Rwanda

As the universe progresses so do different societies and civilizations. From the beginning of mankind there have been many positive and negative changes. We have seen uproar of conflict within nations and boundaries. This change has been seen evident in countries other than just the United States, from coast to coast, continent to continent, war and struggle is noticeable. Progress is evident in countries from their period of colonization to their struggle for independence and struggle in the political arena. The following paper will focus on the struggle and hardships of two distinct countries: Rwanda and Mexico, countries in search for the power, recognition and independence necessary for them to grow and prosper.

Growth and prosperity are desirable by all, whether a small country or big country. The Republic of Rwanda a small country in Central Africa, located east of Democratic Republic of the Congo has been able to somewhat overcome major challenges. To better understand Rwanda, focus shall be on the history of the country, which will include the colonization era, the fight for independence and the out come of the country. The struggle for independence for some countries is harder than that of others.

Rwanda a small country of about 7,800,000 has had major set backs and obstacles to overcome. Rwanda is compelled of three ethnic groups of which only two will be spoken about. The Hutus, who compromise the majority of the population (85%) , are farmers of Bantu origin. The Tutsis (14%) are pastoral people who arrived in the area in the 15th century. The Tutsi established a monarchy headed by a mwami (king) and a feudal hierarchy of Tutsi nobles and gentry. Through a contract known as ubuhake, the Hutu farmers pledged their services and those of their descendants to a Tutsi lord in return for the loan of cattle and use of pastures and arable land. Prior to WW1 Rwanda was named Ruanda-Urandi, a territory occupied by Belgium. After WW1 the League of Nations mandated Belgium to administer Rwanda and in 1946 the country became a Belgium trust territory under the United Nations. During 40 years of Belgium administration, as under most colonial dispensations, we observe the disintegration, distortion or bastardization of indigenous social and political structures and consequences.

Until 1959, the Tutsis formed the dominant caste under a feudal system based on cattleholding. In 1959, three years before independence, the majority ethnic group, the Hutus overthrew the ruling Tutsi king. Over the next several years thousands of Tusis were killed and some 150,000 driven into exile in neighboring countries. The monopolization of power in the hands of Tutsi constituted a crucial and undisputed factor in firmly establishing the ethnic cleavage. This colonial intervention caused the groups to become distinct political categories. In a certain sence, we have here an instance of ethnogenesis (Roosems, 1989), which in the case of Rwanda would inevitably lead to a reaction on the part of Hutu that they have been excluded of power. Tutsi discourse has drawn inordinate conclusions from the alleged ethnogenesis by claiming that, before the arrival of the Europeans, the people of Rwanda and Burundi were quite homogeneous and that, through their policy of divide and rule, the colonial authorities deliberately introduced ethnic cleavage. Yet the ethnic groups exited before colonialism. Colonial policies were merely grafted onto a foundation that already contained a potential for conflict.

The revolution of 1959 – 1961, with the support of the Belgium administration let to the abolition of the monarchy and to the removal of all political and administrative Tutsi structures on which, for decades, Belgium had based its policy of indirect rule. The Hutus revolt was largely provoked by the intransigence of a conservative political and administrative elite. The abolition of the monarchy and the rise of a Hutu elite became definitive in September 1961 when at referendum, 80% of the electorate voted in favor of a republic. Thus bringing independence to Rwanda on July 1, 1962.

