The American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology defines denial as a defense mechanism in which unpleasant thoughts, feelings, wishes, or events are ignored or excluded from conscious awareness. The dictionary further provides that denial may take such forms as refusal to acknowledge the reality of a matter, to some, and that denial is an unconscious process that functions to resolve emotional conflict or reduce anxiety though it is a deliberate act, to others. As Rwandans and the world commemorate, for the 29th time, the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, it would be helpful to look a little deeper into the psychology behind denial by some children and relatives of perpetrators of the Genocide against the Tutsi. It is vital to try and understand how their perceptions-of-self in relation to the tragic events of 1994 Rwanda inform their perspectives about this history. To achieve this, we will borrow knowledge from traditional social perspectives on conduct. For centuries, traditional communities survived by defending themselves against rival communities. And within the same community there existed, albeit sometimes, inter-clan rivalry over unfortunate events that happened in the histories of those clans. Sometimes self-defense took the form of revenge, in which relatives or children or any member of the enemy community suffered the wrath of intercommunity rivalry. Equally, heroic deeds had extended attribution beyond the person(s) who committed them- the heroes- with the children and/or relatives of the heroes being regarded as heroes themselves regardless of absence of deeds on their part. The fact that communities held collective enmity against each other for malicious conducts of individual members and, that children and relatives of heroes were regarded as heroes because of association, is a reflection of human perception on and resultant attribution of conduct (either good or bad conduct). Traditional society’s attribution of conduct was collective- extending to third parties because of association- and this nature of attribution of conduct holds true even today regardless of advancements in criminology and psychosocial studies. Put otherwise, while the law recognizes the individual nature of criminal responsibility, society does not. For this matter, some people (subconsciously) perceive themselves as criminally responsible for crimes of those they are related to or with. Such is the case of the Jambo ASBL group which comprises, majorly, of children and relatives of masterminds and perpetrators of the Genocide against the Tutsi, for instance. This community of young people has joined the Genocide denial and revision crusade and continues, like all other deniers, to advance the denialist agenda “under the guise of democracy, free speech, freedom of expression, promotion of peace, academic freedom and purposive reconciliation,” as Michael Butera and Nyaga Dominic put it in their paper, The Prevailing Denial of the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda: Revisiting Falsities and Upholding the Universal Responsibility to Truth. But what truly motivates their mounting efforts to deny and revise the Genocide against the Tutsi? When the claims of democracy, freedom of expression and promotion of peace, among others, cannot hold (because Rwanda had the worst records of all these during the reign of the government they sympathize with and reference in their arguments) it is imperative to look further than what they say and into what motivates them to say it instead. Is it not logical to think that their denial can so much be attributed to the perception they have of themselves because of their relation with perpetrators as it can to indoctrination? Denial of Genocide is an attempt at abdicating responsibility for the crime of Genocide. And in the case of otherwise-innocent children and relatives of perpetrators, denial and revision of the Genocide against the Tutsi is, at times, a try at evading perceived responsibility- responsibility they assigned themselves psychologically because they feel society attributes their parents' or relatives' conducts to them too. This community of denialists is motivated to deny and revise facts of the Genocide against the Tutsi because, to them, every opportunity to attribute the heinous deeds to other people (not their parents or relatives) offers a chance to rid themselves of the burden of shame they subconsciously carry, which denies them space to look at history as non-criminals hence leading them to seek sanctuary in perpetual denial. It is, therefore, important for the aforementioned community of deniers to take note of the fact that even when they think their denial is deliberate, it might as well be, borrowing from The American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology, a defense mechanism in which unpleasant thoughts, feelings, wishes, or events are ignored or excluded from their conscious awareness or refusal to acknowledge the realities of Rwanda's tragic history, to some, and an unconscious process that functions to resolve emotional conflict or reduce anxiety, to others. With reflection on this, it might be possible for some to come to terms with facts of history, gather confidence to live independent of their parents' or relatives' criminal conducts and find a greater good in joining hands with fellow Rwandans to advance efforts to achieve Mother Rwanda's Just Cause- pursuit of unity and shared prosperity for current and future generations.
