96 Scarcity and Surfeitattempt or for the killing of Tutsi civilians, but most Hutu in public positions,
as well as educated, influential and wealthy Hutu in general. Many who were
not killed fled, leading to a vacuum of Hutu leadership potential in the country.
The effects of the violence on the distribution of power had far-reaching
consequences for the political development of the country and for later con-
flict potential. The main power structures, including the army and what had
become the de facto single party, UPRONA, came under the exclusive control
of Tutsis. The extermination or expulsion of virtually all educated, influential
and wealthy Hutu led to a concentration of power, wealth and influence in
mtsi hands, and prevented competition for power for at least a generation.
This meant that this one group also had control over the national means of
responding to future conflict - either through negotiated politics or through
violent repression - consequently making all conflict resolution dependent
on the interests of the ruling elite Tutsis.1966-1 972
The cycle of violence was again repeated in the years leading up to the
killings in 1972. The 1972 violence was the most extreme of post-independ-
ence Burundi, and made the fear of genocide by both communities, which
Tutsis had felt since the 1959 'revolution' in neighbouring Rwanda and which
had already been prefigured for both Hutus and Tutsis in 1965, into a central
causal factor of all future clashes. It "crystalised ethnic tensions in such a
way that all subsequent crises have been ... [their] con~equence."~~ Both
communities see the killings as genocide against their own ethnic group and
justify later violence against the other group on these grounds.
In this cycle of violence, the exclusion of Hutus from power was accom-
panied by the increasing centralisation of control in the hands of a small,
regional Tutsi elite. The Tutsi-Hima clan, largely from the southern Bururi
province, gained power over the previously pre-eminent Tutsi-Banyaruguru,
traditionally allied with the royal court and therefore closest to power in the
early 1960s monarchy.34 This radical reorientation of identity group and
regional power distribution culminated in the abolishment of the monarchy
in 1966 after a coup by General Micombero, and the parallel 'Tutsification' of
the army and 'Bururification' of the officer corps.35 During the late 1960%
ever fewer Hutus and ever more Hima-Tutsi from Bururi had leading posi-
tions in central organs of power, including political, economic, educational,
judicial and security sect~rs.~"o a large extent, the 'banyabururi' remain the
most powerful group in Burundi to this day, with consequent effects on the
peace process.
One rarely noted characteristic of this extreme ethno-regional concentra-
tion of power is the level of personal connections. All three military regimes
following the 1966 coup (Micombero 1966-1982, Bagaza 1982-1987, Buyoya