Analyzing Participation in the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda
| Author | Hollie Nyseth Nzitatira,Jared F Edgerton,Laura C Frizzell |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221075211 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Analyzing Participation in the 1994
Genocide in Rwanda
Hollie Nyseth Nzitatira
Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
Jared F Edgerton
Human Trafficking Data Lab, Stanford University
Laura C Frizzell
Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
Abstract
Recent studies of genocide have yielded varying estimates of the number and characteristics of people who engaged in
violence. We address these disparities in estimates for one well-studied case: the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Using
novel data from Rwanda’s post-genocide gacaca courts, we provide updated estimates regarding participants. Spe-
cifically, we find that between 847,233 and 888,307 people participated in the genocide, with 181,280 to 190,113
people found guilty of only violent offenses, 618,164 to 654,152 individuals found guilty of only property crimes,
and 44,042 to 47,789 individuals found guilty of both property and violent crimes. In total, we estimate that
between 229,069 and 234,155 individuals were found guilty of a violent offense, including those who committed
violent offenses as well as both violent and property offenses. These results align with past research, representing an
important convergence of evidence regarding participation in this genocide. We also calculate specific characteristics
of participants, finding that nearly 90% of all participants were men and that the median age for all participants was
34. Although most participants committed a single crime, between 215,124 and 222,522 people were found guilty
of multiple crimes. Approximately 6% of people accounted for 25% of the property crimes, while 11% of people
accounted for 25% of the violent crimes. These findings provide foundational information about one of the deadliest
episodes of mass violence in the 20th century.
Keywords
genocide, Rwanda, perpetration
Introduction
More people were killed in genocide during the 20th
century than in all homicides, manslaughters, and related
crimes combined (Savelsberg, 2010), with many deaths
occurring in the late 20th century as well as the early 21st
century (Goldsmith et al., 2013). Yet, researchers often
dispute basic facts about genocidal events, including the
number and characteristics of the people who commit
violence. This disagreement is unfortunate, as the pre-
vention of genocide hinges on the ability to adequately
understand who participates and the nature of their
crimes. Furthermore, as estimates of the number of par-
ticipants are highly politicized and often inflated (Hint-
jens, 2008), accurate information is vital.
Accordingly, our analysis offers the most comprehen-
sive information about the participants in one of the
deadliest episodes of violence during the 20th century:
Corresponding author:
brehm.84@osu.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2023, Vol. 60(2) 291–306
ªThe Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433221075211
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
1
We derive this informa-
tion from a novel dataset that we created by probabilis-
tically and deterministically matching court records from
approximately 1.6 million trials of the gacaca courts,
which the Rwandan government set up to try people
suspected of genocide. Although court data cannot cap-
ture all participants and are otherwise flawed, our data
provide improved estimates on the nature and scope of
participation in this genocide. Indeed, the previous
estimates of participation in the genocide have used
incomplete and less precise gacaca court data (e.g.
Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014; Friedman, 2013; McDoom,
2021) or extrapolated participation figures from inter-
views with incarcerated participants (Straus, 2004).
Thus, we make two key contributions to the extant lit-
erature on the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. First, we derive
updated estimates of participants in the genocide, and
second, we assess the demographic characteristics of
these participants. In doing so, we highlight how our
estimates build upon and reinforce prior best estimates,
suggesting an important convergence of evidence.
Our data suggest that between 847,233 and 888,307
people participated in the genocide, with 181,280 to
190,113 individuals found guilty of only violent
offenses, 618,164 to 654,152 people found guilty of
only property crimes, and 44,042 to 47,789 individuals
found guilty of both property and violent crimes. We
also estimate that between 229,069 and 234,155 indi-
viduals were found guilty of a violent offense, including
those who committed violent offenses as well as both
violent and property offenses (see Online appendix for
details). These figures are somewhat higher than Straus’s
(2004) estimate of 175,000 to 210,000 participants but
lower than other estimates of participation in violent
genocidal crime (e.g. Yanagizawa-Drott’s (2014) figure
of 510,000 participations; McDoom’s (2021) estimate
of 423,000 participants; and Lemarchand’s estimate of
350,000 to 600,000, cited in Hintjens (2008)).
Although most participants committed a single crime,
between 215,124 and 222,522 people were found guilty
of multiple crimes. Approximately 6% of people
accounted for 25% of all crimes committed during the
genocide (with 11% of people accounting for 25% of the
violent crimes), extending a foundational criminological
finding – that a small number of people are responsible
for a large amount of violence (Wolfgang, Figlio &
Sellin, 1987) – to the crime of genocide. We also find
that nearly 90% of all participants were men and that
their median age at the time of the genocide was 34,
which accords with some prior work on Rwanda (e.g.
Straus, 2006; McDoom, 2013) but also departs signifi-
cantly from theories of youth bulges (e.g. Urdal, 2006),
theories regarding the age at which most people engage
in violent crime (e.g. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), and
popular accounts suggesting that youth militias like the
Interahamwe committed the majority of the genocidal
violence.
In what follows, we begin by addressing prior research
on participation in genocide with an emphasis on deter-
mining the number and characteristics of participants.
We then outline the methods we employed to match the
gacaca court records before outlining our findings, which
we couch within a discussion of the pitfalls of these court
data. Finally, we suggest that a more complete picture of
the scale and character of participation is important for
research on mass violence, as many theories about the
perpetration of genocide are based on the case of Rwanda
(Straus, 2006; Fujii, 2009; Loyle, 2009; Owens, Su &
Snow, 2013).
Studying participation in genocide
Types of participation
Researchers analyzing the people who perpetrate
2
geno-
cide have distinguished between the initiation and facil-
itation of genocidal violence and the on-the-ground
implementation of this crime. This distinction can be
mapped onto positions of power, with scholarship
suggesting that leaders orchestrate genocide when they
are threatened or when their countries are in turmoil
(Valentino, 2004). Those who enact the violence often
wield comparatively less power and may similarly be
influenced by threat and fear (Hagan & Rymond-
Richmond, 2008), alongside ideology and propaganda
(Leader Maynard, 2014), greed (Loyle, 2009), group
dynamics and coercion (Staub, 1989), social networks
(Fujii, 2009; McDoom, 2013), age-graded and gendered
expectations (Nyseth Brehm, Uggen & Gasanabo,
1
The Rwandan government and the United Nations deem this the
‘1994 Genocide Against the Tut si’. This name indicates that t he
genocide targeted Tutsi though does not underscore the many
Hutu who were killed by attempting to save Tutsi, refusing to
participate, or being mistaken as Tutsi themselves (Straus, 2019).
2
Though early research demarcated perpetrators, victims, rescuers,
and bystanders, recent work has recognized that people engage in
multifaceted actions (e.g. Fujii, 2009). Given such findings, and
the imperative for person-first language in criminology (Denver,
Pickett & Bushway, 2017), we refrain from using the term
‘perpetrator’.
292 journal of PEACE RESEARCH 60(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial