Podcasts about gacaca courts

On July 13, USIP held a discussion on the approaches to reconciliation and justice in Rwanda that followed the 1994 genocide, including the Gacaca Courts and community-based and women-led initiatives. Speakers Dr. Phil ClarkProfessor of International PoliticsSOAS University of London Mr. Mike JobbinsVice President, Global Affairs & PartnershipsSearch for Common Ground Dr. Alice Urusaro KarekeziProfessor, Center for Conflict ManagementUniversity of Rwanda Dr. Felix NdahindaHonorary Associate Professor, College of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of Rwanda Susan Stigant, moderator Director, Africa Center, U.S. Institute of Peace For more information about this event, please visit: https://www.usip.org/events/reconciliation-and-justice-rwanda

Julia Viebach investigates the everyday of witnessing at Rwanda’s Gacaca courts and contrasts its findings with the process of witnessing at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Please note, this episode ends abruptly.

Rwanda’s homegrown gacaca law has been widely hailed as a successful indigenous solution to the unprecedented problem of the country’s 1994 genocide. In his book Inside Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Seeking Justice After Genocide (University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), Bert Ingelaere complicates this received wisdom by focusing on the way the post-genocide gacaca trials unfolded, rather than on their lofty goals, as framed by the public relations arm of the post-genocide Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) government and other interested parties, both internal and external to Rwanda. The Kinyarwandan word gacaca, derived from the word umucaca, originally referred to a plant that was so soft to sit on that people preferred to gather on it during precolonial times to adjudicate disputes and crimes, but most importantly, to restore social order and harmony. During the colonial period, the jurisdiction and prevalence of gacaca was greatly restricted. Its re-emergence as a viable means of transitional justice in Rwanda following the genocide was a response to the volume of the associated crimes. Western-style court systems were simply unequal to the task of dealing with the 1,958,634 cases of alleged participation in the genocide. The basis of this concise treatment of the gacaca court system and the transitional justice it sought to dispense between 2005 and 2012, is Ingelaere’s mixed methods research in Rwanda, which included extended field research, as well as proxy trial observation by his Rwandan collaborators. The books eight chapters provide an overview of the basic operational characteristics of gacaca and consider how we should qualify the outcomes of this ambitious process. Mireille Djenno is the African Studies Librarian at Indiana University. She can be reached at mdjenno@indiana.edu   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rwanda’s homegrown gacaca law has been widely hailed as a successful indigenous solution to the unprecedented problem of the country’s 1994 genocide. In his book Inside Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Seeking Justice After Genocide (University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), Bert Ingelaere complicates this received wisdom by focusing on the way the post-genocide gacaca trials unfolded, rather than on their lofty goals, as framed by the public relations arm of the post-genocide Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) government and other interested parties, both internal and external to Rwanda. The Kinyarwandan word gacaca, derived from the word umucaca, originally referred to a plant that was so soft to sit on that people preferred to gather on it during precolonial times to adjudicate disputes and crimes, but most importantly, to restore social order and harmony. During the colonial period, the jurisdiction and prevalence of gacaca was greatly restricted. Its re-emergence as a viable means of transitional justice in Rwanda following the genocide was a response to the volume of the associated crimes. Western-style court systems were simply unequal to the task of dealing with the 1,958,634 cases of alleged participation in the genocide. The basis of this concise treatment of the gacaca court system and the transitional justice it sought to dispense between 2005 and 2012, is Ingelaere’s mixed methods research in Rwanda, which included extended field research, as well as proxy trial observation by his Rwandan collaborators. The books eight chapters provide an overview of the basic operational characteristics of gacaca and consider how we should qualify the outcomes of this ambitious process. Mireille Djenno is the African Studies Librarian at Indiana University. She can be reached at mdjenno@indiana.edu   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rwanda’s homegrown gacaca law has been widely hailed as a successful indigenous solution to the unprecedented problem of the country’s 1994 genocide. In his book Inside Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Seeking Justice After Genocide (University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), Bert