UNIT 9: DIGNITY AND SELF-RELIANCE
Key unit competence:
The student-teacher should be able to critique how the home-grown solutions contribute to self-reliance (Abunzi, Gacaca, Girinka, Imihigo, Itorero, Ubudehe, Umuganda, umwiherero)
Introductory Activity
In traditional society, people were handling their problems in different areas such education, agriculture, justice, etc. Identify different ways from Rwandan traditional society that should be applied to our modern society to solve similar problems.
Learning activity 9.1
Visit your school library or smart classroom and make research on home grown solutions in Rwanda and then give answers to the questions below.
1. Examine in which context the government of Rwanda initiated her proper innovations such as Gacaca, Abunzi, Itorero, Umwiherero and Girinka to achieve social and economic development.
2. As one of the home-grown solutions, why was Umuganda reintroduced?
Home Grown Initiatives (HGIs) or Home-Grown Solutions are Rwanda’s brain child solutions to economic and social development. They are also practices developed by the Rwandan citizens based on local opportunities, cultural values and history to fast track their development. Being locally-created, HGIs are appropriate to the local development context and have been the bedrock to the Rwandan development successes for the last decade.
In Rwanda, HGIs include Umuganda (community work), Gacaca (truth and reconciliation traditional courts), Abunzi (mediators), Imihigo (performance contracts), Ubudehe (community-based and participatory effort towards problem solving), Itorero (military and cultural formation), Umushyikirano (national dialogue), Umwiherero (National Leadership Retreat) and Girinka (One cow per Family program). They are all rooted in the Rwandan culture and history and therefore easy to understand by the communities.
9.1.1. Abunzi – Community mediators
The word abunzi can be translated as ‘those who reconcile’ or ‘those who bring together’ (from verb kunga). In the traditional Rwanda, abunzi were men known within their communities for personal integrity and were asked to intervene in the event of conflict. Each conflicting party would choose a person considered trustworthy, known as a problem-solver, who was unlikely to alienate either party. The purpose of this system was to settle disputes and also to reconcile the conflicting parties and restore harmony within the affected community.
Local resident stands before the Abunzi commitee in Karongi District recently.
Source:https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/181042
The reintroduction of the Abunzi system in 2004 was motivated in part by the desire to reduce the accumulation of court cases, as well as to decentralise justice and make it more affordable and accessible for citizens seeking to resolve conflicts without the cost of going to court. Today, Abunzi are fully integrated into Rwanda’s justice system. In 2004, the Government of Rwanda established the traditional process of abunzi as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
Established at the cell and sector levels, abunzi primarily address family disputes, such as those relating to land or inheritance. By institutionalizing Abunzi, low-level legal issues could be solved at a local level without the need to be heard in conventional courts. Citizens experiencing legal issues are asked to first report to abunzi, cases not exceeding 3,000,000 Frs (for land and other immovable assets) and 1,000,000 Rwf (for cattle and other movable assets). Cases of these types can only be heard in a conventional court if one party decides to appeal the decision made at the sector level by the mediation committee.
9.1.2. Gacaca– Community courts
The word gacaca refers to the small clearing where a community would traditionally meet to discuss issues of concern. People of integrity (elders and leaders) in the village known as inyangamugayo would facilitate a discussion that any member of the community could take part in. Once everyone had spoken, the inyangamugayo would reach a decision about how the problem would be solved. In this way, Gacaca acted very much as a traditional court. If the decision was accepted by all members of the community, the meeting would end with sharing a drink as a sign of reconciliation. If the parties were not happy with the decision made at Gacaca, they had the right to take their case to a higher authority such as a chief or even to the king.
The most common cases to come before Gacaca courts were those between members of the same family or community. It was rare for members of other villages to be part of the courts and this affirmed the notion of Gacaca as a community institution.
In 1924, with colonisation, Gacaca courts were reserved only for civil and commercial cases that involved Rwandans. Those involving colonisers and criminal cases were processed under colonial jurisdiction. While the new justice systems and mechanisms imported from Europe did not prohibit Gacaca from operating, the traditional courts saw far fewer cases. During the post-colonial period, the regimes in power often appointed administrative officials to the courts which weakened their integrity and eroded trust in Gacaca.
Contemporary Gacaca as a home-grown solution
Contemporary Gacaca was officially launched on June 18, 2002 by President Paul Kagame as the best way to give justice to the survivors of the Genocide and to process the millions of cases that had risen following the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
Contemporary Gacaca draws inspiration from the traditional model by replicating a local community-based justice system with the aim of restoring the social fabric of the society. In total, 1,958,634 genocide related cases were tried through Gacaca. The courts are credited with laying the foundation for peace, reconciliation and unity in Rwanda. The Gacaca courts officially finished their work ten years later on June 18, 2012.
The Gacaca courts were implemented across the country and the original Organic Law No. 40/2000 (January 26, 2001) was replaced by the Organic Law No. 16/2004 (June 19, 2004) which then governed the Gacaca process.
9.1.3. Girinka Munyarwanda-One Cow per Poor Family Programme
The word girinka (gira inka) can be translated as ‘may you have a cow’ and describes a century’ old cultural practice in Rwanda whereby a cow was given by one person to another, either as a sign of respect and gratitude or as a marriage dowry.
Girinka was initiated in response to the alarmingly high rate of childhood malnutrition and as a way to accelerate poverty reduction and integrate livestock and crop farming. The programme is based on the premise that providing a dairy cow to poor households helps to improve their livelihood as a result of a more nutritious and balanced diet from milk, increased agricultural output through better soil fertility as well as greater incomes by commercialising dairy products.
