Ishana Meadows, December 2023

‘Evaluate the arguments in favour and against Individual Freedom using a case study of
your choice’

An Evaluation on Individual Freedom through the lens of the 1994 Rwandan genocide

Introduction

Individual freedom remains a critical point of discourse in political studies, with many political
scientists arguing for and against it. Drawing on inspiration from theorists such as Lock and
Berlin, the conversations surrounding that of human rights, autonomy and authoritarianism are
of particular interest when put into the context of the events leading up to the 1994 Rwandan
genocide. It’s important to note that the genocide was a result of the colonial legacy, marked by
Belgian divide-and-rule strategies, reshaping Rwandan society, artificially constructing ethnic
hierarchies, and the favouring of certain ethnic groups, which consequently fuelled divide.
However, examining the conflict through the lens of political studies provides an opportunity to
illuminate various perspectives. This essay aims to evaluate these arguments (limited to the
context of human rights and authoritarianism due to its short nature) in favour and against
individual freedom through the lens of this case study, demonstrating the catastrophic
consequences of a failure to protect harmonious and socially responsible individual freedom.

"Like many of my colleagues, I drove into [Rwanda] believing the short stocky ones had simply
decided to turn on the tall thin ones because that was the way it has always been. Yet now, two
years later ... I think the answer is very different. What happened in Rwanda was the result of
cynical manipulation by powerful political and military leaders. Faced with the choice of sharing
some of their wealth and power with the [insurgent] Rwandan Patriotic Front, they chose to vilify
that organisation's main support group, the Tutsis ... The Tutsis were characterised as vermin.
Inyenzi in kinyarwanda -- cockroaches who should be stamped on without mercy ... In much the
same way as the Nazis exploited latent anti-Semitism in Germany, so did the forces of Hutu
extremism identify and whip into murderous frenzy the historical sense of grievance against the
Tutsis ... This was not about tribalism first and foremost but about preserving the concentration
of wealth and power in the hands of the elite." - Fergal Keane, a BBC Africa correspondent,
writes of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

Arguments in favour of individual freedom - Preventing Authoritarianism and Upholding

Human Rights

The argument of Negative versus Positive Liberty

Berlin’s essay ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ argues that freedom can be categorised into two: 1.
Negative Liberty - “the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints”, in particular the absence
of the State in constraining individual freedom; and 2. Positive Liberty – “to take control of one’s
life and realise one’s fundamental purpose”. The ability to fulfil one’s potential is “often thought
of as necessarily achieved through a collective.” “Berlin seeks to distinguish between the area of
control, emphasised by negative liberty, and the source of control, emphasised by positive
freedom.” He argued for the importance of negative liberty to protect human rights and
autonomy, and to prevent the abuse of powers and authoritarianism through an all-
encompassing pursuit of positive liberty. When individuals have the freedom to criticise the
government; participate in political activities and engage in civic society, it aids to prevent the
majority of power falling into the hands of a few individuals. This lack of negative liberty and
monopoly of positive liberty by the Rwandan State elites resulted in an authoritarian government
which acted solely on its own agenda for “the active manipulation of ethnicity … for whom
"ethnic identity" provides a fertile political terrain on which to mobilise.”

Positive Liberty and Individual Freedom

Returning to the concept that positive freedom has frequently been conceived as requiring a
collective societal effort, attention can be given to Rousseau’s theory of freedom, where
“individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one’s community
exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the ‘general will’”. From this,
it can be contended that a society is free democratically when it is self-determining, and when
individuals within that society experience freedom in relation to their contribution in the overall
democratic process. However, this concept of positive liberty certainly “carries with it a danger
of authoritarianism”. The Tutsi population in Rwanda were a “permanent and oppressed
minority” who, in the events leading up to the genocide, participated in a democratic process
which was monopolised by the Hutu majority rule. “They might be said to be free on the grounds
that they are members of a society exercising self-control over its own affairs. But they are
oppressed, and so are surely unfree”. Liberal democracy, and therefore justice, was void.
Protecting individual freedom with a greater equilibrium between negative and positive liberty
could have acted as a check on the monopoly of democracy by the majority rule, as well as the
source - the abuse of power by an authoritarian State.

