In the quest to understand Rwanda 1994, we often forget that that conversation is situated in a particular context. Unfortunately, we never quite get to a discussion of that context because of the highly politicized nature of Rwanda in general. While many have focused on the economic situation within the country as of late, I wished to provide some data compiled by the V-DEM project to illustrate what Rwanda has looked like over time with regard to personal integrity violations (e.g., state torture and killing) and civil liberties restrictions (e.g., limitations on speech and association). Below, please find a brief discussion of how the data was coded and then find figures that look at all Rwanda history since the early 1900s to 2012 and then focused attention on the period from 1980 to 2012. Here is a link to the project's methodology.
The takeaway: the Rwandan government was generally less likely to repress (e.g., engage in diverse personal integrity violations like torture and kill) and engage in civil liberties restrictions (e.g., less likely to restrict speech and association) within the pre-1994 period. After the ascension to power of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), repression and civil liberties worsen. Interesting after the RPF invade from Uganda some characteristics worsen (e.g., domestic movement) but some improve (e.g., discussion and association). After the genocide, interstate war, reprisal killings and random violence conclude, however, and the RPF took control of the government, almost uniformly repression and civil liberties restrictions became and continued to be worse than the period preceding the violence taking place during 1994. Note: this does not include anything about what was taking place in the DRC, which I we likely address next week.
Question: Is there freedom from torture?
Choices :
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Torture is practiced systematically and is incited and approved by the leaders of government.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Torture is practiced frequently but is often not incited or approved by top leaders of government. At the same time, leaders of government are not actively working to prevent it.
2 : Somewhat. Torture is practiced occasionally but is typically not approved by top leaders of government.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. Torture is practiced in a few isolated cases but is not incited or approved by top government leaders.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. Torture is non-existent.
Question: Do men and women enjoy freedom of movement within the country? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which all adults are able to move freely, in daytime and nighttime, in public thoroughfares, across regions within a country, and to establish permanent residency where they wish. Note that restrictions in movement might be imposed by the state and/or by informal norms and practices. Such restrictions sometimes fall on rural residents, on specific social groups, or on dissidents. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is possible to assign the lowest possible score to a country even if men and women enjoy equal and extremely low freedom of movement. Do not consider restrictions in movement that are placed on ordinary (non-political) criminals. Do not consider restrictions in movement that result from crime or unrest.
Question: Are men and women able to openly discuss political issues in private homes and in public spaces? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which adults are able to engage in private discussions, particularly on political issues, in private homes and public spaces (restaurants, public transportation, sports events, work etc.) without fear of harassment by other members of the polity or the public authorities. We are interested in restrictions by the government and its agents but also cultural restrictions or customary laws that are enforced by other members of the polity, sometimes in informal ways. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is possible to assign the lowest possible score to a country even if men and women enjoy equal and extremely low rights to freedom of discussion.
Question: Does the government attempt to repress civil society organizations (CSOs)?
Choices :
0 : No. Civil society organizations are free to organize, associate, strike, express themselves, and to criticize the government without fear of government sanctions or harassment.
1 : Weakly. The government uses material sanctions (fines, firings, denial of social services) to deter oppositional CSOs from acting or expressing themselves. They may also use burdensome registration or incorporation procedures to slow the formation of new civil society organizations and sidetrack them from engagement. The government may also organize Government Organized Movements or NGOs (GONGOs) to crowd out independent organizations. One example would be Singapore in the post-Yew phase or Putin’s Russia.
2 : Moderately. In addition to material sanctions outlined in 3 below, the government also engages in minor legal harassment (detentions, short-term incarceration) to dissuade CSOs from acting or expressing themselves. The government may also restrict the scope of their actions through measures that restrict association of civil society organizations with each other or political parties, bar civil society organizations from taking certain actions, or block international contacts. Examples include post-Martial Law Poland, Brazil in the early 1980s, the late Franco period in Spain.
3 : Substantially. In addition to the kinds of harassment outlined in 1 and 2 above below, the government also arrests, tries, and imprisons leaders of and participants in oppositional CSOs who have acted lawfully. Other sanctions include disruption of public gatherings and violent sanctions of activists (beatings, threats to families, destruction of valuable property). Examples include Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Poland under Martial Law, Serbia under Milosevic.
4 : Severely. The government violently and actively pursues all real and even some imagined members of CSOs. They seek not only to deter the activity of such groups but to effectively liquidate them. Examples include Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China.
Question: Is there freedom from political killings? Clarification: Political killings are killings by the state or its agents without due process of law for the purpose of eliminating political opponents. These killings are the result of deliberate use of lethal force by the police, security forces, prison officials, or other agents of the state (including paramilitary groups).
Choices :
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced systematically and they are typically incited and approved by top leaders of government.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced frequently and top leaders of government are not actively working to prevent them.