Since its introduction in 2006, more than 203,000 beneficiaries have received cows. Girinka has contributed to an increase in agricultural production in Rwanda - especially milk products which have helped to reduce malnutrition and increase incomes. The program aimed at providing 350,000 cows to poor families by 2017.
Traditional Girinka
Two methods, described below, come under the cultural practice known as gutanga inka, from which Girinka is derived.
A traditional Rwandan giving a cow to a friend
Kugabira: Translated as ‘giving a cow’; such an act is often done as a sign of appreciation, expressing gratitude for a good deed or to establish a friendship.
Ubuhake: This cultural practice was a way for a parent or family to help a son to obtain a dowry. If the family was not wealthy or did not own cattle, they could approach a community or family member who owned cows and requested him/her to accept the service of their son in exchange for the provision of the cows amounting to the dowry when the son marries. The aim of ubuhake was not only to get a cow but also protection of a cow owner. An informal but highly valued social contract was established which was fulfilled through the exchange of services such as cultivating the farm of the donor, looking after the cattle or simply vowing loyalty.
Contemporary Girinka
Girinka was introduced in 2006 against a backdrop of alarmingly high levels of poverty and childhood malnutrition. The program is structured in two phases. First, a community member identified as someone who would greatly benefit from owning a cow is given a pregnant dairy cow. That person benefits from its milk and manure production. Beneficiaries are then obliged to give the first-born female calf to another worthy beneficiary in their community. This is known as the ‘pass on’ principle, or kuziturirana/kwitura.
Girinka has been described as a culturally-inspired social safety net program because of the way it introduces a productive asset (a dairy cow) which can provide long-term benefits to the recipient. Approved on 12 April 2006 by Cabinet decision, Girinka originally aimed to reach 257,000 beneficiaries; however, this target was revised upwards in 2010 to 350,000 beneficiaries by 2017. The Government of Rwanda was initially the sole funder of the Girinkaprogram but development partners have since become involved in the program. This has led to an increase in the number of cows being distributed. By September 2014 close to 200,000 beneficiaries had received a cow.
9.1.4. Imihigo: Performance contracts
The word Imihigo is the plural Kinyarwanda word of umuhigo, which means to vow to deliver. Imihigo also include the concept of guhiganwa, which means to compete among one another. Imihigo practices existed in precolonial Rwanda and have been adapted to fit the current challenges of the Rwandan society.
Traditional Imihigo
Imihigo is a pre-colonial cultural practice in Rwanda where an individual sets targets or goals to be achieved within a specific period of time. The person must complete these objectives by following guiding principles and be determined to overcome any possible challenge that arises. Leaders and chiefs would publicly commit themselves to achieving certain goals. In the event that they failed, they would face shame and embarrassment from the community.
Contemporary Imihigo
Imihigo were re-initiated by Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, in March 2006. This was as a result of the concern about the speed and quality of execution of government programs and priorities. The government’s decentralisation policy required a greater accountability at the local level. Its main objective was to make public agencies and institutions more effective and accountable in their implementation of national programs and to accelerate the socio-economic development agenda
Today, Imihigo are used across the government as performance contracts and to ensure accountability. All levels of government, from the local district level to ministries and embassies, are required to develop and have their Imihigo evaluated. Members of the public service also sign Imihigo with their managers or head of institution.The Imihigo process ensures the full participation and ownership of citizens because priorities are developed at the grassroots level.
Ceremony of Evaluation 2015-2016 and planning 2016-2017 contract performance
Source:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newtimes.co.rw%2Fsites%
2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fmystyle%2Fpublic%2Fmain%2Farticles%
2F2014%2F09%2F12%2F1410556037pk.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
newtimes.co.rw%2Fsection%2Fread%2F180868&tbnid=f_6V_pGnxx69uM&vet=1&docid=
E0_U8TTCfOaOmM&w=873&h=491&itg=1&q=imihigo%20evaluation%202018&hl=en-US&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim
9.1.5. Itorero- Civic education
Traditionally Itorero was a traditional institution where Rwandans would learn rhetoric, patriotism, social relations, sports, dancing, songs and defence. This system was created so that young people could grow with an understanding of their culture. Participants were encouraged to discuss and explore Rwandan cultural values. Itorero was reintroduced in 2009 as a way to rebuild the nation’s social fabric and mobilise Rwandans to uphold important cultural values.
Traditional Itorero
As a traditional school, itorero trainers planned daily activities according to different priorities and every new comer in itorero had to undergo initiation. Each Itorero included 40 to 100 participants of various age groups and had its own unique name. The best graduates would receive cows or land as rewards.
The traditional of Itorero provided formative training for future leaders. These community leaders and fighters were trained in military tactics, hand to hand combat, jumping, racing, javelin, shooting and endurance. They were also taught concepts of patriotism, the Rwandan spirit, wisdom, heroism, unity, taboos, eloquence, hunting and loyalty to the army.
During colonisation, traditional Itorero gradually disappeared because the core values taught did not align with the structures established in society. In 1924, the colonial administration prohibited classic Itorero. The Itorero during and after the colonial period were different in the sense that they focused on singing and dancing, whereas the other core civic education components of Itorero, such as respect and good relationships with others, were no longer taught.
Contemporary Itorero
In the aftermath of the Genocide against the Tutsi, the Government of Rwanda reintroduced Itorero in view of societal transformation. This Home Grown Solution translated as Civic Education Program, was adopted following the 4th Umwiherero (National Leadership Retreat) in February 2007.
Contemporary Itorero includes physical activities along with classes on Rwandan history that reintroduce some of the cultural values lost during colonisation. Training is adapted for the group participating in Itorero.
