Journal of Humanitarian Assistance
This presentation, based on documentation by historians on the development of pre-colonial Rwanda, points in different directions. On the one hand, it indicates an "ethnic" diversity based partly on occupational status, partly on a patron/client relationship, but also on Hutu/Tutsi ancestry. On the other hand, it is said that until written descriptions by the first European travellers, people identified themselves according to clan rather than to ethnic affiliation, and that the description of so-called ethnic groups was laid down by those travellers. As in many other areas in Africa, in the absence of written source material, archaeological remains etc., reliable historical data from before the mid-19th century are scarce.
Most historians agree that the first inhabitants of Rwanda were hunter-gatherers and forest-dwellers, whose modern-day descendents are the Twa, today's small minority who have inhabited the country from as early as 2,000 B.C. Besides hunting, they practised pottery and basketwork. Around 1,000 A.D., a migration of farmers, Hutu, began to displace them. This migration was part of the so-called Bantu expansion, which, in the case of Rwanda, can be followed from the savannahs of present Cameroon to the Great Lakes area. They cleared the forests and cultivated the dark and rich volcanic soils (Vansina, 1962 and de Heusch, 1966).
The immigrant Bantu-speaking agriculturalists grew sorghum, kept livestock and bees, hunted and developed village industries. They wore goatskins and bark cloth, and organized themselves into lineages and clans under the leadership of heads or chiefs, respectively (d'Hertefelt, 1962). Hutu co-existed with Twa, and bartered skins and meat in exchange for salt and iron goods.
By the 15th century, many Hutu were organized into "statelets". Each of them was controlled by a dominant clan and composed of several different lineages under a ruling lineage (which over time became dynastic) headed by a mwami (chief or king), who was a land chief as well as a ritual leader in charge of rain-making (Vansina, 1962). There is evidence that some lineages had already acquired cattle at that time and that several states had emerged before the immigration of Tutsi (principally the Nyiginya clan). According to Kagame (1972), at this time seven major clans had pre-Nyiginya status.
Present-day Rwanda, seen as a geopolitical entity of many statelets, emerged, according to different historians, some time between the 11th and 15th century, largely through the pastoralist immigration and settlement of Tutsi. From about the 15th century, the number of pastoralists increased sharply in the existing states.
Tutsi seem to have been part of a larger pastoralist migration southward into the Great Lakes region (Bauman, 1948; d'Hertefelt, 1962). Whether the immigration into Rwanda was gradual or sudden has been contested. However, over time the Tutsi settlement was achieved through both conquest and peaceful assimilation (Lemarchand, 1970; d'Hertefelt, 1962; Kagame, 1972; Vansina, 1962; Ogot, 1984; and Reyntjens, 1985).
Two different phases of interaction between Hutu and Tutsi have been distinguished. The Tutsi immigration into Hutu areas is described as beginning with a gradual and peaceful infiltration. Cattle products were exchanged for agricultural products, forming the basis of social interaction. Peaceful co-existence, however, was usually followed by Tutsi conquests, resulting in the establishment of direct Tutsi military rule and administration (Lemarchand, 1966; Vansina, 1962). This phase was followed by a process directed towards the control of the factors of production, involving gradual restriction of access to land, cattle and labour (C. Newbury, 1974; d'Hertefelt, 1962; and Vidal, 1969).
Thus, over a period of 400 years, a number of independent Hutu political units were reduced to administrative entities, and Hutu transformed into what was to be described as an "ethnic" category (Lema, 1993). One, often repeated, assertion is that about 20 generations ago, one Tutsi clan, the Nyiginya, achieved political dominance in eastern Rwanda. Over several centuries, they came to form the core of a state that expanded westwards to cover most of the modern-day territory (D. Newbury, 1987). The history of the periphery differs, therefore, from that of the centre. Rwanda is, consequently, a country of strong regional variations. In particular, the northern areas or present-day Gisenyi and Ruhengeri préfectures, as well as parts of the south-west, lay outside the Rwandese core state.
In the process, Tutsi were assimilated by Hutu. They took over the language spoken by Hutu (kinyarwanda) and incorporated Hutu traditions and cults. Moreover, they shared the same hills - there was no segregation of people - and they intermarried and bore the same names (Lemarchand, 1970; Rennie, 1972; Oliver, 1977 and Reyntjens, 1985).
