Kenya suffers consequences of its colonial legacy
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/45292
Ethnic woes a legacy of colonialists’ power game
Caroline Elkins
(2008-01-10)
Caroline Elkins traces the origins of the Kenyan crisis to Britain's colonial legacy
Kenya appears to be on the brink of an ethnically charged civil war following a disputed election on December 27.President Kibaki was declared the winner of a second term after a vote that opposition candidate Mr Raila Odinga denounces as rigged and that European Union observers agree was seriously flawed. As tens of thousands of Kenyans flee their homes and hundreds lie dead, part of the blame rests with Britain and its imperial legacy.
The immediate cause of the crisis was Kenya’s delicate ethnic balance. In the bitter electoral contest, in which Raila promised to end ethnic favouritism and spread the country’s wealth more equitably, ethnicity was the deciding factor, and a marred victory on either side had always been likely to spark violence. Both men are rich, elitist African politicians who have far more in common with each other than they do with their supporters; in their struggle over power, both are using their followers as proxies in a smoldering war. Still, Raila has a point about vote tampering.
If you’re looking for the origins of Kenya’s ethnic tensions, look to its colonial past. Far from leaving behind democratic institutions and cultures, Britain bequeathed to its former colonies corrupted and corruptible governments. Colonial officials hand-picked political successors as they left in the wake of World War II, lavishing political and economic favours on their proteges. This process created elites whose power extended into the post-colonial era.
Added to this was a distinctly colonial view of the rule of law, which saw the British leave behind legal systems that facilitated tyranny, oppression and poverty rather than open, accountable government. And compounding these legacies was Britain’s famous imperial policy of "divide and rule," playing one side off another, which often turned fluid groups of individuals into immutable ethnic units.
In many former colonies, the British picked favourites from among these newly solidified ethnic groups and left others out in the cold. We are often told that age-old tribal hatreds drive today’s conflicts in Africa. In fact, both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena. It’s no wonder that newly independent countries such as Kenya maintained and even deepened the old imperial heritage of authoritarianism and ethnic division. The British had spent decades trying to keep the Luo and Kikuyu divided, quite rightly fearing that if the two groups ever united, their combined power could bring down the colonial order. Indeed, a short-lived Luo-Kikuyu alliance in the late 1950s hastened Britain’s retreat from Kenya and forced the release of Jomo Kenyatta from a colonial detention camp. But before their departure, the British schooled the future Kenyans on the lessons of a very British model of democratic elections. Britain was determined to protect its economic and geopolitical interests during the decolonisation process, and it did most everything short of stuffing ballot boxes to do so. That set dangerous precedents. Among other manoeuvres, the British drew electoral boundaries to cut the representation of groups they thought might cause trouble and empowered the provincial administration to manipulate supposedly democratic outcomes.
Old habits die hard. Three years after Kenya became independent in 1963, the Luo-Kikuyu alliance fell apart. Kenyatta and his Kikuyu elite took over the State; Oginga Odinga formed an opposition party that was eventually quashed. Kenyatta established a one-party State in 1969 and tossed the opposition, including Odinga, into detention, much as the British had done to him and his cronies during colonial rule in the 1950s. The Kikuyu then enjoyed many of the country’s spoils.The Kikuyu’s fortunes took a turn for the worse when Daniel arap Moi, a member of the Kalenjin ethnic minority, assumed dictatorial power in 1978. He managed to hang on for more than two decades. Western Kenya enjoyed the economic benefits of state largesse until 2002, at which point the pendulum again swung back to the Kikuyu, led by the incoming President Kibaki.
Fears of ethnic ascendancies, power-hungry political elites, undemocratic processes and institutions — all are hallmarks of today’s Kenya, just as they were during British colonial rule. This does not excuse the undemocratic behaviour of President Kibaki, nor that of his opponent Raila, neither of whom is necessarily a true voice of the masses. Nor does it excuse the horrific violence that has unfolded. Rather, it suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago. In retrospect, the wonder is not that Kenya is descending into ethnic violence. The wonder is that it didn’t happen sooner.
* Caroline Elkins is an associate professor of African studies at Harvard University and the author of ‘Imperial Reckoning’.
Ethnic woes a legacy of colonialists’ power game
Caroline Elkins
(2008-01-10)
Caroline Elkins traces the origins of the Kenyan crisis to Britain's colonial legacy
Kenya appears to be on the brink of an ethnically charged civil war following a disputed election on December 27.President Kibaki was declared the winner of a second term after a vote that opposition candidate Mr Raila Odinga denounces as rigged and that European Union observers agree was seriously flawed. As tens of thousands of Kenyans flee their homes and hundreds lie dead, part of the blame rests with Britain and its imperial legacy.
The immediate cause of the crisis was Kenya’s delicate ethnic balance. In the bitter electoral contest, in which Raila promised to end ethnic favouritism and spread the country’s wealth more equitably, ethnicity was the deciding factor, and a marred victory on either side had always been likely to spark violence. Both men are rich, elitist African politicians who have far more in common with each other than they do with their supporters; in their struggle over power, both are using their followers as proxies in a smoldering war. Still, Raila has a point about vote tampering.
If you’re looking for the origins of Kenya’s ethnic tensions, look to its colonial past. Far from leaving behind democratic institutions and cultures, Britain bequeathed to its former colonies corrupted and corruptible governments. Colonial officials hand-picked political successors as they left in the wake of World War II, lavishing political and economic favours on their proteges. This process created elites whose power extended into the post-colonial era.
Added to this was a distinctly colonial view of the rule of law, which saw the British leave behind legal systems that facilitated tyranny, oppression and poverty rather than open, accountable government. And compounding these legacies was Britain’s famous imperial policy of "divide and rule," playing one side off another, which often turned fluid groups of individuals into immutable ethnic units.
In many former colonies, the British picked favourites from among these newly solidified ethnic groups and left others out in the cold. We are often told that age-old tribal hatreds drive today’s conflicts in Africa. In fact, both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena. It’s no wonder that newly independent countries such as Kenya maintained and even deepened the old imperial heritage of authoritarianism and ethnic division. The British had spent decades trying to keep the Luo and Kikuyu divided, quite rightly fearing that if the two groups ever united, their combined power could bring down the colonial order. Indeed, a short-lived Luo-Kikuyu alliance in the late 1950s hastened Britain’s retreat from Kenya and forced the release of Jomo Kenyatta from a colonial detention camp. But before their departure, the British schooled the future Kenyans on the lessons of a very British model of democratic elections. Britain was determined to protect its economic and geopolitical interests during the decolonisation process, and it did most everything short of stuffing ballot boxes to do so. That set dangerous precedents. Among other manoeuvres, the British drew electoral boundaries to cut the representation of groups they thought might cause trouble and empowered the provincial administration to manipulate supposedly democratic outcomes.
Old habits die hard. Three years after Kenya became independent in 1963, the Luo-Kikuyu alliance fell apart. Kenyatta and his Kikuyu elite took over the State; Oginga Odinga formed an opposition party that was eventually quashed. Kenyatta established a one-party State in 1969 and tossed the opposition, including Odinga, into detention, much as the British had done to him and his cronies during colonial rule in the 1950s. The Kikuyu then enjoyed many of the country’s spoils.The Kikuyu’s fortunes took a turn for the worse when Daniel arap Moi, a member of the Kalenjin ethnic minority, assumed dictatorial power in 1978. He managed to hang on for more than two decades. Western Kenya enjoyed the economic benefits of state largesse until 2002, at which point the pendulum again swung back to the Kikuyu, led by the incoming President Kibaki.
Fears of ethnic ascendancies, power-hungry political elites, undemocratic processes and institutions — all are hallmarks of today’s Kenya, just as they were during British colonial rule. This does not excuse the undemocratic behaviour of President Kibaki, nor that of his opponent Raila, neither of whom is necessarily a true voice of the masses. Nor does it excuse the horrific violence that has unfolded. Rather, it suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago. In retrospect, the wonder is not that Kenya is descending into ethnic violence. The wonder is that it didn’t happen sooner.
