Burundi. The Causes of the Conflict and its Development in Brief 
Julian Thomas Hottinger

Vortrag : "Burundi, Friedensabkommen ohne Frieden? Hintergrundgespräch zu einem aktuellen Konflikt in Afrika", Veranstaltung des Instituts für Umwelt - Friede - Entwicklung, 23. April 2001, Politische Akademie, 1120 Wien, Tivoligasse 73)

Given the time each one of the speakers will have to present their subjects tonight, it would be impossible for me to go through the major incidences that could explain this conflict. To start with there are a lot, and second of all is according to what you mention or leave aside, you are either in favour or against one or the other communities. After having worked with the Burundian Delegates in Arusha for 28 months, this is an issue one becomes highly sensitive about. But before illustrating - very shortly - some of the key incidents in Burundi's recent history, I would like to clarify two aspects of this long going conflict. 

First of all, often in debates and discussions there is a misunderstanding on when the conflict really started: Very often public opinion is only conscious of the last 8 years of conflict. They start at the collapse of the Ndadaye's regime in October 1993 and build from there. I personally do not share this point of view, as violence within Burundian society has been an ongoing affair since Independence in 1962. This is for nearly 40 years. And even if there were one or two massacres before independence and often linked to famine or other catastrophes did take place, it was only in 1972 that for the very first time the near totality of the Burundian population was affected by the massive killings.

Secondly, due to the Burundian history and the present, the notion of "communities" and "minorities" in Burundi tends to refer to Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. This is due to what Jean-Pierre Chrétien calls "ethnic regression", that meaning that all conflicts and divisions in Burundian society are reinterpreted in terms of the ethnic divide. Yet, other cleavages position groups against one another. In fact, not one of the ethnic communities is "homogeneous" in category. Thus, there exists an old antagonism between Tutsi-Banyaruguru and Tutsi-Hima, the latter being geographically concentrated in the Bururi province and dominating the four successive military regimes since 1965. This division also affects the armed forces, considered the "bastion of Tutsi hegemony" and "their protector". So as to clarify "The Causes of the Conflict and its Development in Brief" this evening we will be talking a lot about communities - be it Hutu or Tutsi, not to forget the Twa - but behind these notions one must not forget the following:

That Burundi has faced conflict during most of its history since independence in 1962. While the fight is often defined as "communitarian or ethnic", it is in fact political, aimed at maintaining or capturing power. In such a poor country, with a per capita icome of US $ 140 in 1999, the control of the state is the only avenue for accumulation and reproduction of a dominant class. As I will explain as I go through my "exposé" the processes of national reconciliation and of democratisation in 1993 mainly was confronted with an elite opposition and resistance. Thus often violence was only apparently ethnic, as in October 1993. The real aim was to recapture political powers and privileges lost after the June 1993 elections. So pitted against each other were not Hutu and Tutsi as such, but those who gained power through the ballot box and those who lost it. This of course does not mean one can put aside ethnic or community identities. They are powerful mobilising forces, often used and manipulated in the name of political interests. But the real issue of the fight is to be seen - as Filip Reyntjeans once stated as - "a demographic majority trying to turn into a political majority", and I would add in the third-poorest country included in the World Bank statistics. 

Dr. Julian Thomas Hottinger (Universität Fribourg)