Rwanda today commemorates the genocide that 20 years ago gripped the country and shocked the world.
In all, close to one million people, mainly ethnic Tutsis, were massacred by predominately ethnic Hutus in 100 days.
It is estimated that the daily death rate was five times that of the Nazi death camps, with killings most often carried out by murderers using machetes and hatchets. In looking back, Rwandans can be justifiably proud that their country is unrecognisable from those dark times.
Today, Rwanda's economic progress is the envy of many African nations, and the ethnic divisions that once so bedevilled the country have been replaced by government initiatives aimed at fostering reconciliation.
On the face of it, things are looking good, but this should not detract from the pressing challenges that remain. Some 40% of Rwanda's citizens still live in extreme poverty. Then there is the question of human rights. To his supporters, Rwanda's President Paul Kagame is a saviour; to his detractors he is little short of a dictator. The latter claim that Rwanda's progress has come at a price, with freedom of expression restricted and little tolerance of political dissent.
It would be unfortunate for Rwanda if Kagame lived up to the worst fears about his rule. For now, though, Rwanda is light years from the nightmare of 20 years ago.
In remembering the Rwandan genocide, we should also pause to take stock of the eerie and worrying similarities of what happened in 1994 to what is currently unfolding in the Central African Republic. How tragic it would be to see one African nation to pull itself out from the abyss only to see another descend into the same.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article