Ingelaere complicates this received wisdom by focusing on the way the post-genocide gacaca trials unfolded, rather than on their lofty goals, as framed by the public relations arm of the post-genocide Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) government and other interested parties, both internal and external to Rwanda. The Kinyarwandan word gacaca, derived from the word umucaca, originally referred to a plant that was so soft to sit on that people preferred to gather on it during precolonial times to adjudicate disputes and crimes, but most importantly, to restore social order and harmony. During the colonial period, the jurisdiction and prevalence of gacaca was greatly restricted. Its re-emergence as a viable means of transitional justice in Rwanda following the genocide was a response to the volume of the associated crimes. Western-style court systems were simply unequal to the task of dealing with the 1,958,634 cases of alleged participation in the genocide. The basis of this concise treatment of the gacaca court system and the transitional justice it sought to dispense between 2005 and 2012, is Ingelaere’s mixed methods research in Rwanda, which included extended field research, as well as proxy trial observation by his Rwandan collaborators. The books eight chapters provide an overview of the basic operational characteristics of gacaca and consider how we should qualify the outcomes of this ambitious process. Mireille Djenno is the African Studies Librarian at Indiana University. She can be reached at mdjenno@indiana.edu   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rwanda’s homegrown gacaca law has been widely hailed as a successful indigenous solution to the unprecedented problem of the country’s 1994 genocide. In his book Inside Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Seeking Justice After Genocide (University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), Bert Ingelaere complicates this received wisdom by focusing on the way the post-genocide gacaca trials unfolded, rather than on their lofty goals, as framed by the public relations arm of the post-genocide Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) government and other interested parties, both internal and external to Rwanda. The Kinyarwandan word gacaca, derived from the word umucaca, originally referred to a plant that was so soft to sit on that people preferred to gather on it during precolonial times to adjudicate disputes and crimes, but most importantly, to restore social order and harmony. During the colonial period, the jurisdiction and prevalence of gacaca was greatly restricted. Its re-emergence as a viable means of transitional justice in Rwanda following the genocide was a response to the volume of the associated crimes. Western-style court systems were simply unequal to the task of dealing with the 1,958,634 cases of alleged participation in the genocide. The basis of this concise treatment of the gacaca court system and the transitional justice it sought to dispense between 2005 and 2012, is Ingelaere’s mixed methods research in Rwanda, which included extended field research, as well as proxy trial observation by his Rwandan collaborators. The books eight chapters provide an overview of the basic operational characteristics of gacaca and consider how we should qualify the outcomes of this ambitious process. Mireille Djenno is the African Studies Librarian at Indiana University. She can be reached at mdjenno@indiana.edu   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In my time doing this podcast, I've covered a number of books about transitional justice. All have been insightful and interesting. But few of them focused carefully on the trials themselves. Anuradha Chakravarty seeks to remedy this. Her book Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda's Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2016) looks carefully at the processes and people involved in Rwanda's Gacaca courts. She looks at the recruitment and training of judges. She looks at the incentives offered for denouncing others as genocidaires. And she examines the ways in which the incentives and context led many defendants to confess. In doing so, Chakravarty significantly advances our understanding of the workings of transitional justice in Rwanda. But she also uses Rwanda as a lens to try and understand the challenges faced by authoritarian leaders. She argues that the RPF engaged in a kind of clientalistic bargaining with Hutus. By offering targeted grants of clemency and patronage to defendants and to those who denounced others, the RPF secured its political control over Rwanda as a whole. Chakravarty argues that other autocratic leaders have often used a similar strategy of “authoritarian clientelism” to secure their power. It's a persuasive argument. Kelly McFall is Associate Professor of History at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas, where he directs the Honors Program. He is particularly interested in the question of how to teach about the history of genocides and mass atrocities and has written a module in the Reacting to the Past series about the UN debate over whether to intervene in Rwanda in 1994.

