Ethnic groups in Burundi
The post-independence Burundi has experienced recurring inter-ethnic violence especially in the political arena that has, in turn, spilled over to society at large leading to many casualties throughout the decades.
There did seem to be notable divisions between what were referred to as generally light-skinned, tall Tutsis and dark-skinned shorter Hutus, but the role and magnitude of such characteristics is unclear.
[11] Given their wealth and warfare abilities, the shortage of land availability and conflict over it led to the Tutsi domination of Burundi in the 16th century through the establishment of a hierarchical monarchy ruled by divine kings or mwami,[12] the first of which was Ntare I.
[10] Even within the Tutsis there existed internal divisions between those who were regarded as “high”, or Tutsi-Banyaruguru,[2] usually those belonging to the princely class, and those who were deemed as “low”, or Tutsi-Hima, who were often subordinate to wealthier Hutus.
[11] Despite the monarchy seemingly enhancing social hierarchies, many believed that its function also was in the interest of society at large as order alongside wealth was generated.
Out of fear of potential growth in the power of the monarch, German colonial rule empowered many of the chiefs in place which further enhanced the status of many Tutsi elites that had existed before.
Given the preexisting divides and discourses of Social Darwinism, pseudo-scientific beliefs and studies began to surface, indicating that the Tutsis were descendants of people from Ethiopia, ancient Egypt, and Asia Minor, suggesting a closer connection to Europeans themselves.
[15] Additionally, a money-based economy was introduced to Burundi that served to change the previous nature of cattle as wealth, enabling a socio-economic mobility [12] and further solidifying the ethnic categorizations.
[14] Furthermore, some scholars have argued that the presence of indirect rule, or lack of direct settlement by Europeans in Burundi, and clear separation of the three groups served to alter ideas of who ‘settlers’ were as it created an image, especially in the minds of more oppressed Hutus, that the Tutsis were in a sense settlers, or beneficiaries of the colonial system just like Germans and Belgians.
[11] Despite such views on the solidified hierarchy, it has been noted that colonial rule in general, still subjugated even the Tutsi elites in comparison with their European rulers, thus all three groups experienced varied levels of oppression.
[9] After WW2, as ideas of democracy, human rights and decolonization were taking form, a new generation of Belgian priests and administrators began to advance equality in Burundi by viewing Hutu participation in state and even church affairs more favorably.
This opening up was accompanied by manifestations of many anti-colonial protests and even Tutsi worries of losing power and influence due to such shifts in attitude.
[14] Such developments, combined with ethnic violence in neighboring Rwanda, led to a period of national unity against colonial powers in Burundi, calling for the county’s independence.
Tutsi elites began to use their influence and power coming from the colonial era to advance their ranks in Burundian politics while excluding Hutus, and also gained control of the military.
[14]The monarchy, then under Mwambutsa, was the sole source of power and resorted to ease the potential ethnic tensions by balancing the Hutu and Tutsi representation in successive governments up until 1965.
The mwami then resorted to elections anew, only to go against the Hutu majority results and appoint Tutsi Leopold Biha as Prime Minister.
After the violent clashes, the mwami fled to Congo and Burundi would soon become a republic under Micombero, where the Tutsi elites held control of the leading party UPRONA, the military, and most other institutions.
[11] The First Republic of Burundi under Micombero started a Tutsi domination and further purging of Hutus from various positions of power ranging from military to education.
[5] With discontent greatly building up, the event started with a Hutu rebellion in the Imbo region against the Micombero government, calling for a replacement of the monarchy.
This violence, as before, especially targeted Hutus who had obtained education, thus crippling the ability for Hutu to partake in political and administrative affairs in Burundi for another generation.
Following the events and pressures, Buyoya enacted institutional reforms and adopted a new constitution in 1992, that served to minimize the possibilities of ethnic politics.
Ndadaye’s rule emphasized a balancing representation of ethnic groups in Burundi, yet soon after his election, a Tutsi-led attempted military coup resulted in his assassination.
Late in 1994, a commission agreed to establish a coalition government led by Hutu Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, yet fighting only intensified despite efforts of peace and reconciliation.
Rivaling Hutu and Tutsi factions began to partake in the talks that were first moderated by Julius Nyerere and then Nelson Mandela in 1999.
[13] A multinational interim security contingent was to enforce peace in Burundi, yet despite this many rebel groups continued violent acts to some extent.
[8] Recent political developments under the Nkurunziza have worried many experts as violence, electoral fraud controversies, and human rights issues have increased in Burundi.
[9] Some politicians have also described the Nkurunziza government's issuing of arrest warrants to actors involved in the 1993 Ndadaye assassination as ethnically-charged and have criticized it as having the potential to create further divisions.
Some scholars have argued that Tutsis tend to have more Eurocentric physical features while Hutus have more Afrocentric ones, which would also become a justification for racism by colonizing powers.
[25] The socioeconomic approach suggests that these categorizations simply are based on economic gains and status and given pre-colonial Burundi, they often cite the example of how Hutus could become a Tutsi via acquiring a herd of cattle and vice versa.
Politicians and politics alike, magnified the tensions between groups like Hutus and Tutsis and this gave meaning to their identification and in turn conflicts.
