is more than three millions people out of a population of about 8 millions, that is, one Rwandan out of three fell victim of the violence.

During the political pluralism interlude that lasted from June 1991 to April 1994, the main political parties recruited and manipulated unemployed and desperate youths, infiltrated by RPF and who were ready for anything. As a consequence, this sapped the authority of the state and destabilised the functioning of administrative structures and the security services as well. Thus, in the wake of President Habyarimana’s assassination and the resumption of hostilities on April 6, 1994, the territory controlled by the government fell into the hands of renegade adventurers, looters, and killers who launched a campaign of ruthless slaughter against defenceless civilians. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, mainly of the Tutsi ethnic group were butchered in a way that made humankind quiver and shocked its conscience. These acts, from the point of view of their nature and scale constitute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave violations of International humanitarian law.

Furthermore, from the beginning of the war, RPF has massacred civilian populations and committed serious, massive, and systematic human rights violations in the territory it controlled. The report of experts working for the United Nations in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 935 (1994) took account of "information containing sufficient evidence about systematic massacres and persecutions of Hutu by RPF’s army". These massacres were confirmed by people who witnessed them. After RPF set up a government and despite the end of hostilities, violations of international humanitarian law continued unabated, like the Kibeho massacre, and are still going on. Then, the RPF decided to attack and systematically massacre Hutu refugees in DRC (ex-Zaire) where several hundred thousands people perished. Because of their nature and their scale, these crimes constitute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious crimes against international humanitarian law.

Whatever their offices or ethnic affiliation might be, all perpetrators of these genocides, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other human rights violations committed in the past or being committed today must be identified and individually answer for their acts before an independent and impartial court empowered to render true and fair justice to the suspects. Therefore, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is the only appropriate framework for trying people responsible for these horrendous crimes. The mandate of ICTR must be reviewed with the view of expanding its competence and timeframe with the aim of including events that caused the tragedy, crimes and human rights violations committed by the Rwandese Patriotic Front before July 1994 and after forming its government.

The search for true reconciliation and lasting peace requires at least, on the part of Rwandans who love peace, justice and freedom, a strong and unreserved condemnation of:

• genocide, massacres and massive violations of human rights committed against the Tutsi population under the former regime.
• genocide, massacres and massive violations of human rights committed against the Hutu population in the territory under RPF control during the war and under its regime since July 1994.
• massacres and massive violations of human rights committed against the Twa population under all regimes.

Ethnic bipolarisation along with reflexes of automatic solidarity nurtured and vulgarised by some Tutsi and Hutu elite constitute the causes for permanent tensions within the Rwandese society. If both Hutu and Tutsi want really to live together, they must accept each other in their similarities and their differences; they must develop a culture of tolerance, openness, and mutual respect. Hutu and Tutsi must provide each other with verifiable and reciprocal guarantees aimed at ensuring security for the two groups so that no one will feel insecure or be tempted to eliminate the other. The Arusha Agreement constitutes a valid basis for this purpose.

• The necessity of establishing a Rule of Law, respecting political pluralism, human rights, and the refusal to take power by coup d’état or by force;
• The sharing of power between all political forces representative of the Rwandan opinion, without exclusion nor restriction;
• The right of refugees to go back to their country without conditions and to participate without any discrimination in all activities of national life;
• The respect of basic human rights, especially the right to life, the right to private property, the right to travel abroad without restriction, and free exercise of basic human freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, and freedom of association.
• Forming, under international supervision, a true national army, out of the two combating armies, with the mandate to defend the integrity of national territory and to protect the entire population.

The Agreement was not implemented mainly for the following reasons:

• The behaviour of the two negotiating parties was characterised by mutual mistrust, bad faith and the refusal to consult the people;
• The two negotiating parties deliberately avoided to address the ethnic nature of the conflict even though it is the main umbrella that has been used during the cyclical conflicts generated by the struggle for power, conflicts which have characterised Rwanda until today.
• Alliances shifting on the part of interior main opposition parties which left RPF camp and moved closer to presidential obedience thus achieving polarisation around two political and military blocks with ethnic underpinnings.
• RPF’s obsession to get at all costs of a decisive majority vote in all Institutions and the insistence for keeping a blocking minority vote power on the part of the presidential camp.

The recognition by foreign countries and aid donors of Institutions established by the RPF can never replace the sovereignty of the Rwandan people. A political analysis of Rwanda’s crisis must go beyond the mere logic of choosing between two evils, that is: current RPF administration and the government that it ousted. The shortcomings of the government that was in charge before July 1994 must not be used as excuses to justify exclusion or deficiencies of current governance. RPF and its regime established in Kigali on July 19, 1994 regularly violate the fundamental law to the point that there is no more any legal frame of reference legitimising Institutions and characterising a Rule of Law. The spirit and basic principles of the Arusha Peace Agreement still remain valid and constitute the only legal frame of reference for any legitimate Rwandan institution during the transition period.

