As Rwanda commemorates its independence, a historian and a political analyst argue that the independence granted on July 1, 1962, was partial and served colonial interests rather than truly liberating all Rwandans. The experts emphasise that the power was handed to a regime that favoured one ethnic group—the Hutu—while oppressing and killing many Tutsis. This, they say, explains why Rwanda’s independence is not celebrated, like in many other African countries. ALSO READ: Independence Day is a critical reminder of our journey Before independence, Rwanda was under Belgian colonial rule. Later, the United Nations ended Belgium’s mandate and tasked it with preparing Rwanda for self-governance. However, instead of equipping all citizens equally, Belgium primarily trained and empowered Hutu elites. In 1961, a government was established, dominated by Hutus, even before receiving approval from the UN. By that time, the administration had already begun governing based on ethnic divisions rather than promoting national unity. ALSO READ: Why Rwanda and Cameroon don’t celebrate Independence day Raphael Nkaka, a history professor at the University of Rwanda, affirms that the country’s independence was not fully achieved in 1962. “After the state was formed, independence was handed over to people that the colonisers wanted to lead,” said Nkaka. “It was a regime built on division, and that’s why some believe the independence was not genuine. It was shaped by the mindset of the colonisers.” He added that the violence against Tutsis during the pre-independence period—particularly in 1961—underscores the point. “While July 1st, 1962, is officially recognised as Independence Day, it cannot be seen as a day of freedom for all Rwandans. Many Tutsis were killed during the lead-up to independence, even more than during the 1959 violence.” For Dr. Emmanuel Mushimiyimana, a lecturer of political science and international relations at the University of Rwanda, the regime that assumed power did not represent the entire population. “That leadership did not value all citizens equally,” Mushimiyimana explained. “As a result, Rwanda never truly attained full independence. That regime failed to build national unity and instead served the interests of the colonisers.” Nkaka further argued that the first republic created at that time did not reflect the true meaning of a republic. “From Latin, res publica means ‘public affairs’, a republic is meant to serve all people equally,” he noted. “If a government only serves certain families or ethnic groups, it cannot be called a republic. And a leader who governs without national interest at heart should not even be called a president.” The history professor also pointed out that Rwanda today is no longer under any colonial power. “The 1926 colonial law that authorised Belgium to govern Rwanda was repealed. This is a clear signal that Rwanda is now truly independent.” He emphasised that Rwanda’s full independence can only be understood in the context of 1994, when the country was liberated from a genocidal regime. “Today, we have national unity,” he said. “Education is no longer a privilege for a few. It’s a right for all. Even foreign students are coming to study in Rwanda, we have them at the University of Rwanda.” Rwanda's foreign policy also reflects this independence, he added. “Rwanda is no longer willing to maintain relationships that do not respect mutual interests. For example, when Belgium accused Rwanda of fueling insecurity in eastern DR Congo and pushed other countries to act against it, Rwanda decided to cut diplomatic ties,” Nkaka said. “This is a strong sign that Rwanda now defends its sovereignty and demands mutual respect, and this is the true meaning of independence.”
