Revisionism and negationism concerning the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi involve the denial, minimisation, or distortion of historical facts. Key tactics include promoting the double genocide theory, claiming that the killings were a spontaneous consequence of civil war rather than a planned extermination, and shifting blame onto those who ended the violence. ALSO READ: How investigations uncovered the true scale of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi The term “negationism” was coined by French historian Henry Rousso in 1987 to describe a discourse that contested or denied the reality of the genocide of the Jews. According to this discourse, the genocide of the Jews was fabricated to serve the interests of Israel and to secure political and financial support for it. Negationism is therefore part of an ideological struggle aimed at concealing the true nature of genocide and erasing its traces. It involves denying the reality, scale, methods, and intent behind the commission of genocide. ALSO READ: A look back at impact of Habyarimana’s use of violence as political strategy Since the Second World War, the term “negationism” has been extended to refer to all efforts aimed at distorting historical truth in order to prevent accusations of genocide from being upheld. Negationism differs from revisionism. The latter does not deny the reality of genocide; rather, it involves revising interpretations and explanations of historical events. ALSO READ: RPF investigators preserved evidence of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi Today, the term “negationism” refers to practices and discourses that deny genocides recognised by the international community. In all its forms, it threatens the establishment of historical truth. It actively erases the memory of genocide victims, disrupts commemoration efforts, and creates conditions that may contribute to the repetition of such collective crimes. ALSO READ: Inside the RPA's rescue mission to stop the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi Denialism is always at the heart of genocidal logic. On this subject, French veteran journalist Jean-François Dupaquier writes: “Before the genocide, the preparation is concealed; during the genocide, its reality is denied; after the genocide, its very nature is rejected.” One month after the beginning of the Genocide against the Tutsi, efforts to deny it were already underway. The objective was to counter growing public condemnation generated by the work of several journalists and researchers. It was also intended to establish the main arguments around which the discourse of denialism would later develop. From April to July 1994, discourses and practices emerged with the aim of convincing people that there had been no planned or organised genocide, but rather only massacres resulting from a war allegedly triggered by the RPF in October 1990. This tendency, which seeks to trivialise and deny the crimes committed, brought together individuals and organisations closely or remotely linked to the former regime of President Juvénal Habyarimana, including former officials, members of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), media actors, and religious groups. As part of the genocidal process, the mechanisms of denial in Rwanda operate around two main elements whose common objective is to deny the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. The first element is the refusal to name the genocide. This refusal is expressed through the use and preference for euphemisms such as “mass killings,” “the bloody events of April–July,” and “civil war.” These terms contribute to concealing the nature of the crime that was committed. Similar practices have been observed in other genocides. The second element of this mechanism involves disguising the identity of the victims and promoting an inverted interpretation of events. In Rwanda, for example, victims are portrayed as responsible for their own suffering, while perpetrators are presented as victims of their intended targets. The Tutsi are accused of being responsible for their own deaths. In a letter addressed to Pope John Paul II, some Rwandan priests argued that the resumption of the war by the RPF following the death of President Juvénal Habyarimana, as well as its refusal to recognise the interim government, contributed to provoking the population into massacring the Tutsi. They suggested that the RPF should have considered that its actions could incite such violence, unless it intended to use this situation as a pretext to seize power. The writer is a historian based in Kigali.