* Caroline Elkins is an associate professor of African studies at Harvard University and the author of ‘Imperial Reckoning’.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=486&Itemid=1
Kenya and Rwanda Have Little in Common – Except Colonialism
Wednesday, 09 January 2008
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
Death in Kenya? Tribalism. Genocide in Rwanda? Tribalism plus innate African savagery. Failure to construct functional state mechanisms? Tribalism plus an inherent African lack of "responsibility." European and American media offer the same explanations for everything that goes wrong in Africa, whether they know anything about the particular country, or not. The abiding taboo, of course, is discussion of colonialism's legacy on the continent -especially when tribal conflict and societal disarray are directly attributable to previous white rule. The last thing Africa needs is nostrums from their former masters, the destroyers of civilizations.
Hardly a story is done about the killings in Kenya without reference to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Although the events are entirely different in both scope and historical background, facts make little difference to "western" reporters who lump all mass bloodletting in Africa under the same implicit category: African barbarism, savagery, and immutable tribalism. No further explanation is considered necessary.
Not that any would be forthcoming from most non-African journalists, few of whom bother to acquaint themselves with the actual histories of African nations, and virtually none of whom trace the current crises in Africa to colonial rule. No, African "savagery" is sufficient to explain everything. Thus, Kenya 2008 equals Rwanda 1994.
In Kenya, it appears that as many as one million votes may have been stolen by the ruling party, dominated by Kikuyu people, in last month's elections. Hundreds have died and thousands been displaced as the opposition, particularly the Luo ethnic group, demands new elections. Western reporters almost uniformly lament that Kenya has long been a "beacon of democracy" in post-colonial Africa, forgetting to mention that dictator Daniel Arap Moi ruled the country for 24 years, to the great profit and political satisfaction of Britain and the United States. Few reporters point out - or even seem to know - that it was the British who, as Kenyan independence approached, "drew electoral boundaries to cut the representation of groups they thought might cause trouble."
In the United States, that's called gerrymandering – a corruption of the electoral process. In Kenya, according to Harvard African Studies professor Caroline Elkins, it was the Brits' method of continuing their legacy of tribal manipulation even after they were no longer colonial masters. As Prof. Elkins writes, "both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena."
The Belgians worked tribalism to maximum profit in Rwanda, a country that even in pre-colonial times had been dominated by the Tutsi minority. The Belgians made it official, distributing identification cards designating Tutsis and Hutus, and favoring the Tutsis in colonial business, education and politics, thus hardening the ethnic divide. The Tutsi military regime that took power after the genocide and the defeat of Hutu nationalists is now one of Washington's two most trusted clients in Africa, along with the military strongman in Uganda, who has presided over horrifically brutal policies against the Acholi people of that country.
Tribalism has many uses for imperialists, who strongly encourage such divisions. It is, of course, perfectly suited to "divide and conquer" strategies of direct - or indirect - rule. It is also a convenient, Euro-supremacist explanation for whatever ails Africa. The Brits and the Americans have urged Kenyans to "behave responsibly" - as if it is innate, childlike African irresponsibility that is the source of the problem. The former colonizers and current imperialists have no positive role to play in Kenya - only a desire to preserve their own economic and military interests. They ought to stay the hell out.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
Kenya and Rwanda Have Little in Common – Except Colonialism
Wednesday, 09 January 2008
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
Death in Kenya? Tribalism. Genocide in Rwanda? Tribalism plus innate African savagery. Failure to construct functional state mechanisms? Tribalism plus an inherent African lack of "responsibility." European and American media offer the same explanations for everything that goes wrong in Africa, whether they know anything about the particular country, or not. The abiding taboo, of course, is discussion of colonialism's legacy on the continent -especially when tribal conflict and societal disarray are directly attributable to previous white rule. The last thing Africa needs is nostrums from their former masters, the destroyers of civilizations.