2 : Somewhat respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced occasionally but they are typically not incited and approved by top leaders of government.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced in a few isolated cases but they are not incited or approved by top leaders of government.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. Political killings are non-existent.
The takeaway: the Rwandan government was generally less likely to repress (e.g., engage in diverse personal integrity violations like torture and kill) and engage in civil liberties restrictions (e.g., less likely to restrict speech and association) within the pre-1994 period. After the ascension to power of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), repression and civil liberties worsen. Interesting after the RPF invade from Uganda some characteristics worsen (e.g., domestic movement) but some improve (e.g., discussion and association). After the genocide, interstate war, reprisal killings and random violence conclude, however, and the RPF took control of the government, almost uniformly repression and civil liberties restrictions became and continued to be worse than the period preceding the violence taking place during 1994. Note: this does not include anything about what was taking place in the DRC, which I we likely address next week.
Question: Is there freedom from torture?
Choices :
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Torture is practiced systematically and is incited and approved by the leaders of government.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Torture is practiced frequently but is often not incited or approved by top leaders of government. At the same time, leaders of government are not actively working to prevent it.
2 : Somewhat. Torture is practiced occasionally but is typically not approved by top leaders of government.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. Torture is practiced in a few isolated cases but is not incited or approved by top government leaders.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. Torture is non-existent.
Question: Do men and women enjoy freedom of movement within the country? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which all adults are able to move freely, in daytime and nighttime, in public thoroughfares, across regions within a country, and to establish permanent residency where they wish. Note that restrictions in movement might be imposed by the state and/or by informal norms and practices. Such restrictions sometimes fall on rural residents, on specific social groups, or on dissidents. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is possible to assign the lowest possible score to a country even if men and women enjoy equal and extremely low freedom of movement. Do not consider restrictions in movement that are placed on ordinary (non-political) criminals. Do not consider restrictions in movement that result from crime or unrest.
Question: Are men and women able to openly discuss political issues in private homes and in public spaces? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which adults are able to engage in private discussions, particularly on political issues, in private homes and public spaces (restaurants, public transportation, sports events, work etc.) without fear of harassment by other members of the polity or the public authorities. We are interested in restrictions by the government and its agents but also cultural restrictions or customary laws that are enforced by other members of the polity, sometimes in informal ways. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is possible to assign the lowest possible score to a country even if men and women enjoy equal and extremely low rights to freedom of discussion.
Question: Does the government attempt to repress civil society organizations (CSOs)?
Choices :
0 : No. Civil society organizations are free to organize, associate, strike, express themselves, and to criticize the government without fear of government sanctions or harassment.
1 : Weakly. The government uses material sanctions (fines, firings, denial of social services) to deter oppositional CSOs from acting or expressing themselves. They may also use burdensome registration or incorporation procedures to slow the formation of new civil society organizations and sidetrack them from engagement. The government may also organize Government Organized Movements or NGOs (GONGOs) to crowd out independent organizations. One example would be Singapore in the post-Yew phase or Putin’s Russia.
2 : Moderately. In addition to material sanctions outlined in 3 below, the government also engages in minor legal harassment (detentions, short-term incarceration) to dissuade CSOs from acting or expressing themselves. The government may also restrict the scope of their actions through measures that restrict association of civil society organizations with each other or political parties, bar civil society organizations from taking certain actions, or block international contacts. Examples include post-Martial Law Poland, Brazil in the early 1980s, the late Franco period in Spain.
3 : Substantially. In addition to the kinds of harassment outlined in 1 and 2 above below, the government also arrests, tries, and imprisons leaders of and participants in oppositional CSOs who have acted lawfully. Other sanctions include disruption of public gatherings and violent sanctions of activists (beatings, threats to families, destruction of valuable property). Examples include Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Poland under Martial Law, Serbia under Milosevic.
4 : Severely. The government violently and actively pursues all real and even some imagined members of CSOs. They seek not only to deter the activity of such groups but to effectively liquidate them. Examples include Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China.
Question: Is there freedom from political killings? Clarification: Political killings are killings by the state or its agents without due process of law for the purpose of eliminating political opponents. These killings are the result of deliberate use of lethal force by the police, security forces, prison officials, or other agents of the state (including paramilitary groups).
Choices :
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced systematically and they are typically incited and approved by top leaders of government.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced frequently and top leaders of government are not actively working to prevent them.
2 : Somewhat respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced occasionally but they are typically not incited and approved by top leaders of government.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. Political killings are practiced in a few isolated cases but they are not incited or approved by top leaders of government.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. Political killings are non-existent.
Diverse Personal Integrity Violations in Rwanda, 1900-2012
Diverse Personal Integrity Violations in Rwanda, 1980-2012
Below, we consider some other characteristics:
Question: Is there academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression related to political issues?
Choices:
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Censorship and intimidation are frequent. Academic activities and cultural expressions are severely restricted or controlled by the government.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression are practiced occasionally, but direct criticism of the government is mostly met with repression.
2 : Somewhat respected by public authorities. Academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression are practiced routinely, but strong criticism of the government is sometimes met with repression.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. There are few limitations on academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression, and resulting sanctions tend to be infrequent and soft.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. There are no restrictions on academic freedom or cultural expression.
Question: To what extent are parties, including opposition parties, allowed to form and to participate in elections, and to what extent are civil society organizations able to form and to operate freely?
Question: Are men and women able to openly discuss political issues in private homes and in public spaces? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which adults are able to engage in private discussions, particularly on political issues, in private homes and public spaces (restaurants, public transportation, sports events, work etc.) without fear of harassment by other members of the polity or the public authorities. We are interested in restrictions by the government and its agents but also cultural restrictions or customary laws that are enforced by other members of the polity, sometimes in informal ways. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is possible to assign the lowest possible score to a country even if men and women enjoy equal and extremely low rights to freedom of discussion.
Question: Is there freedom of foreign travel and emigration? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which citizens are able to travel freely to and from the country and to emigrate without being subject to restrictions by public authorities.
Choices :
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Citizens are rarely allowed to emigrate or travel out of the country. Transgressors (or their families) are severely punished. People discredited by the public authorities are routinely exiled or prohibited from traveling.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. The public authorities systematically restrict the right to travel, especially for political opponents or particular {social groups"A social group is differentiated within a country by caste, ethnicity, language, race, region, religion, or some combination thereof. (It does not include identities grounded in sexual orientation, gender, or socioeconomic status.) Social group identity is contextually defined and is likely to vary across countries and through time. Social group identities are also likely to cross-cut, so that a given person could be defined in multiple ways, i.e., as part of multiple groups. Nonetheless, at any given point in time there are social groups within a society that are understood - by those residing within that society - to be different, in ways that may be politically relevant."}. This can take the form of general restrictions on the duration of stays abroad or delays/refusals of visas.
2 : Somewhat respected by the public authorities. The right to travel for leading political opponents or particular {social groups"A social group is differentiated within a country by caste, ethnicity, language, race, region, religion, or some combination thereof. (It does not include identities grounded in sexual orientation, gender, or socioeconomic status.) Social group identity is contextually defined and is likely to vary across countries and through time. Social group identities are also likely to cross-cut, so that a given person could be defined in multiple ways, i.e., as part of multiple groups. Nonetheless, at any given point in time there are social groups within a society that are understood - by those residing within that society - to be different, in ways that may be politically relevant."} is occasionally restricted but ordinary citizens only met minor restrictions.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. Limitations on freedom of movement and residence are not directed at political opponents but minor restrictions exist. For example, exit visas may be required and citizens may be prohibited from traveling outside the country when accompanied by other members of their family.
4 : Fully respected by the government. The freedom of citizens to travel from and to the country, and to emigrate and repatriate, is not restricted by public authorities.
Question: To what extent does government respect press & media freedom, the freedom of ordinary people to discuss political matters at home and in the public sphere, as well as the freedom of academic and cultural expression?
Question: Is there freedom of religion? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which individuals and groups have the right to choose a religion, change their religion, and practice that religion in private or in public as well as to proselytize peacefully without being subject to restrictions by public authorities.
Choices:
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Hardly any freedom of religion exists. Any kind of religious practice is outlawed or at least controlled by the government to the extent that religious leaders are appointed by and subjected to public authorities, who control the activities of religious communities in some detail.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Some elements of autonomous organized religious practices exist and are officially recognized. But significant religious communities are repressed, prohibited, or systematically disabled, voluntary conversions are restricted, and instances of discrimination or intimidation of individuals or groups due to their religion are common.
2 : Somewhat respected by public authorities. Autonomous organized religious practices exist and are officially recognized. Yet, minor religious communities are repressed, prohibited, or systematically disabled, and/or instances of discrimination or intimidation of individuals or groups due to their religion occur occasionally.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. There are minor restrictions on the freedom of religion, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases. Minority religions face denial of registration, hindrance of foreign missionaries from entering the country, restrictions against proselytizing, or hindrance to access to or construction of places of worship.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. The population enjoys the right to practice any religious belief they choose. Religious groups may organize, select, and train personnel; solicit and receive contributions; publish; and engage in consultations without undue interference. If religious communities have to register, public authorities do not abuse the process to discriminate against a religion and do not constrain the right to worship before registration.
Question: Is there academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression related to political issues?
Choices:
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Censorship and intimidation are frequent. Academic activities and cultural expressions are severely restricted or controlled by the government.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression are practiced occasionally, but direct criticism of the government is mostly met with repression.
