In the previous installment of this narrative, we explored how a section of the Union Nationale Rwandaise (UNAR) chose to remain in Rwanda, while the majority went into exile. Those who stayed were often seen as traitors by their exiled counterparts. Recognizing the deep divisions within UNAR, the government made several attempts to reconcile with the party. This article delves into why these efforts ultimately failed. ALSO READ: How Belgium openly sided with PARMEHUTU against UNAR The group that remained in Rwanda encouraged refugees to return, emphasising that national interests should take precedence over personal or political grievances. They believed adherence to the established order was the best way to facilitate the safe return of refugees. This faction of UNAR publicly disavowed support for the Inyenzi rebels, condemning their criminal acts and labeling them as rogue elements within the party. However, refugee associations strongly opposed this stance. The Kivu Refugee Committee, for instance, harshly criticized Michel Rwagasana and Jean Marie Vianney Rutsindintwarane, accusing them of betraying the party by supporting a government they considered illegitimate. These leaders were subsequently removed from UNAR’s top leadership for what was perceived as a disgraceful capitulation. Refugees consistently demanded the restoration of King Kigeli V, asserting that only his leadership could ensure peace and unity in Rwanda. They refused to recognize or respect any government not headed by the king. Even Joseph Gitera, who had initially supported the elections, grew disillusioned. He decried what he called Belgo-PARMEHUTU neo-colonialism, declared the elections fraudulent, and called on the United Nations to annul them. Gitera later founded a new political party, the Rwanda Royalist Democratic Movement. Efforts to mediate the conflict extended beyond Rwanda. A Danish representative to the United Nations, supported by a Guinean delegate, attempted to broker reconciliation between the Rwandan government and UNAR hardliners based in neighbouring countries. Delegates from both sides participated in these talks: Otto Rusingizandekwe, Amandin Rugira, and Callixte Habamenshi represented the government, while Michel Rwagasana, Michel Kayihura, and Anastaze Butera represented UNAR. UNAR’s external branch proposed that opposition parties should be included in administrative and political posts. The government, while open to power-sharing at the prefecture level, noted that UNAR had previously declined ministerial positions offered to them. The external UNAR faction’s proposals lacked specificity; they challenged the legitimacy of elections but offered conditional recognition of municipal-level outcomes. This implied a desire for power-sharing at the local level, including mayoral and councilor positions. The government rejected these demands, arguing that the local appointments were based on elections conducted by the people. Altering these arrangements would require new elections, which the government deemed unnecessary. A proposal to schedule local council elections before independence was also dismissed by government representatives. Michel Kayihura, speaking for UNAR, criticized the lack of systematic governance structures and called for grassroots decision-making processes leading to national consultations. His recommendations were ignored. Meetings held on January 26 and 29 1961, yielded no breakthroughs. Despite these setbacks, the reconciliation process continued, albeit without significant progress. The lack of compromise from both sides and the deep-seated mistrust between the government and UNAR factions ensured that these reconciliation attempts remained fruitless.