The Parallels between Human Rights and Individual Freedom

The concept of individual freedom is widely regarded as a fundamental human right, conveying
the acknowledgement of the dignity and autonomy of every individual. This congruence
becomes acutely evident when reverting to Garner et al.’s definition of individual freedom: “the
absence of constraints or the absence of impediments”, which parallels the explanation of
human rights encapsulated in the thirty Articles of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.
Advocates of individual freedom, such as Locke, assert that it is imperative for the law and
therefore the State which upholds this law, to protect these rights, highlighting the integral role
of the State in upholding individual freedom as a fundamental aspect of human rights. This
nuanced relationship rests on the principle that individuals should have the right to lead their
lives without the burden of oppression. The Rwandan genocide, and events building up to the
genocide, unambiguously demonstrates how the State failed in upholding individual freedom
through enabling, and often enacting, “flagrant violations of human rights”, which resulted in the
systematic breakdown of Rwandan society. To draw upon Locke’s statement that the
“government has no other end than the preservation of property”, the State failed to preserve
the human rights (above and beyond the rights to property) of the entire Rwandan population,
only protecting the Hutu population which served the State’s own interests. It can be argued that
had the State effectively safeguarded the human rights and, thus, individual freedom of all its
citizens, the occurrence of the genocide may have been avoided, highlighting the importance of
upholding individual freedom through the institution of the State.

Arguments against individual freedom - Limits to Freedom in Extreme Cases

Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’

Many theorists argue that in extreme cases, such as the Rwandan genocide, there may be a
necessity to limit individual freedom to prevent harm to society. In Mill’s book ‘On Liberty’
(1859), he introduced the ‘harm principle’ – suggesting that the sole rationale for limiting
freedom is to prevent harm to others. This principle distinguishes between ‘self-harm’ and ‘other
regarding harm’; the first associating to actions which only affect ourselves, and the latter,
actions which affect others. Mill advises that “only those actions that harm others (affecting them
adversely) should be prevented by public opinion or the state. Self-regarding actions are not to
be interfered with. Mill is very clear, here, that actions which others find offensive, but which do
not cause them physical or financial harm, are not to be seen as other regarding.” When taking
this into the context of Rwanda, it can be clearly argued how destructive this distinction between
self and other regarding actions can be. Firstly, when looking at the long-term implications of
offensive harm (which is not deemed as physical harm and therefore other regarding harm by
Mills). The portrayal of the Rwandan genocide by the media within Rwanda itself during the
events of 1994, was heavily dictated by the Hutu-led Rwandan government at the time. The
government controlled the state media and promoted the ‘ethnic-based conflict’ narrative so
effectively that it has been described as a “media campaign to desensitise the Hutu population
and incite them to murder the Tutsi population”. The state-owned radio station ‘Radio Rwanda’
and the newspaper ‘Kangura’ disseminated propaganda and hate speech against the Tutsi
minority, inciting violence, and hatred. These media outlets played a central role in spreading
ethnic-based extremist ideologies that fuelled the genocide. In this case, freedom allowed for
hate speech, legitimised by an authoritarian State, which caused extreme violence. This echoes
the sentiments of British jurist Lord Devlin, who “argued that there is no such thing as private
immorality, in the sense that even our private behaviour will have public consequences”.

Balancing Individual Freedom between groups

It can be debated that there is a strong relationship between these offensive actions enacted by
people in positions of power, and the ability of these actions to influence others, which can lead
to actions that cause physical, other-regarding harm. Radio propaganda was used as a tool in
this way to harness ethnic hate against the Tutsi population, thus contributing to the lack of
individual freedom. The 2003 Trial against the owners of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille
Collines (RTLM) noted that “radio was the medium of mass communication with the broadcast
reach in Rwanda… A number of witnesses testified to the popularity of RTLM when it first came
on air, noting that people could be seen everywhere listening to RTLM. Its broadcasts were a
common topic of conversation in homes, offices, cafes, and on the street. Almost everyone had
a radio and listened to RTLM”. The privately-owned radio station was renowned to amplify anti-
Tutsi propaganda and encourage violence, broadcasting hate speech, false allegations, and
instructions to kill Tutsis. A broadcast aired on June 4 , 1994, stated that “the reason we will
th

exterminate them is that they belong to one ethnic group”. This evidently illustrates that the
freedom of speech without limits exercised by the Rwandan national media coverage of the
conflict and subsequent genocide, although did not cause direct physical to the Tutsi population,
did incite racially and ethnic fuelled tensions, which led to extreme other regrading harm in the
form of genocide.