Hardly a story is done about the killings in Kenya without reference to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Although the events are entirely different in both scope and historical background, facts make little difference to "western" reporters who lump all mass bloodletting in Africa under the same implicit category: African barbarism, savagery, and immutable tribalism. No further explanation is considered necessary.
Not that any would be forthcoming from most non-African journalists, few of whom bother to acquaint themselves with the actual histories of African nations, and virtually none of whom trace the current crises in Africa to colonial rule. No, African "savagery" is sufficient to explain everything. Thus, Kenya 2008 equals Rwanda 1994.
In Kenya, it appears that as many as one million votes may have been stolen by the ruling party, dominated by Kikuyu people, in last month's elections. Hundreds have died and thousands been displaced as the opposition, particularly the Luo ethnic group, demands new elections. Western reporters almost uniformly lament that Kenya has long been a "beacon of democracy" in post-colonial Africa, forgetting to mention that dictator Daniel Arap Moi ruled the country for 24 years, to the great profit and political satisfaction of Britain and the United States. Few reporters point out - or even seem to know - that it was the British who, as Kenyan independence approached, "drew electoral boundaries to cut the representation of groups they thought might cause trouble."
In the United States, that's called gerrymandering – a corruption of the electoral process. In Kenya, according to Harvard African Studies professor Caroline Elkins, it was the Brits' method of continuing their legacy of tribal manipulation even after they were no longer colonial masters. As Prof. Elkins writes, "both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena."
The Belgians worked tribalism to maximum profit in Rwanda, a country that even in pre-colonial times had been dominated by the Tutsi minority. The Belgians made it official, distributing identification cards designating Tutsis and Hutus, and favoring the Tutsis in colonial business, education and politics, thus hardening the ethnic divide. The Tutsi military regime that took power after the genocide and the defeat of Hutu nationalists is now one of Washington's two most trusted clients in Africa, along with the military strongman in Uganda, who has presided over horrifically brutal policies against the Acholi people of that country.
Tribalism has many uses for imperialists, who strongly encourage such divisions. It is, of course, perfectly suited to "divide and conquer" strategies of direct - or indirect - rule. It is also a convenient, Euro-supremacist explanation for whatever ails Africa. The Brits and the Americans have urged Kenyans to "behave responsibly" - as if it is innate, childlike African irresponsibility that is the source of the problem. The former colonizers and current imperialists have no positive role to play in Kenya - only a desire to preserve their own economic and military interests. They ought to stay the hell out.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7180946.stm
Ngugi laments Kenya violence
Thursday, 10 January 2008,
Renowned Kenyan novelist and playwright Ngugi wa Thiong'o tellls BBC World Update his views on the unrest that has engulfed Kenya since last month's disputed elections. "Writers must sometimes feel like the Greek prophetess Cassandra, gifted to see the future but fated not to be believed. What is unfolding in Kenya could as well have been lifted from my novel Wizard of the Crow where the ruling party and the opposition parities engaged in Western-sponsored democracy become mirror images of one another in their absurdity and indifference to the poor.
Ngugi laments Kenya violence
Thursday, 10 January 2008,
Renowned Kenyan novelist and playwright Ngugi wa Thiong'o tellls BBC World Update his views on the unrest that has engulfed Kenya since last month's disputed elections. "Writers must sometimes feel like the Greek prophetess Cassandra, gifted to see the future but fated not to be believed. What is unfolding in Kenya could as well have been lifted from my novel Wizard of the Crow where the ruling party and the opposition parities engaged in Western-sponsored democracy become mirror images of one another in their absurdity and indifference to the poor.
The picture of men and women burnt down in a church where they had gone for refuge still haunts my mind. A child running away from the fire was caught and hurled back into the flames. One of the few survivors was quoted as saying: "But they knew me; we were neighbours. I thought Peter was a friend - a good neighbour. How could Peter do this to me?" I had heard the same puzzled cry from Bosnia. I had heard the same cry from Iraq. I had heard the same, same words from Rwanda: "We were neighbours; we'd married into each other. How could this happen?" And now I hear the same cry from Eldoret North in my beloved Kenya. For me this burning of men, women and children in a church is a defining single instant of the current political impasse in Kenya. And this must be separated from accusations and counter-accusations of rigged elections by the contending parties.