President Kagame closes 7th Itorero for youth living abroad
Source:http://paulkagame.com/?p=3551
Participants
Itorero is designed for all Rwandans.Children of seven years and above take part in their imidugudu, villages, to help them grow up to become responsible citizens. Compulsory National Service (Urugerero) is designed for those between the ages of 18 and 35 who have completed secondary education. Others keen to participate are given the opportunity to do so according to their professional backgrounds.
Rwandan citizens living abroad also join Urugerero and a number of young Rwandans have organised Itorero in cities including London and Brussels. Non-nationals desiring to participate and provide service to the country can also do so.
9.1.6. Ubudehe – Social categorisation for collective action and mutual support
Ubudehe refers to the long-standing Rwandan practice and culture of collective action and mutual support to solve problems within a community. It is one of Rwanda’s best-known Home-Grown Solution because of its participatory development approach to poverty reduction.
Traditional Ubudehe
People working and sharing together during Ubudehe.
The origin of the word Ubudehe comes from the practice of preparing fields before the rainy season and finishing the task in time for planting. A community would cultivate clear the fields together to make sure everyone was ready for the planting season. Once a community had completed Ubudehe for everyone involved, they would assist those who had not been able to take part, such as the very poor. After planting the partakers gathered and shared beer. Therefore, the focus of traditional Ubudehe was mostly on cultivation.
Ubudehe was an inclusive cultural practice involving men, women and members of different social groups. As almost all members of the community took part, the practice often led to increased solidarity, social cohesion, mutual respect and trust.
Colonisation and the introduction of a cash-based economy weakened the practice of Ubudehe as some members of the community were able to recruit some people to perform agricultural works for payment. While this trend occurred across the country, in some places Ubudehe was still practiced until the 1980s.
Contemporary Ubudehe
Contemporary Ubudehe is a poverty reduction initiative by the Government of Rwanda which provides communities with the skills and support necessary to engage in problem solving and decision making for their development. This programme was conceived through a set of meetings of political, social, legal and religious leaders between 1998 and 1999 known as the Urugwiro debates. These gatherings discussed the most pressing issues concerning national reconstruction after the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. The Urugwiro debates prioritised policies and programs that promoted collective action and that upheld the principles of decentralisation.
After Urugwiro debates, Ubudehe was reintroduced into Rwandan life in 2001 as way to better involve communities in their development by setting up participatory problem-solving mechanisms. Ubudehe creates opportunities for people at all levels of the society, especially the village level, to interact with one another, share ideas, create institutions and make decisions for their collective development.
The programme was reinstituted and launched in a pilot phase in Butare prefecture (known today as Huye) by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the Ministry of Local Government in 2001.The national rollout of Ubudehe took place between 2004 and 2006 as the programme was officially adopted as a national policy overseen by the Ministry of Local Government.
A consolidation of Ubudehe took place between 2007 and 2012. This was at the same time as an administrative restructure which saw the creation of 14,837 villages (umudugudu) as the lowest level of government organisation. In 2011-12, Ubudehe was conducted in ten districts and in 2012-13 Ubudehe was conducted in 15 districts. The Government of Rwanda planned to carry out Ubudehe in the 20 districts by 2014.
9.1.7. Umuganda – Community work
In simple terms, the word Umuganda means community work. In traditional Rwandan culture, members of the community would call upon their family, friends and neighbours to help them complete a difficult task.
Umuganda can be considered as a communal act of assistance and a sign of solidarity. In everyday use, the word ‘Umuganda’ refers to a pole used in the construction of a house. The pole typically supports the roof, thereby strengthening the house.
On February 2, 1974, Umuganda became an official government programme and was organised on a more regular basis – usually once a week. The Ministry of District Development was in charge of overseeing the program. Local leaders at the district and village level were responsible for organising Umuganda and citizens had little to say in this process. Because penalties were imposed for non-participation, Umuganda was initially considered as forced labour.
After the Genocide, Umuganda was reintroduced to Rwandan life in 1998 as part of efforts to rebuild the country. The programme was implemented nationwide though there was little institutional structure surrounding the programme. It was not until November 17, 2007 with the passing of Organic Law Number 53/2007 Governing Community Works and later on August 24, 2009 with Prime Ministerial Order Number 58/03 (determining the attributions, organisation, and functioning of community work supervising committees and their relations with other organs) that Umuganda was institutionalised in Rwanda.
Today, Umuganda takes place on the last Saturday of each month from 8:00 a.m. and lasts for at least three hours. Rwandans between 18 and 65 are obliged to participate in Umuganda. Those over 65 are welcome to participate if they are willing and able. Expatriates living in Rwanda are also encouraged to take part. Those who participate in Umuganda cannot be compensated for their work – either in cash or in kind.
While the main purpose of Umuganda is to undertake community work, it also serves as a forum for leaders at each level of government (from the village up to the national level) to inform citizens about important news and announcements. Community members are also able to discuss any problems they or the community are facing and to propose solutions together. This time is also used for evaluating what they have achieved and for planning activities for the next Umuganda a month later.
9.1.8. Umwiherero– National leadership retreat
Umwiherero, translated as “retreat”, refers to a tradition in Rwandan culture where leaders convene in a secluded place in order to reflect on issues affecting their communities. Upon return from these retreats, the objective is to have identified solutions. On a smaller scale, this term also refers to the action of moving to a quieter place to discuss issues with a small group of people.
National leaders during the 11th National Leadership Retreat at Gabiro
Source:
.In modern times, the Government of Rwanda is drawing on this tradition to reflect on and address the challenges the country faces on an annual basis. Umwiherero is organised by the Office of the President in conjunction with the Office of the Prime Minister. The President chairs Umwiherero during which presentations and discussions centre on a broad range of development challenges, including economics, politics, justice, infrastructure, health, education and others. Contemporary Umwiherero was intended exclusively for senior public officials but has evolved to include leaders from the private sector as well as civil society.
