In the previous articles in this serialised narrative, we saw how divisionism plagued both the Kayibanda and Habyarimana regimes. Divisionism led to the refugee problems that went unresolved only to spark crises, which will discuss in this piece. When RPF-Inkotanyi launched its attack in the northeastern of the country on October 1, 1990, Rwanda was already in a socio-economic crisis that was little talked about. The crisis was aggravated by the slump in coffee prices, which accounted for more than 80% of the country's revenue. It was the “end of the regime”. During the same period, sections of the civil society began denouncing injustices and abuses and clamoured for democracy. The socio-economic crisis symbolised the failure of the rural-based development model promoted by Juvenal Habyarimana. This model kept the common man in his backyard without any possibility of acquiring new ideas. Their ignorance and credulity comforted the ruling class of “intellectuals” who purported to speal “on the people’s behalf”, and manipulated them as they pleased. The social disparities, the institutionalisation of ethnicity and the policy of regional balance or quotas as well as strict control of the population, exacerbated exclusion by provoking irreparable discord among the Hutu from the northern part of Rwanda. This situation marked a prelude to the political crises of the 1990s which became fatal for Habyarimana's MRND regime. Problem of Rwandan refugees From 1959, the Tutsis never ran away from democracy as the PARMEHUTU propagandists liked to say. They did so because they had to save their lives. Generally, they run towards church missions, schools and other places, which could give them cover from danger. Others decided to leave the country as soon as possible to seek asylum in neighbouring countries. Soon after the pogroms of 1959, the Belgian colonial government was embarrassed by the presence of displaced persons. UN emissaries were present in the country. The UNAR party claimed that the Belgian government did not want the displaced persons to return to their homes. This led Resident Col Guy Logiest to make a huge campaign to force the displaced people to go back home, even if they ran the risk of being chased once again. Those who were still considered “undesirable” in their regions were settled in other places. The state even provided trucks to those who wanted to go out of the country. In 1962, Rwandan refugees were estimated at 150,000 people, a figure that kept on rising. The policy of removing displaced persons from their places of refuge was systematically carried out countrywide. By March 1962, more than 78,000 people had been forced to leave their places of refuge. Those who returned home did not find their property, which had been illegally grabbed by burgomasters and their friends. This is why those properties caused several conflicts and lawsuits. In 1966, President Kayibanda prohibited refugees from claiming their property. In 1975, the Habyarimana government decreed that properties left behind by the Tutsis were henceforth taken by the state. This was because those who had grabbed them did not want to lose them. The refugees always tried to return but only a small number managed to get back after having faced several challenges on the part of the security services, the provincial and district administrations. The first laws on the return of refugees date back to 1966. They specified documents that the returnees had to possess. They included: identity cards, documents provided by the country of asylum and papers issued by the UN Refugee Agency. In addition to all the above documents, the refugee had to produce a report written by the governor. It had to indicate the departure date from Rwanda, country of residence, members of the family, entry post into Rwanda, among other things. It was the governor who issued a temporary identity card and indicated the place of residence. The returnee could not go to another district without the permission of the governor. The burgomasters prepared a monthly report addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Defence as well as the National Police regarding the returnee’s actions and movements, the visitors he received, among other details.
