Rwanda and Forgiveness

I’ve been thinking a lot these days about Rwanda. Earlier this year, I visited for the first time with a remarkable client, Women for Women International. Their mission is to support women victims of war (www.womenforwomeninternational.org)

Thirteen years ago, during the genocide, close to one million people were killed in one hundred days. Five hundred thousand women were raped in one hundred days. Many of those raped were done so by men with AIDS to deliberately infect them. It was a well-planned and coordinated effort, despicable beyond imagination.

The country was devastated and all these people, the victims and the perpetrators must now live next to each other. The government in many cases has even forced communities who were torn apart to continue living together to make sure that reconciliation occurred. Imagine if your neighbor, who was a friend and whom you knew all your life, killed your husband in front of you with a machete, raped you and your daughter, maimed your son, but by some miracle left you living. And he still resided next door.

It was a massive horror, and the people of Rwanda are trying to reconcile with what courage they have. I met one woman to which the above scenario happened. After years of depression, she began to rebuild her life through my client. She now has a thriving business selling beer and wholesaling fruit, with a cell phone and everything. She is happy and productive, returning from the depths.

One day a few years ago, the man who committed this crime came and begged her for forgiveness. After quietly listening she told him she would, but then did a remarkable thing. She suggested the two of them together start the first reconciliation movement for their area. She is now a significant community leader with this man in Rwanda's post-genocide era--a saint in a country filled with saints.

My Western mind has a hard time grasping all of this. But one thing does seem clear. As a matter of tone, Rwanda feels more committed to forgiveness than they are to justice. The modern root of forgiveness means, "to give up the power to punish". Conversely justice is often so much about revenge. The Latin root of the word is justia, meaning “righteousness” or “vindication through assigning punishment”. This is not the same as forgiveness. Try this. Say, “I want justice”. Notice the energy of your statement and where your attention goes. Now say, “I want forgiveness.” Do they feel different?

I think part of Rwanda's success is the strong force of women in the country. By law 40% of the legislative body must be women (Rwanda is at 49% and lead the world. The United States conversely is 61st.) Five of their nine Supreme Court Justices are women. The bulk of their senators are women. The head of police is a woman. The head of economic development is a woman. The head of reconciliation is a woman. This is not an accident. While still in the shadow of the genocide, what they have done in a decade models positive force in an otherwise increasingly bleak world.

I visited a church that is a “living” memorial to the genocide. It is a place where ten thousand Tutsi, running for sanctuary packed themselves into the building. The Hutu came and in one killing spree macheted or shot everyone but two children who had managed to hide under the dead bodies. Thirty-five thousand victims are buried at this site, along with the original ten thousand who were killed. There is a twenty-foot high tunnel of skulls and skeletons that you walk through, and freshly found bodies awaiting burial. Death is everywhere. You see the tarps with decomposing corpses, stand next to them, breathe... and your mind goes to a place it has never been before.

This genocide, like all others, was committed by men. It is an affirmation of the need for women’s empowerment and a stark reminder of the work men must also do. In a world run by women this would never have happened. Of that I am convinced.

And yet Rwanda is a vibrant country, safe and incredibly clean. The capital Kigali is one of the cleanest cities I have ever seen. This is because one day every month every citizen picks-up the country, including the president. They have outlawed plastic bags and there is literally no trash on the streets. Flowers and gardens are everywhere. There are monuments to women, children and the genocide in every town. They are proud of what Rwanda has become and deeply dedicated to never going back. The president, Paul Kagame said, “We went as low as a society could go. Keeping our streets and bodies clean helps cleanse our souls.”

In February Rwanda will release more than 8000 prisoners convicted or awaiting trial in the 1994 genocide. Many of these are capital crimes. Rwandan authorities have held several similar prisoner releases since 2003, when President Kagame ordered them as part of an effort to decongest Rwanda's crowded prisons and promote reconciliation.

Rwanda has also abolished the death penalty.

I am left wondering how Rwandans can do this? I think it is because at the heart of this bold plan is a national desire for forgiveness. It is a lesson to us all, and a reminder that forgiving others is only part of the challenge. By it's very nature, forgiveness is a reciprocation.

Many of us are more willing to forgive than to be forgiven.

Stepping Back From Polarization

I live in New Hampshire, and right now we are in the middle of "shopping season". With a few weeks to go till the primary, it's a wild ride. I have watched more than my fair share of political commentary and presidential candidates, and one thing I have observed is that everyone talks about how polarized we are, but very few seem to know how to act differently.

