Who/Where:
The conflict resulting in the two genocides was between two tribes: the Tutsi and the Hutus, in the African country, Burundi.
What/When/Why:
In 1962 the desire for a democratic change in government marked Burundi's first progression toward independence; unfortunately this change also triggered the devastation the country would face later on. In 1965 the first post-independence election took place, haplessly resulting in a government dispute and the ultimate genocide in 1972; the Tutsi president was appointed through association with the king of Burundi, despite the fact that that the majority of the cabinet was overwhelminly Hutu-populated (70%).
The first genocide was initiated on April 27, 1972, in the form of a Hutu rebellion in the towns of Rumonge and Nyanza-Lac. All Tutsis were brutally murdered along with the Hutus who refused to join the violent revolt. At this time, somewhere between 800 and 1200 peoples' lives were taken. This coup resulted in the announcement of martial law by the Tutsi president, Michel Micombero. He felt that this also gave the government the ability to retaliate toward the Hutus; the individuals considered the biggest threats (those who were educated, had respectable jobs or were involved with the government) were targeted first. This is one of the details that sets the events in Burundi apart from that of Rwanda. There were a total of 80 000 - 210 000 Hutus slaughtered in the unfathomably short time of two months. It is rumoured that several hundred thousand Burundi citizens fled to Zaire, Rwanda, or Tanzania, although that number is under debate. However, in these countries they would only come across more despair.
The second genocide Burundi had to face was in 1993. The leader of the FRODEBU
, Melchoir Noladaye (Front pour la Démocratie au Burundi, a progressive democratic party), won presidency. This change reignited the prejudices between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, as they appeared always to be in competition for government superiority. As a result, several gang fights broke out. On October 21, 1993, president Noladaye was assassinated, a crime that inevitably led to an irrationally and inappropriately violent retaliation from the FRODEBU, killing many Tutsi. There were further rebellions: rebellions from the Tutsis (with new aid from the military) due to the rebellion from the FRODEBU (Hutus) against the initial rebellion from the Tutsis. As a result, around 50 000 civilians were killed.
Analysis:
Clearly, the two genocides were a result of prejudicial outlooks of each tribe against one another; if the Hutus were leading the government, they were seen as unfit to run the country by the Tutsis, and vice versa. Obviously, such discrimination resulted in anger, and the people of this country felt that the only way for their voices to be heard was through violence. Unfortunately, this flaw was quite easily paired with each tribe's desire for total domination and control over the country.
Perhaps a different approach and outcome would have occurred had the country had more influences from more advanced, outside countries and continents. However, the reason Burundi had no guidance in their state of devastation was due to their lack of economic contributions; it was not a well known country, and therefore not that important to major world powers.
Comparison:
The histories of Burundi and Rwanda are not only comparable but virtually identical. The ultimate underlying issue of both countries' tragedies is due to prejudices and discrimination of and against tribes, although, the specific differences between the exact causes of the countries' events are due to political organization. Obviously, Rwanda's history also received more publicity, due to around 500 000 more deaths in the country.
Burundi and Rwanda had in common:
- A dominant Hutu population.
- They were both first colonized by Germany, but the leadership/occupancy was transfered to
Belgium after WWI.
- Both countries gained independence in 1962.
Hypothesis: (how things could've been different)
Burundi could have avoided the tragedies that occurred if it had received recognition and relief from other countries; they could have received opportunity to discover ways for the tribes to live harmoniously and without violence in order to be heard. Also, had the citizens been taught about the dire effects of ethnic discrimination, there may have been some prevention of government attacks. However, considering the time period, and the lack of new-age, open-minded perspective many people and societies share today, discrimination simply went along with their way of life.
Prediction:
After a nation-wide approved constitution, development of democratic government policies, peace agreements from rebellion groups, a common desire for peace between tribes, and much needed help from other countries, Burundi is making quite a bit of positive societal progression, and looks to remain this way for a while.