Conclusion

Individual freedom comes to the forefront of discussions when delving into the Rwandan
genocide, revealing the profound consequences of the erosion of its stability and harmony
within society. The events leading up to 1994, and the genocide itself, emphasise the failure in
protecting autonomy, human rights and preventing authoritarianist monopoly of the State.
 Although advocates of negative liberty, such as Berlin, see positive liberties as “the real enemy
of freedom”, it is clearly oversimplified when put into the context of this case study. Instead, I
argue that the real enemy of freedom is a disproportionate balance between negative and
positive liberty, which can result in authoritarian regimes which violate human rights and
manipulate democracy. This breaks the social contract established between society and the
State to ensure balance between individual freedom and societal well-being. Garner et al. states
that “there is no necessary relationship between freedom and democracy”. However, I disagree
with the notion that non-democratic forms of government do not impede freedom, insofar as
how individual freedom is protected. Although not all non-democratic forms of government
suppress individual freedom, many processes within these systems have the potential to
suppress or undermine freedom in various ways. The case study of Rwanda serves as a
reminder of the crucial balance needed to uphold individual freedom. In the words of Chris
Patten, “I believe in trying to get a balance between individual freedom on the one hand and
social responsibility on the other”.

Works Cited

Allan Thompson. "Introduction - INTERNATIONAL MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE GENOCIDE." The

Media and the Rwanda Genocide. Ed. Allan Thompson.Pluto Press, 2007. 1-12. Print.

Amnesty International. Rwanda: “Marked for Death”, Rape Survivors Living with HIV/AIDS in

Rwanda. . Amnesty International, 2004. Print.

Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University of California P, 1985. Web.

JOHN LOCKE. Second Treatise of Government. 4th ed. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis

and Cambridge, 1764a. Print.

John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. Canada: Batoche Books Limited, 2001. Print.

Matthew Lower, and Thomas Hauschildt. "The Media as a Tool of War: Propaganda in the Rwandan

Genocide." Human Security Centre: Human Rights and Conflict Resolution 1.2 (2014)Web.

Mr. René Degni-Ségui, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. QUESTION OF

THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF

THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT

COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Rwanda., 1996.

Print.

Mr. Stephen Rapp, et al. THE PROSECUTOR V. FERDINAND NAHIMANA JEAN-BOSCO

BARAYAGWIZA HASSAN NGEZE Case no. ICTR-99-52-T., 2003. Print.

Nicholas Hildyard. “Blood” and “Culture” Ethnic Conflict and the Authoritarian Right. Corner House,

1999. Print.

Prunier, Gerard. The Rwanda Crisis : History of a Genocide. Hurst, 1995. Web.

René Degni-Ségui. QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL

FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO

COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES Report on the

Situation of Human Rights in Rwanda. United Nations, 1996. Print.

Robert Garner, Peter Ferdinand, and Stephanie Lawson. Introduction to Politics. Third ed. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press, 2016a. Print.

Sophia Kagan. " The "Media Case" before the Rwanda Tribunal: The Nahimana Et Al. Appeal

Judgement." HAGUE JUSTICE JOURNAL, VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1 (2008): 83. Web.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Positive and Negative Liberty." plato.stanford.edu. 2021.

Web. 19 December 2023 <.' target='_blank'>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-

positivenegative/#:~:text=In%20Berlin's%20words%2C%20we%20use,use%20the%20positive

%20concept%20in>.

United Nations. "1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in

Rwanda." https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/historical-background.shtml. Web. 8

November 2023.

United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." www.un.org. 2023b. Web. 19 December

2023 <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>.

World Vison. "Rwandan genocide: Facts, FAQs, and how to help." www.worldvision.org. 2023. Web.

7, November, 2023 <https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/1994-rwandan-

genocidefacts#:~:text=In%20April%201994%2C%20the%20genocide,once%2Dbeautiful%20co

untry%20in%20ruins.>.

“I, Ishana Meadows, understand the meaning of plagiarism, and I affirm that this essay is the
result of my own work for this study unit only. No part of this essay has been written by anyone
else, no part of it has been previously submitted to this or any other university in English or any
other language, and all words, excluding clearly marked quotes, are only those of this author. All
information and ideas that are not those of this author are clearly cited in footnotes or in-text
citations and paraphrased or quoted.”