In the previous article in this series, we saw how a so-called “Tutsi-based” monarchy was replaced with a “Hutu-based’ republic. The Hutu masses were used as pawns to further the interests of Hutu elite and Belgian colonialists. The contention that the masses follow whatever moves expresses what happened in Rwanda. The process that led to the republic passed through several stages. Ethnic violence varied from region to region. Conditions and propaganda of PARMEHUTU did not take place in some regions hence Buganza (in current-day Eastern Province and part of Gicumbi District). The explosion of violence in mid-November 1959 surprised all propagandists including PARMEHUTU leaders. None predicted the outcome. The so-called peasant uprising was against the authority of chiefs and sub-chiefs. This was in addition to the rumours that the king had ordered them out. ALSO READ: How the monarchy was replaced by Hutu-based republic It was not against the legitimacy of monarchical power. Up to 1960, even PARMEHUTU favoured a constitutional monarchy. After November, requests for reform turned into a search for radical change in the social-political structure with ethnic-minded views. At the break of the revolt, inter-ethnic relationships were still normal among the masses. Expression of hatred, animosity or feeling of physical elimination was not there. The trusteeship administration failed to steer Rwanda to the desired reform. They perpetrated a one-sided propaganda. The November 1959 violence showed “Hutu people’s” discontent against Tutsi “colonialism”. It gave the “Hutu masses” a common view and a level of consciousness they had not had. Political maturity and experience in national leadership lacked. To Belgium the motto was: “no elite no problems”. Leaders of Hutu-based parties focused their political agenda on ethnic inequalities. For example, residents of Bugararma (in today’s Rusizi District) viewed it differently. To them it camouflaged a lot of political, economic and social issues that did not get appropriate solutions. The peaceful co-existence of Hutu and Tutsi was reported to be impossible. We saw earlier how Gregoire Kayibanda of PARMEHUTU suggested the creation of two separate zones for Hutus and Tutsis confederated. The hunt for Tutsi community instead of a few individuals became manifest. The political reforms of 1959-1962, when presented as protests by the Hutu peasantry, are inaccurate. The peasantry did not equate to Hutu. The majority of Tutsi belonged to the peasantry. Few collaborated with the colonialists and obtained material benefits. At the outbreak of the revolt of 1959, several categories of people existed among both Hutu and Tutsi. Among them were: peasants, petty land owners, landlords and squatters of wealthy land owners. Some lived on agriculture or livestock and quite often on both. Given the foregoing, conditions that influenced the peasants’ behaviour varied from one region to another. The most politicized regions were the north, central and the south. There economic and missionary activities engendered rapid socio-economic and cultural changes even among the peasantry. The entire peasantry suffered the most from the repressive colonial regime through taxes, forced exploitation, corporal punishment and so on. One cannot talk of the exploitation of the Hutu masses and ignore the exploitation of the Tutsi herdsmen and farmers who, contrary to PARMEHUTU propaganda, did not benefit materially from political advantages of Tutsi chiefs and sub-chiefs. The ethnic view of national problems enabled PARMEHUTU to mobilize the illiterate masses without freeing them from socio-economic exploitation, let alone colonial exploitation. Ethnic roots covered the ambition of a new educated stratum in pursuit of the control of the state. The main losers were: Hutu, Tutsi and Twa masses. They served as vehicles for candidates to power. Indeed, the Hutu masses were manipulated by selfish politicians.