Since its inception, organisers of Umwiherero have adopted numerous initiatives to improve the implementation of resolutions agreed upon at each retreat. By 2011, these efforts resulted into noticeable improvements in planning, coordination, and accountability leading to clearer and more concise priorities. In 2011, six priorities were identified, down from 174 in 2009, allowing for more effective delivery and implementation of Umwiherero resolutions.
Application activity 9.1
1. Explain the following concepts: umuganda, imihigo and ubudehe.
2. Compare the traditional umuganda and contemporary umuganda.
3. Discuss the reasons why Rwanda adopted home-grown solutions.
9.2. Contribution of home-grown solutions towards good governance, self-reliance and dignity
Learning activity 9.2
Referring to the results of your research in activity 9.1, discuss the contribution of home-grown solutions towards good governance, selfreliance and dignity.
Home Grown Solutions, culturally owned practices have been translated into sustainable development programmes and have contributed a lot in helping getting some socio-economic solutions that were not possible to get otherwise.
9.2.1. Contribution of abunzi
As the abunzi system gained more recognition as a successful method to resolve conflicts and deliver justice, the importance of providing more structure and formality to their work increased.
During the fiscal year ending June 2017 for example, mediation committees received 51,016 cases. They were composed of 45,503 civil cases representing 89.1% and 5,513 penal cases received before the amendment of the law determining organization, jurisdiction, and competence and functioning of mediation committees. A total of 49,138 cases equivalent to 96.3% were handled at both sector and cell levels. 38,777 (76.0%) cases received by mediation committees were handled at cell level, 10,361 (20.3%) cases were mediated at sector level whereas only 3.6% were undergoing at the end of the year. The number of cases received by mediation committees increased at the rate of 30.9% over the past three years.
Pre-hearing counselling: Before cases are heard, mediators call on both complainant and defendant to emphasize the importance of social cohesion and conflict-resolution through community mediation. In some instances, both parties may opt to withdraw the case at this point and come instead to a mutual agreement. In other cases, litigants are more inclined to accept, rather than appeal, the mediation decision as a result of the counselling.
Reduced social distance between parties and mediators: Since mediators are members of the same community from which disputants come, the latter feel less intimidated and more comfortable expressing themselves during those sessions, whether in public or in camera.
Integrity over legal literacy: The majority of the participants insisted that the question of integrity, which determine the selection of mediators, confer more ‘trust and confidence’ in the committees and fostered an environment in which justice prevailed.
Parties’ freedom to choose mediators: This was another factor highlighted by participants who felt that the freedom to choose mediators helped ensure equal treatment during mediation and reduced the likelihood of corruption.
Win-Win approach: During mediation, Abunzi avoid referring to either party as “winner” or “loser” as these words could create resentment and further contribute to the atmosphere of conflict. The goal of these mediations is to find lasting solutions through reconciliation, hence the avoidance of such words.
9.2.2. Contribution of Gacaca courts
Gacaca courts officially finished their work on June 18, 2012 and by that time a total of 1,958,634 genocide related cases were tried throughout the country. As earlier mentioned Gacaca is credited with laying the foundation for peace, reconciliation and unity in Rwanda.
9.2.3. Impact of Girinka
Girinka has led to a number of significant changes in the lives of the poorest Rwandans. The impact of the program can be divided into five categories including agricultural production, food security, livestock ownership, health outcomes, unity and reconciliation.
Girinka has contributed to an increase in agricultural production in Rwanda, especially milk products. Milk production has risen due to an increase in the number of cows in the country and because beneficiaries have received cross breeds with better productive capacity than local cattle species. Between 2000 and 2011, milk production increased seven fold allowing the Government of Rwanda to start the One Cup of Milk per Child program in schools. Between 2009 and 2011, national milk production increased by 11.3%, rising to 372.6 million litres from 334.7 million litres. Over the same period, meat production increased by 9.9%. The construction of milk collection centres has also increased and by February 2013, there were more than 61 centres operational nationwide with 25 more due to be completed by the end of 2013.
Most of the beneficiaries produce enough milk to sell some at market, providing additional income generation. The manure produced by the cows increases crop productivity, allowing beneficiaries to plant crops offering sustenance and employment as well as a stable income. Girinka has also allowed beneficiaries to diversify and increase crop production, leading to greater food security.
Girinka has played a significant role in post-genocide reconstruction in Rwanda. During the colonial period, the cow was used to divide Rwandans along ethnic lines and cattle became a symbol of elitism and a commodity reserved only for a portion of the country’s people.
Girinka has changed what it means to own cattle in Rwanda. While the symbolism of prosperity is still attached to the cow, by giving cattle to the poorest in society, the program has helped to end the divisive perception surrounding owning cattle. The ‘pass on’ component of Girinka, whereby a recipient gifts the first born calf to a neighbour, has helped to rebuild social relationships which had been destroyed during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. This is because the giving of a cow to someone or ‘Gutanga Inka’, translated as ‘sealing a bond of friendship’ remains a cultural practice owned, understood and valued by Rwandans.
9.2.4. Contribution of Imihigo
Since its introduction, Imihigo has been credited with improving accountability and quickening the pace of citizen centred development in Rwanda. The practice of Imihigo has now been extended to the ministries, embassies and public service staff.
Once the compilation of the report on Imihigo implementation has been completed, the local government entity presents it to stakeholders including citizens, civil society, donors and others. After reviewing the results, stakeholders are often asked to jointly develop a way forward and this can be done by utilising the Joint Action Development Forums (JADF).
