So we had a pretty busy day yesterday. I have a lot I want to talk about, but we’re at an internet cafe so I’m not sure how much time I have. I’ll attempt to briefly contextualize the conflict in Kenya, and then talk about the deteriorating situation in Zim, just to update you.
We had the opportunity to meet with two Canadians yesterday; one representative from the International Crisis Group, and one historian PHD candidate down here from Cambridge University in England. They both were extremely knowledgable on recent political strife in Kenya. We had an hour and a half conversation about it, so I’m sure I won’t be able to do it justice now, especially since we didn’t take notes (which we suprisingly haven’t done in any of our meetings).
If we took one thing out of the meeting, it is that the situation in Kenya is extraordinarily complex; much more so than the simplistic samplings that came out of the international media during the conflict. At the end of December, Kenya had an election, pitting the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, against the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga. While most reports had Odinga winning, Kibaki rigged the election, winning power and instantly stepping back into office. Deep-seeded violence followed for two months, resulting in a new unity government, in which Odinga is Prime Minister to Kibaki’s government. So all’s now peachy, huh?
The first thing to take into account is that the violence started largely because of the vote rigging. According to the two people we met with, Kenyans hold a deep-regard for the power of “one vote.” As soon as people realized that their one vote might not have mattered, regardless of their political affiliation, they became angered. This distrust of democracy led to the first round of violence.
The second round, however, became much more complex. Much of it had to do with deep-seeded differences between the Kenyan people; the fact that the Kikyuys (Kibaki’s tribe) had usurped land and power of the Luo (Odinga’s tribe), as well as a difference in opinion over the concept of federalism, or allowing Kenyan provinces to hold more power, rather than a purely nationalistic federal government, a big issue during the campaign. This wasn’t tribalism violence in its simplistic form (as reported by the media), but a more complex disagreement over several long-standing issues.
The violence ended largely when a peace agreement forged by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was signed. Many have thought this demonstrated a solution to all the problems. However, it’s a mistake to think Kenya’s in the clear. The agreement was a page and a half and failed to address any key issues. The unity government is now bloated in size; the election was held to decide who was to step into power. Instead, everybody came into power. There are too many ministers; the government is now dedicated to paying those ministers, rather than helping the people.
Additionally, and even more problematically, violence became legitimized. While six hundred people died in less than two months, Odinga was able to rise into power. Simply, he would not be prime minister if violence had not occurred. So for Kenyans, violence proved more effective than actually voting.
Thus, as they told us, the future is not as rosy as we all may think. Kenya’s still extremely poor, and while the people at the top attempt to figure out the foray into power, most the of the people aren’t being helped. Additionally, without the proper implementation and consolidation of democratic institutions (the same electoral commission that led to the vote rigging has not been changed at all!!!), democracy is going to have problems. The Kenyans, despite being a peace-loving people, seemed to have lost their faith in government.
Again, as in Zimbabwe, this shows the problems that form when we simplify conflicts. Back in January, as activists, we condemned Kenya, compared it to Rwanda (which is extremely problematic) and glorified the opposition. Now we realize that the problems were not solely related to the election, that all the politicians are to blame (including the opposition), and Kenya, while not seeing violence right now, has a long way to go to rectify itself and return to solid footing. It’s really sad; Kenya seemed to be the African success story; a country that had embraced democracy and was ripe to soar, both politically and economically. Now, the future is extremely uncertain, but it’s not looking very good.
Additionally, Kenya is a country I wouldn’t necessarily rush to apply the Responsibility to Protect to, as we did in January. This wasn’t really a case of a government failing to protect its people; it was the utter failure of democracy. As I posted before, democracy and human rights are inextricably intertwined. We can’t simply focus on a short-term secession of violence if we’re serious about helping Kenya; we need to focus on the difficult road of consolidating democracy, returning the value of the vote, and restoring the confidence in government to the people of Kenya. It’s a long road, but we can’t forget about the country simply because people aren’t dying anymore.
Anyways, I hope this has been somewhat informative, and if nothing else, encourages you to learn more about the underlying issues at stake in Kenya, rather than the simplistic take offered by the media.
Also, I hope you’re still reading about Zimbabwe. Besides their ridiculous treatment of the US/British diplomatic convoy yesterday, they suspended all humanitarian aid, responsible for giving care to approximately two million Zimbabweans who can’t afford food. To be extremely blunt, about three weeks from the run-off, shit’s hitting the fan. It’ll be interesting to see what happens, but for now, it’s really saddening. The government is doing everything in their power to win an election, regardless of the effect on the general population.