Gregoire Kayibanda, leader of PARMEHUTU party, became Rwanda’s first elected president. With this president peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Two years later Rwanda won independence and the Hutus started mistreating the Tutsis. After independence, violence erupted between the two tribes. In 1973 Kayibanda was accused of being lenient with Tutsis who slaughtered thousands of Hutus in Burundi. The army was unhappy about this so they took over the government. General Habyarinew was appointed president of Rwanda. In 1990 the Tutsis began a civil war against the Hutu government. The Tutsis forced the Hutus to Zairian refugee camps. Since Zaire is a poor country and they couldn't support the Hutu refugees they forced the Hutus back to Rwanda. Finally in 1994 settlements seemed to be working out. Later in 1994 a plane crashed at Kigali, Rwanda's capital, with a Hutu leader on board. The Hutus thought the Tutsis were responsible for this act. Hutu extremists began their campaign of genocide after this. The children of these exiles later formed a rebel group, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and began a civil war in 1990. The war, along with several political and economic upheavals, exacerbated ethnic tensions culminating in April 1994 in genocide in which roughly 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed. The Tutsi rebels defeated the Hutu regime and ended the genocide in July 1994, but approximately 2 million Hutu refugees – many fearing Tutsi retribution, fled to neighboring countries such as Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zaire, now called the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As with the case of Rwanda, other countries go through the same or similar disadvantages to become free and independent. Focus shall turn to Mexico and their struggle for independence from the Spain and their progress through time thereafter. Hernando Cortez conquered Mexico during the period of 1519-21 and founded a Spanish colony that lasted nearly 300 years. Mexico was called “New Spain” during the colonial era. Mexico was under the rule of the Spanish for three centuries before achieving independence early in the 19th century. Independence was gained through war and struggle, know as the War of Independence (1810-1821). A priest by the name of Miguel Hidalgo initiated a revolt against the Spanish rule on the 16th of September known as the “Grito de Dolores”. By 1811 Hidalgo is defeated and executed, so Morelos and Pavo take command of the insurrection. Morelos in 1813 convokes the first Mexican congress, which formally declares Mexican independence. A treaty in 1821 recognizes and declares Mexican independence from Spain and called for a constitutional monarchy. The planned monarchy failed; a republic was proclaimed in December 1822 and established in 1824. Prominent and respected figures in Mexico’s war for independence were father Jose Morelos; Gen. Augustin de Iturbide, who defeated the Spaniards and ruled as Mexican emperor from 1822-23. Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, who went on to control politics from-1833 – 1855, also led Mexican politics. Santa Ana was Mexico’s leader during the conflict with Texas, which declared itself independent from Mexico in 1836.

During the government of Porfirio Diaz (1876 – 1911) internal peace was established under his dictatorial rune and economic development started, foreign investment was encouraged with the aim of exploiting raw materials and promoting industrial development. However, the social unrest and political opposition to the regime of Diaz triggered the Mexican Revolution. Diaz succeeded in strengthening centralized state power. He built up the federal army, and enhanced the state’s ability to collect taxes. The main changes brought by Diaz were a stronger state and social pacification, a compromise with the Church and a genuine respite from the long agrarian recession which followed independence, based on the construction of railways, investment in infrastructure and the development of the export economy.

Mexico’s severe social and economic problems erupted in a revolution that lasted from 1910 – 20 and gave rise to the 1917 constitution. Prominent leaders in this period and rivals for power included Fracisco Madero, Carranza, Villa, Huerta and Zapata. Under new leadership of Venustiano Carranaz, the Constitution was approved in 1917, which was on of the most advanced of its time due to its high social content. The death of Carranza came and so did a new president, with the start of the “Sonoran Dynasty”. In 1938 the President of the Republic, General Lazaro Cardenas restructured the party with the name Party of the Mexican Revolution (PRM) made up of four sections: workers, rurals, popular and military.

Thanks to political stability after Cardenas of the accelerated economic and social development, which Mexico has experienced during the first half of the twentieth century, the country has gone from being at the turn of a century principally agricultural economy to become the 13th most important economy in the world. Various recent changes in the economic policies have had a great impact in the process of modernization of the national economy; in 1986 Mexico entered the GATT and in 1994 signed with the United States and Canada the North American Free Trade Agreement. A wide program of structural reforms, privatization and deregulation had accompanied the former.

With Free Trade Agreement policies, Mexico is looking for modernization, but at the same time wishes to preserve its cultural heritage. Today, many of the motifs and themes of the Mexican culture are simply modern interpretations of the ancient traditions.

The development of two distinct countries has been seen, with similarities and differences. The country of Rwanda has evidently seen harder and larger difficulties that that of Mexico. Mexico a country run by the Spaniards for many centuries finally grows and gains independence. The colonization and development of these two countries have to a certain extent been similar but at the same time different. Differences in political aspects, social welfare, and economic standing have been seen and reflected upon. The fact of the matter is that in order to be free, independent and gain recognition all types of action must be used. Rwanda went through mass murder genocide, while Mexico went through assassinations and murders of great leaders by other political parties. The struggle for power, recognition and independence has led countries to do what they must in order to reach their goal and to give their people what they deserve. Is it worth it?