Here is a clue.

In matters of substantial difference, don't question people's intentions, question their judgment. If your goal is to minimize the amount of polarization that exists in our culture, carefully watch your language. Questioning intention is often seen as an attack on integrity, and while you may feel passionately about your point of view, everyone feels that their intentions are good. No matter what.

Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all have one thing in common...they believe that their way is the right way. Challenging why they feel the way they do is red meat to a dog. Questioning what was done instead, and the judgment behind an action, while not always welcome, will allow for honor to remain intact.

Tonight flip the channels between CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Notice how often a candidate's integrity is questioned. Then ask yourself, how often in my daily life do I do the same? Remember, polarization is less about position than it is about tone.

The Inevitability of Consensus

A lot of my time in 2007 was engaged in managing a national dialogue on the death penalty. The goal was to create an agreed upon strategy, state-by-state and nation-wide, to abolish executions in the United States by 2025. It was a hard and difficult process, bringing together many varied points of view. The "movement" has a long history of difference, not in intention but in approach, and many big personalities as only rooms of lawyers, researchers, policy makers and grassroots organizers can provide. It was exciting, exhausting and ultimately successful.

Yesterday New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty in thirty years. It has had me thinking a lot about what happened and why it worked. In the end, it came down to creating an environment where consensus felt inevitable, and this more than anything seemed essential to the process.

Creating an “inevitability of consensus” in any environment is a complex undertaking (the phrase was coined by my friend, Ricardo Baretto). Here then are a few things I learned along the way.

First, is to set the bigger context. A sense of inevitability can be created through the frequent restating of a purpose all can agree on. In this case, everyone wanted the death penalty abolished by 2025. How it would get abolished was a matter of deep discussion and argument, but this larger overarching vision was something everyone could unquestionably support. In moments of deep difference, someone would inevitably reference this broader goal, and an opening would be created that would allow movement of thinking and position.

Second is to establish urgency. Everyone in the room knew that certain environmental factors brought a sense of immediacy, i.e. political timing. “Why us?” and “Why now?” seemed obvious enough. By continually referring again and again to the opportunities at this point in time, people felt a need to come together even if individual agendas were sacrificed. We additionally had a process that was time-bound, and as a consequence it was referenced by the participants constantly, i.e. “When we get to the October meeting” or “When we finalize our strategy in October”. This created pressure on all the participants to “get it done” by October…with no opportunity to extend the deadline. We would either reach agreement or not, but all participants were clear that when it was over, it was over. As the months rolled on, all the time and effort of the group increased the pressure to create an agreed upon strategy. No one wanted to waste the effort.

Third is to seek the overlap between individual self-interest and the common good. If this diverse group only focused on the individual benefit each would have gained, they would have inevitably fractionalized. Participants would have eventually retreated into positions of personal benefit and away from consensus. On the other hand, if the group only sought the common good, the entire process would eventually have lost it's energy and momentum. Without individual's knowing their self-interest was served, the motivation to work through hard places of disagreement would disappear. The key was to continually reinforce those times where we knew the whole benefited, and many would benefit individually.

Fourth is to highlight individuals when they publicly shifted positions. We consistently looked for moments when an individual might say, for instance, “I’ve changed my mind” or “I agree with John”. This was very for important for a room filled with advocates and organizers, who strategize and argued for a living. You could almost feel a collective deep breath, as the group learned new forms of conversation through positive modeling. Looking for moments of "joining" and position change created an environment of trust--an essential prerequisite for consensus. When a majority in the room felt this, inevitability became more of a reality.

Finally, act "as if". That we (the facilitators) believed in the group’s ability to reach consensus cannot be overstated. This was observed by the frequent comment from many in the room, “Well, if you think we can do this then I guess we can!” As always happens, the meeting breaks were filled with anxious concern and questions of “Is this working?” We would always respond, “You’re right on track” and reaffirm our view that consensus was going to occur. Sometimes I'd even resort to saying, “trust the process”. Then like “The Little Engine That Could”, when the group moved from the possibility of consensus to it being a forgone conclusion, the steep climb of agreement gained momentum and thrust. As a result, when it happened, it happened fast.

In the end, consensus is a hard thing to achieve, even under the best of circumstances. But if you can make participants feel it is inevitable, then your job becomes an easier one. Inevitable consensus is essentially a way of thinking, created by conversational structures, optimistic belief and the consistent reinforcement of positive behavior.