Good governance of the country must guarantee the separation and independence of the legal system and the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of power.

An analysis of Rwanda’s social and political history shows the necessity of another type of political power organisation. A true national contract must be established between the different components of the Rwandan society with the view of giving power back to the people. Political and institutional mechanisms must be set up to forestall the concentration of power in the hands of a person, a civilian or military oligarchy, an ethnic group or region.

Every Rwandan must come to the conclusion that one of the solutions to the evils tormenting his country lies in the building of a free and pluralistic society, capable of handling diversity in terms of opinion, religion, ethnicity, region, politics, gender, and the like. In order to put an end to this situation, Rwandans who advocate peace and justice created the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR).

After a concrete analysis of the current situation, the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR) proposes the following solutions in order to settle in a sustainable way the issue of power organisation and management in Rwanda, and in order to reassure everyone and, in particular, in order to banish any temptation for absolute and exclusive power. The proposal that RDR pledges to implement must constitute a national contract between the different components of the Rwandan society.

Since the feudal era, the Chief adopted and used a system of DECONCENTRATION consisting in delegating some powers to his representatives who, oftentimes, governed as foreign conquerors.

Except for a short period under the first Republic during which burgomasters were elected, until today the People has no control over the action of its rulers who are accountable only to the authority that appointed them. In the old system, it was the chief in charge of pasturelands, the chief in charge of farmlands and the chief in charge of the army. During the Second Republic, it was the Prefect, the regional military commander and other heads of departments representing various ministries. Under RPF regime, it is the regional military commander, the Prefect and other RPF cadres.

In order to govern in the name of the people, everything shall be done to bring power closer to the people. In practical terms, this means that elections shall be instituted at all levels. From the person in charge of the smallest unit of administration to the prefect, elections will be held under universal suffrage. Political parties shall present their candidates and electoral campaign will focus on the political parties’ platforms. Independent candidates promoting a social program shall also have the possibility to compete in the elections. Election winners will govern with a definite mandate, a mandate with a time limit. Promoting free and independent press will be necessary in order to keep the people constantly informed.

The system of DECENTRALIZATION, which consists of granting some autonomy to regional administrative structures, shall be favoured. At the communal and prefectoral levels, important decisions shall be made by elected representatives of the people. Therefore, conventions made up of elected representatives of the people and reflecting the local political makeup of the population shall be instituted at those levels.

A semi-presidential regime with a Prime Minister is the most appropriate to the need for good governance of the country. The President shall be elected under universal suffrage and shall be accountable to the people. He will have power to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections; under some conditions, the parliament shall be empowered to depose the president. Candidacy for the president of the Republic shall be presented by his political party. Independent candidates could also be enlisted.

The people exercises power through its representatives in the Parliament. That is why the legislative power must be able to control the executive power. The executive branch is mandated to manage state power on a daily basis. Indeed, the Prime Minister shall submit his government’s action plan to the parliament for approval. This action plan must be aimed at meeting popular needs expressed in the political platform of presidential election winners and/or of the majority party that won the elections. In case this action plan of the government is rejected by the parliament, the Prime Minister will automatically resign. The parliament shall, at any time, call upon a member of the Government and ask him to account to the people for his actions.

The parliament shall be made up of representatives of the People. To correct distortions related to the activity of political parties and make sure that the rights of minority communities are fully respected, the parliament shall comprise two Chambers. People elected on the basis of the programs of their political parties shall make up the first Chamber. The second Chamber shall comprise representatives of regions, ethnic and socio-professional groups elected to defend the interests of ethnic groups and/or the interests of socio-economic groups and regional interests in particular. To protect regional interests, another method for drawing up geographical divisions shall be used in order to make electoral districts effectively correspond to homogeneous entities with common socio-economic development features.

The president of the first Chamber shall be elected by the members of parliament. His candidacy shall be presented by his party or coalition parties constituting a majority in the first Chamber; the other members of the Chamber’s Bureau shall be chosen according to an agreement between parties represented in the Chamber. For the second Chamber, candidacies shall be presented individually; the president along with other members of his Bureau will be chosen on the basis of their personalities.

In order to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, a High Council of the Judiciary shall be instituted with the aim of ensuring a sound management of the legal system; a Constitutional court shall also be instituted to ensure the constitutionality of laws, especially with respect to basic human rights. For the first election of the High Council of the Judiciary, a census of available magistrates will be done and, on the basis of office profile as previously defined by a parliamentary competent committee, members of the High Council of the Judiciary will be elected by competent magistrates selected by the Parliament.

Problems arising from regionalism and ethnocentrism are felt not only at the level of governance, but also in the appropriation of the following CENTERS AND LEVERS OF POWER:

• The presidency of the Republic and/or the office of Prime minister, territorial administration as centres of everyday management of power.
• The army and the security services, economy and finance, diplomacy as levers of power.
• National education as a springboard for gaining power and controlling the economy.