Good progress was also made in mobilising citizens to join SACCOs (Savings and Credit Cooperatives) and reasonable funds were mobilised. Although most of the SACCOs obtained provisional licenses from the National Bank of Rwanda to operate as savings and credit cooperatives, they needed to mobilise more member subscriptions in order to realise the minimum amount required to obtain full licenses. Most of all SACCO at the sector level needed adequate offices. In addition, great efforts were made to ensure that teachers were paid their monthly salaries on time.
All districts evaluated made substantial progress in classroom construction, made possible by the willingness of the community to play a role in the districts’ development programmes, particularly Imihigo. This was as a result of awareness raising campaigns and mobilisation efforts to encourage citizens to own their development activities.
Improvement of agricultural production: Significant efforts were made by the districts in mobilizing and advising farmers on how to improve farming, notably among which was land use consolidation (maize, rice, coffee, tea, cassava, potatoes, banana and beans) which helps to guarantee national food security.
Infrastructure development: A significant number of infrastructure projects were completed including roads and bridges, hospitals and health centres, classrooms and toilet facilities, houses for vulnerable people, modern markets, selling points, drying grounds, street lighting and housing development in urban areas, trading centres and administrative offices. There was great improvement in distribution of electricity and water in both urban and rural areas. In addition, there was evidence in most districts of small-scale factories being started, especially those involved in agriculture based products being initiating.
9.2.5. Contribution of Itorero
In matter of capacity building for Itorero ry’Igihugu, structures of Intore were elected from villages up to sector levels in 2009. Later on, in 2012, Itorero ry’Igihugu was officially launched in primary and secondary schools. From November 2007 up to the end of 2012, Itorero ry’ Igihugu had a total of 284,209 trained Intore. The number of Intore who have been trained at the Village level amounts to a total of 814 587. Those mentored at the national level are the ones who go down to mentor in villages, schools, and at various work places. In total, 1 098 599 Rwandans have been mentored nationwide.
Itorero instilled the culture of unity, truth and hard work among Rwandans. In 2009, with the launch of Itorero ry’Igihugu in all districts of the country, each district’s regiment presented its performance contracts at that colourful ceremony marked by cultural festivals. Each district’s Intore regiment publicly announced its identification name.
In order to enable each Intore to benefit and experience change of mindset, each group chooses its identification name and sets objectives it must achieve. Those projected objectives must be achieved during or after training, and this is confirmed by the performance contracts that necessarily have to be accomplished. With this obligation in mind, each individual also sets personal objective that in turn contributes to the success of the corporate objectives
Achievements made through Urugerero Program: Plans to implement Urugerero (National Service) started towards the end of 2012 and the actual implementation started in 2013. Despite this short time, however, Urugerero program has started to yield impressive results. Students who completed secondary school since 2012 went through Itorero mentorship.
Upon the completion of the prescribed course, participants were given the certificates, but later on, they had to undergo practical exercise of Urugerero organized through various activities designed to promote social cohesion and community wellness in particular and boost national development in general.
In line with the above achievements, Urugerero participants did different activities related for instance to data collection; service provision and delivery; communal work; promotion of volunteerism in national development programmes and partnership with other stakeholders.
Participants in Urugerero did data collection related to illiterate people; people not yet registered for mutual health insurance; potential tax payers; school drop outs and children of school going age who are not yet in school; illegal marriages. Making inventories of districts’ properties was also done by Urugerero participants.
Other Urugerero activities are related to manual community work such as vegetable gardening for family consumption; shelters construction for vulnerable families; participation in the construction of cell offices and their compounds’ landscaping. In the area of environmental protection, Intore constructed terraces and planted trees as a measure of preventing soil erosion.
9.2.6. The contribution of Ubudehe
One of the most significant impacts of Ubudehe is the way in which it has transformed citizens’ engagement with their own development. Much of the twentieth century in Rwanda was characterised by centralised planning and delivery of services with little or no involvement from local communities. Ubudehe has changed this and, coupled with decentralisation efforts, has changed the way Rwandans participate in decision making processes that affect their lives. Ubudehe has achieved almost nationwide coverage and communities across Rwanda are now actively involved in developing their own social maps, visual representations and collection of data to the extent of poverty in their village. This information is used to determine national development objectives against which the national government and its ministries are held accountable.
The way in which Ubudehe has brought communities together for collective action based on their own priorities is also considered a major achievement of the programme. The provision of a bank account to each community has enabled thousands of community-lead actions such as purchasing livestock, undertaking agriculture activities, building clean water facilities, classrooms, terraces, health centres as well as silos for storing produce. In 2006-2007, 9,000 communities undertook different projects through Ubudehe and in 2007-2008 that number rose to 15,000. 2010 saw over 55,000 collective actions by communities with the assistance of 30,000 Ubudehe facilitators.
At least 1.4 million people, around 20% of the population, have been direct beneficiaries of Ubudehe. Between 2005 and 2008, around 50,000 people were trained on Ubudehe concepts and procedures. This has resulted in a greater level of skills available to the community at the local level – helping Ubudehe to be more effective.
9.2.7. Contribution of Umuganda
Umuganda is credited with contributing to Rwanda’s development, particularly in the areas of infrastructure development and environmental protection. Common infrastructure projects include roads (especially those connecting sectors), bridges, heath centres, classroom construction (to support the 9 and 12 Years of Basic Education programs), housing construction for poor and vulnerable Rwandans (often to replace grass-thatched housing) and the construction of local government offices and savings and credit cooperative buildings.
Environmental protection projects undertaken include tree planting and terracing to fight erosion, wetland rehabilitation, renewable energy construction and crop planting.
From 2007 to 2010/11, the activities valuated at 26,397,939,119 Rwf consisted mainly of the construction of houses for vulnerable people, roads, classrooms for the Nine-Year Basic Education Programme (9YBE), health centres, public offices, and tree planting, terracing and other infrastructures to protect against erosion.
