Jenna Crowe
Staff Writer
The ISU Rupp Debate Society opened the community’s eyes when the iDebate Rwanda team visited campus. The topic of the debate was whether forgiveness or justice is more important in the wake of genocide.
In 1994, Rwanda experienced a genocide involving the two major ethnic groups where as many as one million people were killed in 100 days.
iDebate Rwanda members included Bruce Intwali Murangira, Harmonie Isabane Muhumuliza, Angela Kagabo, Sharon Kirezi Bayingana and Bahizi Eric Habineza.
The two members who debated on October 24 were Murangira and Muhumuliza.
Murangira is a 21-year-old law student at the University of Lay Adventists of Kigali and is the current Head of Student Training at iDebate Rwanda.
Muhumuliza is 19-years-old and is pursuing her undergraduate degree in communications and international relations with the aim of becoming a journalist.
“We want to promote civic dialogue and discussion, not competition,” Sarah Partlow-Lefevre, the Rupp Debate Society coach, said before the debate began.
Members of iDebate Rwanda joined with two members of the Rupp Debate Society, Mike Chen and Nic Grunig.
Muhumuliza paired with Chen on the side of forgiveness, continually supporting the idea that while both are needed, justice should not weigh higher than forgiveness.
Grunig and Murangira opposed them, stating throughout the debate that justice is more effective than forgiveness.
The debate began with a speech from Muhumuliza, where she told a story about her mother to show the effects of forgiveness.
“My mother lost family in the genocide,” Muhumuliza said. “She wanted revenge but did not act on it because of a sermon she attended about forgiveness.”
Her iDebate Rwanda teammate, Murangira, later refuted her story claiming that it was an isolated event that could not reflect on the country as a whole. He continued his argument by looking towards the future generation, stating that forgiveness is just an emotional act.
“Justice helps both sides feel safe where forgiveness is a one-way action,” Murangira said during the audience questioning period.
Muhumuliza’s ISU teammate, Chen, stated in his speech that the Rwandan genocide didn’t just affect the people that witnessed it, it also affected their families and future generations. According to Chen, everyone was a victim.
“We need to teach the future generation about forgiveness,” Chen said.
The ISU member arguing for justice, Grunig, showed in his speeches that forgiveness can cloud the community’s lens when it comes to genocide.
“When forgiveness is a priority, people don’t see justice,” Grunig said.
His speeches throughout the debate centered around the link between proper justice and deterrence, showing how without justice or proper punishment, it sets the precedent that offenders won’t be caught.
Each side discussed a group known as the Gacaca courts. These courts were created after the Rwandan genocide as one of the three levels of justice.
According to the United Nations, communities at the local level elect judges to hear the trials of genocide suspects.
The courts were able to give lower sentences if the person was repentant and sought reconciliation with the community. Often, confessing prisoners returned home without further penalty or received community service orders.
The Gacaca courts were first discussed by Chen, who claimed that the courts help promote communication and forgiveness.
Murangira later used the Gacaca courts to his advantage by showing how justice was actually able to assist in the reconciliation process.
“Perpetrators were given a second chance,” Murangira said.
The debate ended with the same main argument on both sides: deterrence.
Muhumuliza brought up the fact that the “system” won’t stop people from committing crimes.
Her opponent, Grunig, disagreed with her point by saying that more justice will help people see what they did wrong.
Chen fiercely opposed the promotion of justice in his final speech by showing the flaws that come with justice.
“Justice perpetuates hatred,” Chen said.
Murangira gave the final word by bringing up the Gacaca courts once again.
He showed that these courts not only offered justice, they also offered closure and a better view of the truth because citizens throughout the affected community were able to testify.