In my time doing this podcast, I’ve covered a number of books about transitional justice. All have been insightful and interesting. But few of them focused carefully on the trials themselves. Anuradha Chakravarty seeks to remedy this. Her book Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2016) looks carefully at the processes and people involved in Rwanda’s Gacaca courts. She looks at the recruitment and training of judges. She looks at the incentives offered for denouncing others as genocidaires. And she examines the ways in which the incentives and context led many defendants to confess. In doing so, Chakravarty significantly advances our understanding of the workings of transitional justice in Rwanda. But she also uses Rwanda as a lens to try and understand the challenges faced by authoritarian leaders. She argues that the RPF engaged in a kind of clientalistic bargaining with Hutus. By offering targeted grants of clemency and patronage to defendants and to those who denounced others, the RPF secured its political control over Rwanda as a whole. Chakravarty argues that other autocratic leaders have often used a similar strategy of “authoritarian clientelism” to secure their power. It’s a persuasive argument. Kelly McFall is Associate Professor of History at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas, where he directs the Honors Program. He is particularly interested in the question of how to teach about the history of genocides and mass atrocities and has written a module in the Reacting to the Past series about the UN debate over whether to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In my time doing this podcast, I’ve covered a number of books about transitional justice. All have been insightful and interesting. But few of them focused carefully on the trials themselves. Anuradha Chakravarty seeks to remedy this. Her book Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2016) looks carefully at the processes and people involved in Rwanda’s Gacaca courts. She looks at the recruitment and training of judges. She looks at the incentives offered for denouncing others as genocidaires. And she examines the ways in which the incentives and context led many defendants to confess. In doing so, Chakravarty significantly advances our understanding of the workings of transitional justice in Rwanda. But she also uses Rwanda as a lens to try and understand the challenges faced by authoritarian leaders. She argues that the RPF engaged in a kind of clientalistic bargaining with Hutus. By offering targeted grants of clemency and patronage to defendants and to those who denounced others, the RPF secured its political control over Rwanda as a whole. Chakravarty argues that other autocratic leaders have often used a similar strategy of “authoritarian clientelism” to secure their power. It’s a persuasive argument. Kelly McFall is Associate Professor of History at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas, where he directs the Honors Program. He is particularly interested in the question of how to teach about the history of genocides and mass atrocities and has written a module in the Reacting to the Past series about the UN debate over whether to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In my time doing this podcast, I’ve covered a number of books about transitional justice. All have been insightful and interesting. But few of them focused carefully on the trials themselves. Anuradha Chakravarty seeks to remedy this. Her book Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2016) looks carefully at the processes and people involved in Rwanda’s Gacaca courts. She looks at the recruitment and training of judges. She looks at the incentives offered for denouncing others as genocidaires. And she examines the ways in which the incentives and context led many defendants to confess. In doing so, Chakravarty significantly advances our understanding of the workings of transitional justice in Rwanda. But she also uses Rwanda as a lens to try and understand the challenges faced by authoritarian leaders. She argues that the RPF engaged in a kind of clientalistic bargaining with Hutus. By offering targeted grants of clemency and patronage to defendants and to those who denounced others, the RPF secured its political control over Rwanda as a whole. Chakravarty argues that other autocratic leaders have often used a similar strategy of “authoritarian clientelism” to secure their power. It’s a persuasive argument. Kelly McFall is Associate Professor of History at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas, where he directs the Honors Program. He is particularly interested in the question of how to teach about the history of genocides and mass atrocities and has written a module in the Reacting to the Past series about the UN debate over whether to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In my time doing this podcast, I’ve covered a number of books about transitional justice. All have been insightful and interesting. But few of them focused carefully on the trials themselves. Anuradha Chakravarty seeks to remedy this. Her book Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2016) looks carefully at the processes and people involved in Rwanda’s Gacaca courts. She looks at the recruitment and training of judges. She looks at the incentives offered for denouncing others as genocidaires. And she examines the ways in which the incentives and context led many defendants to confess. In doing so, Chakravarty significantly advances our understanding of the workings of transitional justice in Rwanda. But she also uses Rwanda as a lens to try and understand the challenges faced by authoritarian leaders. She argues that the RPF engaged in a kind of clientalistic bargaining with Hutus. By offering targeted grants of clemency and patronage to defendants and to those who denounced others, the RPF secured its political control over Rwanda as a whole. Chakravarty argues that other autocratic leaders have often used a similar strategy of “authoritarian clientelism” to secure their power. It’s a persuasive argument. Kelly McFall is Associate Professor of History at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas, where he directs the Honors Program. He is particularly interested in the question of how to teach about the history of genocides and mass atrocities and has written a module in the Reacting to the Past series about the UN debate over whether to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In my time doing this podcast, I’ve covered a number of books about transitional justice. All have been insightful and interesting. But few of them focused carefully on the trials themselves. Anuradha Chakravarty seeks to remedy this. Her book Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2016) looks carefully at the processes and people involved in Rwanda’s Gacaca courts. She looks at the recruitment and training of judges. She looks at the incentives offered for denouncing others as genocidaires. And she examines the ways in which the incentives and context led many defendants to confess. In doing so, Chakravarty significantly advances our understanding of the workings of transitional justice in Rwanda. But she also uses Rwanda as a lens to try and understand the challenges faced by authoritarian leaders. She argues that the RPF engaged in a kind of clientalistic bargaining with Hutus. By offering targeted grants of clemency and patronage to defendants and to those who denounced others, the RPF secured its political control over Rwanda as a whole. Chakravarty argues that other autocratic leaders have often used a similar strategy of “authoritarian clientelism” to secure their power. It’s a persuasive argument. Kelly McFall is Associate Professor of History at Newman University in Wichita, Kansas, where he directs the Honors Program. He is particularly interested in the question of how to teach about the history of genocides and mass atrocities and has written a module in the Reacting to the Past series about the UN debate over whether to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Event recording from 23/1/2016 Speaker: Dr. Phil Clark, Reader in Comparative and International Politics, SOAS. Chair: Dr Domitilla Sagramoso Part of the Conflict Security & Development Seminar Series Biography Dr. Phil Clark is a Reader in Comparative and International Politics at SOAS. He specialises in conflict and post-conflict issues in Africa, with a particular focus on transitional justice, peacebuilding and reconciliation. His last book was The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice without Lawyers (CUP) and his next book, Distant Justice: The Impact of the International Criminal Court on African Politics (CUP), will be out in the middle of 2017. Before joining SOAS, Phil was a research fellow at the University of Oxford and co-founder of Oxford Transitional Justice Research. He holds a DPhil in Politics from the University of Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. For more information, visit http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/events/eventsrecords/the-death-of-the-ICC-.aspx

To mark the 20th anniversary of the genocide committed in Rwanda in 1994, in May 2014 the Centre of Governance and Human Rights and RCN Justice & Démocratie hosted a discussion session on the Rwandan genocide and the subsequent judicial process.