Umuganda is also credited with assisting in reconciliation and peace building in Rwanda. This is because neighbours are brought together to build their community and have the opportunity to discuss problems and solve them collectively.
9.2.8. Impact of Umwiherero
For a few days every year, leaders from all arms of Government come under one roof to collectively look at the general trajectory the country is taking and seek remedies to outstanding problems. Initially, Umwiherero had been designed exclusively for senior public officials but it has evolved to include leaders from the private sector as well as civil society. Provided for under the constitution, Umwiherero is chaired by the Head of State and during this time, presentations and discussions centre on a broad range of development challenges including but not limited to the economy, governance, justice, infrastructure, health and education.
Since its inception, organizers of Umwiherero have adopted numerous innovative initiatives to expedite the implementation of resolutions agreed upon at each retreat. Since then, the results are quantifiable. These efforts have resulted in noticeable improvements in planning, coordination, and accountability leading to clearer and more concise priorities.
As discussions go deep in exposing matters affecting the wellbeing of the people of Rwanda, poor performers are reprimanded and those who delivered on their mandate are recognized
The 15th National Leaders Retreat took place from February 26, 2018 to March 1, 2018.
Source:
Umwiherero provides a platform for candid talk among senior officials. For example, an official raises a hand to mention his/her superior who is obstructing a shared development agenda. The said superior is then given a chance to explain to the meeting how he/she intends to resolve this deadlock.
The retreat sets a scene for every leader to be held accountable. Ultimately, this provides an opportunity for leaders to forge a better future for Rwanda. The organization, implementation and outcomes of Umwiherero have vastly improved and significant achievements recorded. The focus has been to make number of key priorities that makes it easier for meaningful discussions and effective implementation. The retreats are also credited with significantly improving coordination and cooperation between government ministries and agencies. This time round, priorities might not be just small in number, but much more challenging and tougher.
Application activity 9.2
1. Analyse the impact of abunzi as a home-grown initiative.
2. Summarize the contribution of home-grown initiatives to social and economic development of Rwanda.
3. Analyse the contribution of home-grown initiatives to unity and reconciliation of Rwandans.
4. Evaluate the role of umuganda as a home-grown solution.
9.3. Challenges encountered during the implementation of home-grown solutions
Learning activity 9.3
In the implementation of home-grown solutions, different challenges were encountered. With reference to what you have found in learning activity 9.1, discuss especially these ones that were faced in Girinka programme and how they can be handled.
9.3.1. Challenges of Abunzi
Inadequate legal knowledge: While most mediators acknowledged that they received training session on laws, they expressed a desire to receive additional training on a more regular basis to enhance their knowledge of relevant laws.
Insufficient mediation skills: Mediators also expressed a desire to receive additional training in professional mediation techniques in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of their work.
Lack of permanent offices: In some areas, mediation committees do not always have workspace reserved for them and must share space with the staff from cells and/or sectors offices; this sharing can sometimes result in the loss or mix-up of case files.
Incentives: A number of mediators complained that the incentive promised to them and their families in the form of “mutuelle de santé” (health insurance) was not always forthcoming.
Transportation for field visits: Mediators complain about not always being able to afford transportation to perform site visits when reviewing cases. While each chairperson at the appeal level received a bicycle, it has been recognised that field visits for all mediators have been very difficult in some cases. This can result in delays in the mediation process.
Communication facilities: To perform their duties, mediators have to communicate among themselves or with other institutions, but they are not given a communication allowance. This proves problematic at times and can lead to financial stress for some when they are obliged to use their own money to contact for instance litigants and institutions.
9.3.2. Challenges of Gacaca courts
At the beginning of the data collection phase at the national level, 46,000 Inyangamugayo representing 27.1% of the total number of judges, were accused of genocide. This led to their dismissal from Gacaca courts.
Leaders, especially in the local government, were accused of participating in genocide constituting a serious obstacle to the smooth running of Gacaca.
In some cases, there was violence against genocide survivors, witnesses and Inyangamugayo.
Serious trauma among survivors and witnesses manifested during Gacaca proceedings.
In other cases, there was a problem of suspects fleeing their communities and claiming that they were threatened because of Gacaca.
There was also corruption and favouritism in decision making.
9.3.3. Challenges of Girinka
In some cases, the distribution of cows has not been transparent and people with the financial capacity to buy cows themselves were among the beneficiaries. This issue was raised at the National Dialogue Council (Umushyikirano) in 2009 and eventually resolved through the cow recovery programme. This program resulted in 20,123 cows given to unqualified beneficiaries (out of a total of 20,532 wrongly given) redistributed to poor families.
A lack of feed factories in the country has hindered efforts to properly feed some of the cattle affecting their health and productivity. The Ministry of Agriculture worked with investors who have shown interest in building feed factories in Nyagatare, Kayonza and Kicukiro. In some instances, the cost of management inputs has been high and in some districts, there has been a delay in utilisation of earmarked fund. Decentralisation of the programme has helped address this.
Provision of additional services (especially veterinary services and artificial insemination) has been limited in some cases due a shortage of skilled staff with relevant training. This has affected the cows’ milk production and the ‘pass on’ system.
With regards to bank loans, some farmers received cows that were overpriced. As a resolution, farmers who were overcharged are required to pay the bank the actual cost of the cow only through a new contract with the difference paid by those who were responsible for over costing.
Poor management by inexperienced farmers has increased the mortality for some cows. A shortage of land requires an intensification program in cattle management practices which can sometimes have adverse impacts on the cows such as increase in disease prevalence. To address this, beneficiaries now receive training about modern farming practices prior to receiving their cow.