In large part, during the pre-colonial period or before the 19th century, Tutsi, Hutu and Twa roughly corresponded to occupational categories. Cattle-herders, soldiers and administrators were mostly Tutsi, while Hutu were farmers. Twa were marginalized and often mistreated by the others. Hutu and Tutsi were less sharply distinct, and individuals could and did move between the categories as their fortunes rose or fell. Though there is no doubt that the early Nyiginya Tutsi were dominant, a range of institutions mediated social relations, notably the clan system, which spanned the entire Rwandese society. Nineteen clans encompasssed members of all three groups. Some argue that up to about the middle of the 19th century these clan identities in fact overrode the Tutsi-Hutu-Twa categorization (d'Hertefelt, 1971; D. Newbury, 1980; C. Newbury, 1978).
The first European travellers who reached central Rwanda noted a socio-economic and "ethnic" stratification between Tutsi, Hutu and Twa. Tutsi were described as distinct in terms of origin, economic activities, social status and physical appearance, although sharing the language, religion and settlement with Hutu (von Götzen, 1895; Kandt, 1921). This description of Rwandese "ethnic groups" - partly based on indigenous mythology - was upheld and diffused by outsiders, colonial agents, ethnographers, anthropologists, historians etc. and came to represent the generalized Western view of the Rwandese people. It seems, however, that the people themselves identified each other rather according to clan affiliation. In a number of studies, David Newbury has shown that while the terms "Hutu" and "Tutsi" existed in pre-colonial times, they did not have the same significance as in the recent era, and the meaning of an "ethnic" identity varied from place to place and over time. There was no single universal definition of ethnic identity, valid for all regions at one time (D. Newbury, 1979, 1980; C. Newbury, 1988).
The amalgamation of the statelets into a united Rwanda was a process spread over several hundred years. The core Nyiginya state in eastern Rwanda slowly expanded by conquest and by giving protection, in return receiving tribute. Not until the second part of the 19th century under mwami Kigeri Rwabugiri was Rwanda united as one country. Under Rwabugiri, the mwami was the source and symbol of all authority in the politically-centralized state. Some smaller states, however, stayed autonomous until 1910-20. This was, for example, the case of the northern region near Ruhengeri, which was only incorporated into the Rwandese monarchy under German colonial rule. It took several military expeditions by the German Schutztruppe, assisted by Tutsi from central Rwanda between 1910 and 1912, before the northern Hutu - also known as Kiga - were defeated, leaving considerable bitterness towards both the Tutsi and the southern Hutu, called Banyanduga, who came with them (Dorsey, 1994; Waller, 1993). Thus, to this day, the northerners form a distinctive sub-culture, in which contacts with Tutsi have been less frequent and the awareness of a pre-Tutsi past more pronounced than in other parts of Rwanda (Lemarchand, 1970 and 1995).
The reign of Rwabugiri, or Kigeri IV, lasted from 1860 to 1895, i.e. just before the arrival of European colonialism, and marks an important watershed in the history of Rwanda. Rwabugiri broke through traditional restraints and increased the prerogatives of the throne. He is considered the last of the great reformers and is also referred to as the great warrior king. His domestic policies reflected two complementary goals, namely centralization of power and extension of the central political structures to peripheral areas of the kingdom. In foreign policy, he led a series of military campaigns against the smaller Hutu statelets in both western and eastern Rwanda, eventually incorporating them under his crown. The northern and south-western parts, however, remained largely autonomous. To undermine the hereditary power held by old Tutsi families, Rwabugiri dismissed incumbent officials and appointed men who were directly dependent on him, notably in regions that previously had been relatively independent, thereby increasing the material resources available to the monarchy (Dorsey, 1994).
What is of importance is that the state-building efforts during the reign of Rwabugiri heightened awareness of "ethnic" differences in Rwanda. As C. Newbury explains,
with the arrival of central authorities, lines of distinction were altered and sharpened, as the categories of Hutu and Tutsi assumed new hierarchical overtones associated with proximity to the central court - proximity to power. Later, when the political arena widened and the intensity of political activity increased, these classifications became increasingly stratified and rigidified. More than simply conveying the connotation of cultural difference from Tutsi, Hutu identity came to be associated with and eventually defined by inferior status (C. Newbury, 1988).
Patron/client relationships
What appears to have kept the people together is the institution of the ubuhake - a highly personalized relationship between two individuals of unequal social status (Maquet, 1954). This patron/ client relationship involved reciprocal bonds of loyalty and exchange of goods and services. It provided a place, a status, within an hierarchical system. The patron was mostly Tutsi, but the client could be Hutu or Tutsi of inferior social status. One person could be a client as well as a patron. Even Tutsi patrons of Hutu could be clients of yet another Tutsi. Theoretically, the only person ultimately not a client of this system was the mwami himself. Thus, most Tutsi were clients and some Hutu patrons. At the top, however, there were always Tutsi and at the bottom always Hutu and/or Twa. This institutionalized relationship was reinforced under colonial rule and lasted until it was brought to an end in the 1950s (Saucier, 1974; C. Newbury, 1988).
