Andy Wilson

November 28, 2005

Comparative Politics

Mr. Perry

Rwanda and South Africa: The Effect of Colonialism on Citizenship

Throughout history different ideas have greatly affected peoples lives. From

Christianity to Fascism to Manifest Destiny, ideals have driven men to do great admirable

deeds as well as horrible contemptible crimes. One of the more controversial ideas of the

last two hundred years is that of colonialism. Most agree that the effects of colonialism

were detrimental to the development of those peoples who were colonized. Horrible

atrocities were made in the name of profits and egotism. It is therefore important to

examine this period in order to understand the problems that have occurred in the nations

that have been colonies. Citizenship is often a question that arises when dealing with

formerly colonized nations in Africa because there are often people being governed who

are not being represented in the political process or are simply being oppressed and

attacked.

The nations of Rwanda and South Africa are two good comparisons of the affect

that colonialism had on citizenship and social structure. In Rwanda an existing social

structure was exploited in order to help the Belgians and fell into utter chaos after the

Belgians left do to its perversion under colonialism. In South Africa an oppressed group

rose to power and seized the reigns of government and enforced racially restrictive policy
on the native Africans. In both cases it is obvious the role that colonialism played in the

development of the social conscious of the nation. The colonizers created a system that

was doomed to failure and did not take responsibility for there creation. They exploited

the people in order to extract resources for their own wealth, not caring what the

repercussions would be. Therefore, the cases of Rwanda and South Africa are worth

considering when examining the effect that colonialism had on citizenship.

Rwanda’s social troubles began with the arrival of the Germans in 1897 (Foreign).

The Germans desired to build themselves an imperial empire the likes of Great Britain

and at the same time milk the colonies of their resources. In order to do this the Germans

took advantage of the already existing social structure within the country. This system

was called the ubuhake. Ubuhake was a traditional social system of loyalty and

allegiance, which a Hutu gave to Tutsi lord. The ubuhake system had been in existence

since the Tutsi invaded the area of Rwanda and subjugated the Hutu, making themselves

the aristocracy and the Hutus the laborers. The Germans decided that the best way to get

what they wanted from Rwanda was to use this system with themselves as administrators

and the Tutsi as their lackeys. German rule in Rwanda, however, was short lived. With

World War I raging in Europe, the Belgians invaded in 1916 and assumed control

(Foreign).

The Belgians desired to have tighter control of Rwanda than the Germans did; and

their means of doing this was the Tutsi. Mgr. Classe, a highly respected German

missionary, who had spent many years in Rwanda and was acculturated in Rwandan

society, proposed that,

 The greatest mistake that the government could make would be to suppress the

Mututsi caste. Such a revolution would lead the country directly to anarchy and

to hateful anti-European communism…We will have no better, more active and

more intelligent chiefs than the Batutsi. They are the ones best suited to

understand progress and the ones the population likes best. The government must

work mainly with them (Prunier).

The Belgians, who greatly respected Mgr. Classe, followed his advice and continued the

practice of Tutsi rule. Instead of using the traditional ubuhake system the Belgians

desired to consolidate Tutsi power and strengthen their own control. Under the

traditional ubuhake system there was still a large amount of social mobility for Hutus and

they had a limited amount of autonomy. Under the new Belgian system all power was

placed in the hands of the Tutsi. Of the 559 chiefly seats 549 were Tutsi (Prunier). This

greatly agitated many Hutu who had held important positions since the pre-colonial days.

Since many of the administrators and civil servants of Rwanda were Tutsi, they were in a

far better position to take advantage of the system, which many did. Beginning in the

1920’s Tutsi leaders began stealing lands that had traditionally belonged to the Hutu,

leading to wide spread resentment and anger.

Another aspect, which needs to be considered during the colonial period, is the

academic support of the Tutsi. At this time anthropologists became increasingly

interested in the peoples of Rwanda, especially the relationship between the Tutsi and the

Hutu. They examined the physical characteristics of each and declared that since the

Tutsi had such a strong resemblance to the fairer skinned people to the north that they

were descended from these people and therefore an ethnically superior group to the Hutu.
This idea was driven into the minds of both the Tutsi, who began to believe that they

were indeed superior, and the Hutu, who began to resent being deemed a lesser ethnic

group. Eventually even the lower class Tutsi, who were no better off than their Hutu

counterpart, began to believe that they were superior and separated themselves from the

Hutu. The racial myths and ideas that were created during this period led to the division

and violence that struck the country years later.

After World War II Rwanda was among the many colonies desiring independence.