To avoid the concentration of power in hands of one individual, one ethnic or regional group, it shall be made sure that those areas remain under the permanent control of the people. During the transition period, before the democratic process is firmly established so that people can be elected solely on the basis of their political parties programs and their competence, temporary measures aimed at reassuring and providing security to all regions and ethnic groups shall be negotiated between protagonists. To prevent any derailments, the parliament on behalf of the people, shall institutionalise interpellations of ministers.

With regard to ethnic representation, other centres of interest and cause for internal strife, negotiations aimed at establishing an administration empowered to reassure and provide security to every citizen will be held between representatives of the ethnic groups. The Arusha Agreement, which the RPF negotiated with a veiled intention of ensuring security to the Tutsi ethnic group that dominates the Front, shall be used as reference for those negotiations.

Human beings must the focus of all development programs. Economic and social progress must exist for all. According to recent studies, 80 % of Rwandan population live below the threshold of poverty. For conscientious politicians, this situation cannot continue. As more than 95 % of Rwandan population are farmers, in order to put the country back on the development track, the purchasing power of this mass of consumers must absolutely be increased with the view of developing the secondary sector (small and medium enterprises) and the tertiary sector (services). Extensive studies in the development of the agricultural and industrial sectors have been completed; they need only to be updated. The RDR pledges to create a political and social environment conducive to their implementation.

To prevent the struggle for controlling access to limited resources from degenerating into social turmoil and conflicts, the RDR intends to set up a political and economic system enabling the rise and the rapid development of a wide economic private sector and of strong and full-blown civil society. For this purpose, all important economic activities must be left under the responsibility of the private sector; the state should intervene only when major investments are required and for major social programs.

No development is possible without investment in human resources, which constitute the most important asset in Rwanda. Education and basic health care are the two other priorities on which the RDR intends to focus its policy. The RDR pledges to use all means possible to negotiate a Micro-Marshall Plan with foreign countries, friends of Rwanda, aimed at shouldering basic social security contributions needed for providing basic health services to the population and thus help them overcome various traumas experienced by the Rwandan people; the plan would also facilitate access to education, give a boost to farmers, during the phase of installing and consolidating revenue generating programs.

Basic primary and secondary education, regional economic and social development and basic health care will be under the responsibility of local administration. University and post-university education will be managed at the national level and will be under the close supervision of the people’s representatives in accordance with mechanisms to be determined by the parliament.

During the First and Second Republic, Rwandan diplomacy focused on the promotion of socio-economic development of the country and the policy of good neighbourliness. Diplomatic missions were evaluated according to the number of co-operation agreements signed with developed countries and international organisations, to the number of development projects actually financed by partners and to political, social and economic exchanges with neighbouring countries.

Such diplomacy achieved remarkable results in many respects, but was also fraught with serious deficiencies. One should note, for instance, the lack of professionalism, even incompetence on the part of many officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, many of whom were recruited not on the basis of their competence, but according to criteria of ethnicity, regionalism and nepotism. This incompetence was illustrated and felt when the RPF invaded the country in October 1990 and succeeded in gaining more media and diplomatic grounds than governmental structures.

In the framework of regional co-operation, ethnic rivalries and wars in Rwanda went beyond national boundaries and triggered automatic ethnic solidarity in neighbouring countries, particularly in Burundi whose ethnic conflict and make-up are similar to those of Rwanda. The mishandling of the massive presence of Rwandan refugees in neighbouring countries regularly poisoned bilateral relations as well as commendable efforts to regional integration, especially within the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) and the Kagera Basin Organisation (KBO).

Diplomacy under RPF regime, like all its policies, rests upon a shameful exploitation of the 1994 genocide used as a business asset. Covering up its own responsibility in the Rwanda’s tragedy, the RPF believes that it is entitled to anything, it places itself at the centre of the Universe and demands apology and compensations on the part of the whole world. With developed countries and multilateral organisations, the RPF plays thoroughly on the cords of commiseration and culpability. As with neighbouring countries, the regime has adopted a terrorist and expansionist policy, which has already engendered two aggression wars in DRC (ex. Zaire) in less than four years. The October 1990 war dealt a severe blow to regional organisations in the Great Lakes region and the regime’s expansion wars since 1996 destroyed those organisations altogether.

The RDR intends to restore normal international relations, conducted with dignity and founded upon mutual respect and well-understood reciprocal interests between partners. The policy of good neighbourliness shall be re-established, based upon the respect of the Conventions of the United Nations and of the OAU, starting with the principles of peaceful co-existence between Nations and the intangibility of international borders.

The problem of Rwandan refugees will be settled definitely because it constitutes one of the main causes of conflicts in the Great Lakes region. Regional co-operation will be promoted to revive regional organisations, which are the basic instruments for regional economic integration, forerunners of a long-term political integration.

Done in Paris on August 23, 1998