2 : Somewhat respected by public authorities. Academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression are practiced routinely, but strong criticism of the government is sometimes met with repression.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. There are few limitations on academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression, and resulting sanctions tend to be infrequent and soft.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. There are no restrictions on academic freedom or cultural expression.
Question: To what extent are parties, including opposition parties, allowed to form and to participate in elections, and to what extent are civil society organizations able to form and to operate freely?
Question: Are men and women able to openly discuss political issues in private homes and in public spaces? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which adults are able to engage in private discussions, particularly on political issues, in private homes and public spaces (restaurants, public transportation, sports events, work etc.) without fear of harassment by other members of the polity or the public authorities. We are interested in restrictions by the government and its agents but also cultural restrictions or customary laws that are enforced by other members of the polity, sometimes in informal ways. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is possible to assign the lowest possible score to a country even if men and women enjoy equal and extremely low rights to freedom of discussion.
Question: Is there freedom of foreign travel and emigration? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which citizens are able to travel freely to and from the country and to emigrate without being subject to restrictions by public authorities.
Choices :
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Citizens are rarely allowed to emigrate or travel out of the country. Transgressors (or their families) are severely punished. People discredited by the public authorities are routinely exiled or prohibited from traveling.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. The public authorities systematically restrict the right to travel, especially for political opponents or particular {social groups"A social group is differentiated within a country by caste, ethnicity, language, race, region, religion, or some combination thereof. (It does not include identities grounded in sexual orientation, gender, or socioeconomic status.) Social group identity is contextually defined and is likely to vary across countries and through time. Social group identities are also likely to cross-cut, so that a given person could be defined in multiple ways, i.e., as part of multiple groups. Nonetheless, at any given point in time there are social groups within a society that are understood - by those residing within that society - to be different, in ways that may be politically relevant."}. This can take the form of general restrictions on the duration of stays abroad or delays/refusals of visas.
2 : Somewhat respected by the public authorities. The right to travel for leading political opponents or particular {social groups"A social group is differentiated within a country by caste, ethnicity, language, race, region, religion, or some combination thereof. (It does not include identities grounded in sexual orientation, gender, or socioeconomic status.) Social group identity is contextually defined and is likely to vary across countries and through time. Social group identities are also likely to cross-cut, so that a given person could be defined in multiple ways, i.e., as part of multiple groups. Nonetheless, at any given point in time there are social groups within a society that are understood - by those residing within that society - to be different, in ways that may be politically relevant."} is occasionally restricted but ordinary citizens only met minor restrictions.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. Limitations on freedom of movement and residence are not directed at political opponents but minor restrictions exist. For example, exit visas may be required and citizens may be prohibited from traveling outside the country when accompanied by other members of their family.
4 : Fully respected by the government. The freedom of citizens to travel from and to the country, and to emigrate and repatriate, is not restricted by public authorities.
Question: To what extent does government respect press & media freedom, the freedom of ordinary people to discuss political matters at home and in the public sphere, as well as the freedom of academic and cultural expression?
Question: Is there freedom of religion? Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which individuals and groups have the right to choose a religion, change their religion, and practice that religion in private or in public as well as to proselytize peacefully without being subject to restrictions by public authorities.
Choices:
0 : Not respected by public authorities. Hardly any freedom of religion exists. Any kind of religious practice is outlawed or at least controlled by the government to the extent that religious leaders are appointed by and subjected to public authorities, who control the activities of religious communities in some detail.
1 : Weakly respected by public authorities. Some elements of autonomous organized religious practices exist and are officially recognized. But significant religious communities are repressed, prohibited, or systematically disabled, voluntary conversions are restricted, and instances of discrimination or intimidation of individuals or groups due to their religion are common.
2 : Somewhat respected by public authorities. Autonomous organized religious practices exist and are officially recognized. Yet, minor religious communities are repressed, prohibited, or systematically disabled, and/or instances of discrimination or intimidation of individuals or groups due to their religion occur occasionally.
3 : Mostly respected by public authorities. There are minor restrictions on the freedom of religion, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases. Minority religions face denial of registration, hindrance of foreign missionaries from entering the country, restrictions against proselytizing, or hindrance to access to or construction of places of worship.
4 : Fully respected by public authorities. The population enjoys the right to practice any religious belief they choose. Religious groups may organize, select, and train personnel; solicit and receive contributions; publish; and engage in consultations without undue interference. If religious communities have to register, public authorities do not abuse the process to discriminate against a religion and do not constrain the right to worship before registration.
Diverse Civil Liberties Restrictions in Rwanda, 1900-2012
Diverse Civil Liberties Restrictions in Rwanda, 1980-2012
RSS Feed