The Rwanda freedom movement was predominately led by Tutsi leaders who desired the

continuation of the colonial system except without the Belgians. Belgians saw this as a

stab in the back and switched their support to the Hutu. This put Rwanda on its head. In

1959 the Hutu took revenge by attacking and burning the villages of Tutsi throughout

Rwanda (Prunier). The Belgians simply turned their backs as many Tutsi were killed and

their villages were destroyed. Tutsi were also removed from their posts within the

colonial government and replaced by Hutu who were seen as loyal to the Belgians. In the

years leading up to independence there was a surge in Hutu nationalistic parties

demanding a say in the future Rwandan government. These parties demanded the end of

what they saw as Tutsi feudalism and majority government ran by the Hutu. As the

Belgians trusted the Tutsi less and less, they began to give support to the Hutu. In 1961,

a group of Hutu nationalists within the government declared all emblems and symbols of

the Tutsi illegal and seized control of the government (Foreign). The Belgians again

turned their backs on their former henchmen by allowing the coup the go forward.

Luckily For the Tutsi the UN stepped in a demanded that legitimate elections be held.

This however did little to change the outcome considering that the Tutsi were a very
small minority compared to the Hutu. With the new open elections, held under the

watchful eyes of the UN, a Hutu majority government was elected and in a matter of

months Rwanda gained its independence.

In retrospect one can see the mistakes that were made that led to the troubles of

the later half of the twentieth century. Instead of trying to unit the peoples of Rwanda to

see themselves as Rwandans, the Belgians caused large amounts of social friction and

division. Throughout Rwanda’s colonial period the Tutsi were the favorite son of the

Belgian authorities. They were entrusted with running the nation as well as maintaining

aspects of the economy. The Tutsi were the pinnacle of African development where as

the Hutu were seen as sub-people. The Hutu were relegated no authority and were

considered second class citizens. Therefore, it is no surprise that when the Hutu seized

power they made the Tutsi second class citizens. Years of old animosities, fostered by the

Belgians, emerged and found a voice in Rwandan politics. For decades Tutsi either fled

Rwanda or lived in fear of the sporadic purges that would occur whenever the

government felt threatened. For a large part of the twentieth century the Tutsi population

lived in constant fear of their jobs being taken away or even their own death.

Colonialism deeply affected the psyche of the Rwandan people and set the stage for the

inequality that was typical of the twentieth century.

South Africa is another example of a nation where citizenship was been affected

by colonialism. Initially settled by Dutch, French and German settlers, South Africa was

an escape route for many oppressed people in Europe during the 17th and 18th century. In

the early 19th century control of South Africa switched from the Dutch to the British. The

descendents of the Dutch, French and German settlers, who were known as the Boers,
chaffed under the restrictive rules of the British and moved beyond the frontier of the

colony. Throughout South Africa’s British colonial period the Boers and the British

authorities regularly clashed. The Boers hated being told where they were to stay and for

how long; and the British regularly did this. However, even though the Boers and

English did not get along and fought a series of wars at the end of the 19th century, the

Boers were not below the status of the native Africans. Until the 1830’s slavery was still

permissible within Cape Colony and after emancipation there was very little change in

the life of a native South African (Lacour-Gayet). The views of the white South Africans

were very similar to that of American Southerners after the Civil War; those who were

slaves might now be free but that would not make them citizens. The natives Africans

were now free but the colonial government made sure that they would never be of equal

status compared to the white South Africans. Segregation laws, similar to those in the

United States, were passed which created separate facilities that were by no means of

equal quality. White South Africans enjoyed the finest facilities while the blacks dealt

with the most meager accommodations. In 1913 this policy was carried even further

when the colonial government created special reserves for the Africans to live on

(Lacour-Gayet). Under apartheid this reservation system became a way to ensure that

native Africans would never become citizens of South Africa. These reservations were

deemed the homelands of the native Africans and that in order to leave them one needed

to carry a passbook. If a native African was caught in white South Africa without a

passbook they could be fined but they were usually imprisoned.

In South Africa the colonial government paved the way for apartheid by creating

segregation and bestowing favorable treatment to the white population. The British
fought a war against the Boers but they still considered them members of the Cape

Colony. In South Africa the restriction of the native Africans occurred long before the

rise of the Nationalists in the 1960’s, it began in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Apartheid’s roots can be traced back to the many of the acts which were passed by the

colonial government; acts that denied the native Africans citizenship and relegated them

to lives of misery.

Both South Africa and Rwanda have experienced a large amount of ethnic

struggle. In Rwanda and South Africa the colonial governments bestowed special

treatment on one group while at the same time encouraging policies of separation. In

Rwanda the Tutsi were the servants of the Belgians and they were in return granted

special privileges over the Hutu population. In South Africa the black population was

suppressed and even denied citizenship because the white population saw them as

inferior. In both instances, under colonialism there was a denial of equal rights as

citizens that had long term and very ugly consequences. For Rwanda the results were

ethnic conflict which cost the lives of over a million people; and in South Africa it was

the horrible legacy of apartheid.

 Bibliography

Foreign Areas Studies, Rwanda: A Country Study, The United States Government

as represented by the Secretary of the Army 1982.

Lacour-Gayet, Robert, A History of South Africa, New York, Hastings House

1978.

Prunier, Gerard, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide, New York, Columbia

University Press 1995

Seidman, Gay, Is South Africa Different? Sociological Comparisons and

Theoretical Contributions from the Land of Apartheid, Annual Review of

Sociology, 1999.