The ubuhake system and social order were predominant in central Rwanda, where Tutsi had their strongest influence. In the regions dominated by Hutu in the northern and south-western areas, different systems, mostly based on land-lease contracts or donation of agricultural products, were developed; the patrons were often Hutu, and in the north exclusively so (d'Hertefelt, 1962; Vansina, 1962). However, the dominance of cattle as a form of disposable wealth meant that the Tutsi cattle chiefs were able to dominate central Rwanda. Mobilizing an army required capital, which came only in the form of livestock, and Tutsi controlled the cattle. In these parts, Hutu was almost synonymous with client.
The ubuhake (and other forms of patron/client relationship such as the uburetwa) did have some important effects, viz. 1) it institutionalized the economic differences between the mainly cultivating Hutu and the cattle-breeding Tutsi; 2) it was an instrument of control, and turned Hutu into socio-economic and political clients and Tutsi into patrons; and 3) it led to a process of "ethnic" amalgamation, particularly among Hutu. The result was an "ethnic" Hutu-Tutsi dichotomy, following the socio-economic and political process engendered by Tutsi extension and occupation (Lema, 1993).
However, a number of historians question the assumption that the patron/client relationship was an important cornerstone of the traditional Hutu-Tutsi social formation as the Rwandese clans were both multi-class and multi-"ethnic". Hutu and Tutsi, they point out, shared membership in all the 19 main clans of Rwanda (Vidal, 1985; d'Hertefelt, 1971; C. Newbury 1978; D. Newbury, 1980). In particular, Hutu did not feel as one people or identify themselves as such. In this view, the system rather resulted in an economic differentiation and stratification between various occupations.
Ethnicity in pre-colonial Rwanda
As head of the late 19th century Rwandese state, the mwami owned all land and cattle. He ruled despotically, but had a political board of great chiefs and a permanent council of abiru (ritual specialists) who advised him about the divine obligations connected to his office (Vansina, 1962). According to the 500 years of mwami chronology, all bami (plural of mwami) were Tutsi (Kagame, 1957; Vansina, 1962). None of them was married to a Hutu woman, an important fact as the queen mother played a crucial role in the traditional society. Also, the great chiefs all appear to have been Tutsi (Lema, 1993), while the ritual specialists of the abiru seem to have been Hutu and based themselves on old Hutu rituals (de Lacger, 1939; Vansina, 1962).
The mwami was the supreme court/judge in traditional Rwandese society. Lower courts were the administrative court and the military court. The first dealt with land tenure disputes and was led by the land chief, the second dealt with disputes concerning cattle and was led by the army chief. The mwami and all army chiefs were Tutsi, and so almost without exception were the cattle chiefs (Vanhove, 1941). As regards the army, although it had a multi-"ethnic" composition, it was clearly stratified in the way that all higher military offices were held by Tutsi, followed by Hutu and, finally, Twa in the lowest ranks. There was, thus, no power-sharing over the army's activities: the army command, like most other institutions of the state, was mono- or uni-ethnic Tutsi (Lema, 1993; Adekanye, 1995).
By the end of the 19th century, many areas of the Rwandese kingdom had developed a complex and highly-organized administrative structure encompassing provinces, districts, hills and neighbourhoods (Vansina, 1962). The provinces were normally administered by high chiefs or army commanders, who always were Tutsi. The districts were administered by two chiefs appointed by the mwami - one cattle chief in charge of cattle taxes and one land chief responsible for agricultural levies (Pagès, 1933; de Lacger, 1939; Kagame, 1952 and Maquet, 1961). Tutsi were normally appointed as cattle chiefs and Hutu as land chiefs (Kagame, 1957 and 1975). The districts were divided into hills, administered by chiefs responsible for handing over the levies to the two district chiefs. Rwanda did not and still does not have villages in the sense of concentrated homesteads (C. Newbury 1978). The hill was the basic administrative unit and had normally not one, but three chiefs, namely:
The three functions were often intertwined: the same person could hold all three, but on different hills. Or he could hold only one or two. (The peasants played on inter-chief rivalries, a fundamental feature of peasant survival, which was destroyed by the reforms of Governor Voisin from the late 1920s, when each hill was to be administered by only one chief) (Prunier, 1995).
It follows that the Rwandese state formation developed into a Tutsi-dominated structure, built to consolidate political power. Hutu participated only in the middle and lower levels of the administration. They were receivers of orders and norms, not norm-makers. Consequently, there was only very limited scope for "ethnic" integration in the upper echelons of the state apparatus (Lema, 1993).