INTRODUCTION

As I argued in Chapter 2, gacaca is an intricate, multifaceted social practice that draws on a wide range of legal, political and cultural influences over several generations to produce the hybrid system that is now designed to deal with genocide cases. Given gacaca's complex evolution during the twentieth century and the marked reform of the institution after the genocide, it is not surprising that great confusion and contestation over the objectives of the practice manifest both in the critical literature and in the daily running of gacaca. My purpose in this and subsequent chapters is to ask three questions: exactly what is gacaca designed to achieve, how should we analyse its effectiveness as a response to the needs of the Rwandan population after the genocide, and in practical terms how well has gacaca performed?

This chapter briefly discusses the current controversy among many observers concerning gacaca as an institution dealing with genocide and related crimes and the confusion among many participants regarding gacaca's objectives. In order to lay a foundation for the interpretation of gacaca's objectives and the analysis of its practical function in the following chapters – which is designed in part to overcome this confusion regarding the purposes of the institution and to show that much of the controversy over gacaca is based on a misinterpretation of these objectives – this chapter outlines the rationale that underpins the interpretation of gacaca's aims and methods throughout this book.