9.3.4. Challenges of Imihigo
There is a planning gap especially on setting and maintaining logic and consistency: objectives, baseline, output/targets and indicators.
Setting unrealistic and over-ambitious targets by districts was common. Some targets were not easily achievable in 12 months; for example, the construction of a 30 km road when no feasibility study had been conducted or reducing crime by 100%.
In some districts low targets were established that would require little effort to implement.
The practice of consistent tracking of implementation progress, reporting and filing is generally still weak.
Some targets were not achieved because of district partners who did not fulfil their commitments in disbursing funds - especially the central government institutions and development partners.
There is a weakness of not setting targets based on uniqueness of rural and urban settings.
Setting targets that are beyond districts’ full control was observed: For example, construction of stadiums and development of master plans whose implementation is fully managed by the central government.
There was general lack of communication and reporting of challenges faced that hindered implementation of the committed targets.
9.3.5. Challenges of Itorero
Inadequate staff and insufficient logistics for the monitoring and evaluation of Itorero activities and training modules and internal regulations and procedures governing Itorero programmes are not yet refined.
There is still low level of understanding the important role of Itorero ry’ Igihugu on the part of partners. This is the reason why some partners have not yet included activities relating to the promotion of Ubutore culture in their plan of action.
The National Itorero Commission does not get adequate information on partners’ commitment to Volunteer Services;
A number of various institutions in the country have not yet started considering voluntary and national service activities in their planning.
9.3.6. Challenges of Ubudehe
In some cases, village members have preferred to be classified into lower poverty levels as a way to receive support from social security programs such as health insurance and Girinka. To overcome this, household poverty level categorisation takes place publicly with all heads of households and must be validated by the village itself.
In the event that community members dispute the decision made by their village, they are entitled to lodge a complaint and appeal in the first instance to the sector level. The Ubudehe Committee at the sector level conducts a visit to the household and either upholds or issues a new decision. If community members remain unhappy with the decision, they can appeal in the second instance to the district level. The final level of appeal is to the Office of the Ombudsman at the central government level.
In the project implementation, the major challenge lies in the choice of a project by the community and its completion. Actually, communities sometimes have difficulty to define the problems affecting their development and struggle to know how best to prioritise the projects and select the most crucial project to execute. Challenges also sometimes arise when communities are required to choose one household to act as a model for the village. This can be a point of contention because that household receives significant resources to carrying out its Ubudehe development plan.
9.3.7. Challenges of Umuganda
The challenges faced by Umuganda fall into two broad categories: planning and participation. In some areas of the country, poor planning has led to unrealistic targets and projects that would be difficult to achieve without additional financing. In urban areas, participation in Umuganda has been lower than in rural areas.
9.3.8. Challenges of Umwiherero
The first four years of Umwiherero saw questionable results. The organisation of the retreat was often rushed, objectives were poorly defined and few tangible results could be measured.This led President Paul Kagame to establish the Strategy and Policy Unit in the Office of the President and the Coordination Unit in the Office of the Prime Minister. At the same time, the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs was set up to improve the functioning of the Cabinet. These two newly formed units were tasked with working together to implement Umwiherero. While the first retreat organised by the two new teams suffered from similar problems to previous retreats, improvement was noticeable.
Following Umwiherero in 2009, Minister of Cabinet Affairs served as head of the newly formed steering committee tasked with overseeing the retreat. The steering committee was comprised of 14 team members. Alongside the steering committee, working groups were set up to define the priorities to be included on the retreat agenda. This process was overseen by the Strategy and Policy Unit which developed a concept paper with eleven priority areas to be approved by the Prime Minister and the President.
Since that time the organisation, implementation and outcomes of Umwiherero have vastly improved and significant achievements have been recorded. The focus on a small number of key priorities has made it easier for meaningful discussions to be held and for effective implementation to take place. For example, the number of national priorities agreed upon by participants fell from 174 in 2009 to 11 in 2010 and to six in 2011. The retreats are also credited with significantly improving coordination and cooperation between government ministries and agencies.
Application activity 9.3
1. Examine the challenges encountered in the implementation of Gacaca.
2. Account for the challenges met by Abunzi in the process of implementing this home-grown solution.
3. Explain the key challenges in planning and implementation process of Imihigo.
Skills lab
Identify the importance of home-grown solutions towards good governance, self-reliance and dignity
End unit assessment
1. Assess the achievements and challenges of Umuganda in social and economic sector.
2. Explain the contribution of Umwiherero to the economic development and good governance of the country of Rwanda.
3. Analyse the contribution of Girinka to poverty reduction.
4. Discuss the social impact of Abunzi and its contribution to unity and reconciliation.
REFERENCES
AFRICAN RIGHTS, (1995), Rwanda, death, despair and defiance, Revised edition, London.
BARNES, C., (2006), Agents for change: Civil Society roles in preventing
war and building peace, Issue Paper 2.
BYANAFASHE, D. and RUTAYISIRE, P. (2011), History of Rwanda; from the
beginning to the end of the twentieth century, National University of Rwanda, Huye.
CHRETIEN J.-P., (2000),L’Afrique des Grands Lacs. Deux mille ans d’histoire, Paris, Aubier,
CPPAC, (2015) Conflict Prevention Tools: Multi-Stakeholder Processes for
Conflict Prevention and Peace building: A Manual, November.
D’HERTEFELT M.,(1971),Les clans du Rwanda ancien. Eléments
d’ethnosociologie et d’ethnohistoire, Tervuren.,
DELMAS L.,(1950)Généalogie de la noblesse (les Batutsi) du Ruanda,
Kabgayi, Vicariat Apostolique du Rwanda.
GAHAMA, J., (1982),Le Burundi sous l’administration Belge, Karthala,.
GALABERT, J.L.,(2011),Les enfants d’Imana. Histoire sociale et culturelle du Rwanda ancien,Editions Izuba,.
GASANABO, J.D. et ali (2014), Confronting genocide in Rwanda:
Dehumanization, Denial and Strategies for Prevention, Apidama Ediciones, Bogota.
HAIDER, H. (2014), Conflict: Topic Guide: Chapter 3: Preventing and
Managing Violent Conflict, Governance and Social Development Resource Centre.
HARROY, J.P. (1984), De la féodalité à la démocratie, Hayez, Bruxelles.
INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND DIALOGUE FOR PEACE, (2006), History
and conflicts in Rwanda, Kigali.
International Alert (2014) Building prosperity and peace: Integrating
peacebuilding into economic development, London: International Alert.
International Labor Organization (ILO), ( 2004), Crisis Response and
Reconstruction. The Post-Conflict Reconstruction Task Framework.
International Peace Academy,(2003), Sharing best practices on conflict
prevention: The Un, Regional and Sub regional Organizations, National and
Local Actors, IPA Policy Report.
KAGAME, A. (1975), Un abrégé de l’Ethno- Hisoire du Rwanda, Butare.
KAGAME, A. , (1975), Un abrégé de l’histoire du Rwanda de 1853 à 1972,
Coll “Muntu”, Tome 2, E.U.R, Butare.
KALIBWAMI, J. (1991),Le catholicisme et la société Rwandaise, P.A, Paris.
LOGIEST, G. (1988), Mission au Rwanda. Un blanc dans la bagarre Hutu-
Tutsi, Didier Hatier,Bruxelles.
LUGAN, B. Hisoire du Rwanda dès la préhistoire à nos jours
MAQUET J.-J., (1954), Le système des relations sociales dans le Ruanda
ancien, Tervuren, Musée Royal du Congo Belge,
MAYROZ, E. (2012), “The legal duty to ‘prevent’: after the onset of ‘genocide’”
in Journal of Genocide Research, 14(1), pages 79 – 98.MICHAEL S. Lund
(2009): Conflict Prevention: Theory in Pursuit of Policy and Practice, the
Sage Handbook on Conflict Resolution.
MINEDUC, NCDC, (2010). The History of RwandaSecondary Schools,
Teacher’s Guide, Module I & II, Kigali.
MINEPRISEC, (1987), Histoire du Rwanda, Tome I, Kigali, DPES,
MUZUNGU B., (2003), Histoire du Rwanda précolonial, Paris, L’Harmattan.
National Unity and Reconciliation Commission Itorero ry’Igihugu(2009)
Strategic Plan 2009-2012of Itorero ry’Igihugu, making national and
community service Work in Rwanda, Policy note and strategic plan, Kigali.
National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, (2017), Ndi Umunyarwanda,
a documentary film. Kigali.
National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, (2018), “Abarinzi b’Igihango”
in Rwanda, Unity Club, Kigali.
NKUNDABAGENZI, F.1961), Rwanda politique (1958-1960), Dossier du CRISP,Bruxelles.
OECD/DAC, (2001), Guidelines on Helping to Prevent Conflict,.
PRUNIER, G. (1999): The Rwanda genesis: history of a genocide, 2nd
edition, New York: Colombia University press.
RUVEBANA, E. (2014). Prevention of genocide under International law:
An analysis of the obligations of States and the United Nations to prevent
genocide at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels [S.l.]: Intersentia Cambridge.
Rwanda Civil Society Platform(2011), Final report survey on citizens’
participation in the performance contracts“imihigo” process By MAKUZA
Jean Marie Vianney, Senior Consultant, Kigali-Rwanda
Rwanda Governance Board(2017), Assessment and Documentation of Itorero (2007-2017), Kigali
Saferworld (2012), What are the key challenges? What works in addressing them?:Issue Paper 2, London.
The World Bank, (2008),Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction.
TSJEARD, B. and FRERKS, G.,(2004), Women’s Roles in Conflict Prevention,
Conflict Resolution and Post-Conflict Reconstruction:Literature Review and
Analysis. Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
UN, (2015), “Preventing Conflict, Transforming Justice, Securing the Peace”.
Global Study on the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325:
UNESCO,(2017), Education about the Holocaust and preventing genocide, A policy guide, Paris.
United Nations Development Program, (2009): Bureau for Crisis Prevention
and Recovery. United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel of Eminent
Persons on Civil Society and UN Relationships.
United Nations General Assembly, (1948), Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December, U.N.T.S. 78
United Nations, GeneralAssembly(2015), The Role of Prevention in the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,Report of the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, New York
US Agency for International Development (USAID),(2004), Women, War and Peace. New York: United Nations Development Fund for Women.
World Bank and United Nations,(2017), (Pathways for peace: Inclusive
approaches to preventing violent conflict, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
Zuckerman, E. and Marcia, G. (2004),The Gender Dimensions of Post
Conflict Reconstruction. Washington, DC.
Electronics Sources
https://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/hrtypes.htm
http://www.humanrights.is/en/human-rights-education-project/humanrights-concepts-ideas-and-fora/part-i-the-concept-of-human-rights/
definitions-and-classifications
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human_rights_protect%20
http://en.igihe.com/local/cache-vignettes/L1000xH652/1-1963-90fc1-2-65dec.jpg
http://www.rwandapedia.rw/sites/default/files/13062988465_7e76c492ef_b_0.jpg.
https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/181042
https://borgenproject.org/stages-of-genocide/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_prevention
www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgpreventgenocide.shtml
http://www.peace.ca/ten_lessons_to_prevent_genocide_.htm
http://www.genocidewatch.org/howpreventgenocideic.html
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgpreventgenocide.shtml