Why Did the Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide Show No Remorse

A skull and belongings of a Tutsi victim, 1994.

In his classic work, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill provided a practical definition of what it means to have a bad moral character. Mill claimed: “Envy…Pride…Egoism, which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in his own favor; ̶ ̶ ̶ these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character.”It is with this definition that one can define the Hutus involved in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide as men of bad character.

The Hutu perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide murdered willingly and for their own benefit. The imprisoned men Jean Hatzfeld interviews for his book, Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak, betray their façade of regret when they speak of forgiveness and attempt to justify their atrocious actions. These men, who are confined to Rilima Prison and seek pardon only as a means by which to alleviate their own discomfort, are weak in their faith and cowardly in their principles. Even more than weakness and cowardice, however, the killers lack an innate sense of remorse, which can be attributed to their egocentric nature. They admit to committing the actual genocidal acts, yet rationalize their deeds by placing the blame on politics, God, and even the victims. As Hatzfeld tacitly argues through the text of his interviews, the prisoners of Rilima are cowardly egocentrics. He bases his thesis based on the prisoners' lack of remorse, selfish ideas of forgiveness, and their inability to examine the atrocities, in which they willingly participated, from an introspective position.

Origins of Hatred

The inculcation of ethnic hatred at a young age is but one excuse used by the Hutu prisoners to justify their actions in the Tutsi genocide. Adalbert, one of the prisoners interviewed, claims that, “‘Hutu children grew up asking no questions, listening hard to all this nastiness about Tutsis.’” It is fairly easy to concede that racial distinctions between different African peoples, fabricated by Europeans during the 19th century, played a distinct role in the formation of racial opinions held by various ethnic groups. That, however, must not excuse the violent incursions that ensued; carried out by Tutsis as well as Hutus. Limiting the argument to only the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsi in 1994, the question becomes one of action versus opinion. As Adalbert claims, as a young child he and other Hutu children were constantly subjected to racist ideology and hate speech, however, he admits to having Tutsi friends as a youngster, claiming not to notice any difference between the Tutsi and Hutu children with whom he played. By making this assertion, he shows that his actions, therefore, did not follow the doctrine of hate taught by his elders. That being the case, it follows logically that if a young child can overcome the cultural biases of his family and community, so too can an adult; presumably with more ease.