Rigged elections is one thing - it can be righted by any mutually agreed political measures - but ethnic cleansing is another matter altogether. What is disturbing is that this instant seems to have been part of a co-ordinated programme with similar acts occurring in several other places at about the same time against ordinary members of the same community. Ordinary people do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to kill their neighbours. Ethnic cleansing is often instigated by the political elite of one community against another community. It is premeditated - often an order from political warlords. Or it may be the outcome of an elitist ideology of demonising and isolating another community. Either way the aim is to drive members of the targeted community from the region.
Premeditated
Frantz Fanon, the intellectual visionary of the Third World, had long ago warned us of the dangers of the ideology of regionalism preached by an elite whose money can buy them safe residence in any part of a country. A single instance of premeditated ethnic cleansing can lead to an unstoppable cycle of vendettas – a poor-on-poor violence - while those who tele-guided them to war through the ideology of hate and demonisation are clinking glasses in middle-class peace at cocktail parties with the elite or the supposed enemy community. This crime should be investigated by the United Nations.
If it is found that a political organisation has run a campaign on a programme that consciously seeks to isolate another community as a community, then they ought to be held fully accountable for the consequences of their ideology and actions. It is often easier to blame a government when it is involved in massacres. This is as it should be. A government must always be held to higher standards, for its very legitimacy lies in its capacity to ensure peace and security for all communities. But what about if such a massacre is inspired by a programme of an opposition movement? This ought to receive equally severe condemnation from all and sundry, for being in opposition does not give an organisation the right to run on an ideology of isolation and hate targeted at another community.
An opposition movement is potentially a government of tomorrow. A programme that such a political organisation draws while in opposition would obviously be the programme they'll try to implement when in power. That's why such acts must be condemned even when they are clothed in progressive, democratic-sounding words and phrases. I therefore call upon the United Nations to act and investigate the massacres in Kenya as crimes against humanity and let the chips fall where they may.
For the sake of justice, healing and peace now and in the future I urge all progressive forces not to be so engrossed with the political wrongs of election tampering that they forget the crimes of hate and ethnic cleansing - crimes that have led to untimely deaths and the displacement of thousands. The world does not need another Bosnia; Africa certainly does not need another Rwanda."
Rigged elections is one thing - it can be righted by any mutually agreed political measures - but ethnic cleansing is another matter altogether. What is disturbing is that this instant seems to have been part of a co-ordinated programme with similar acts occurring in several other places at about the same time against ordinary members of the same community. Ordinary people do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to kill their neighbours. Ethnic cleansing is often instigated by the political elite of one community against another community. It is premeditated - often an order from political warlords. Or it may be the outcome of an elitist ideology of demonising and isolating another community. Either way the aim is to drive members of the targeted community from the region.
Premeditated
Frantz Fanon, the intellectual visionary of the Third World, had long ago warned us of the dangers of the ideology of regionalism preached by an elite whose money can buy them safe residence in any part of a country. A single instance of premeditated ethnic cleansing can lead to an unstoppable cycle of vendettas – a poor-on-poor violence - while those who tele-guided them to war through the ideology of hate and demonisation are clinking glasses in middle-class peace at cocktail parties with the elite or the supposed enemy community. This crime should be investigated by the United Nations.
If it is found that a political organisation has run a campaign on a programme that consciously seeks to isolate another community as a community, then they ought to be held fully accountable for the consequences of their ideology and actions. It is often easier to blame a government when it is involved in massacres. This is as it should be. A government must always be held to higher standards, for its very legitimacy lies in its capacity to ensure peace and security for all communities. But what about if such a massacre is inspired by a programme of an opposition movement? This ought to receive equally severe condemnation from all and sundry, for being in opposition does not give an organisation the right to run on an ideology of isolation and hate targeted at another community.
An opposition movement is potentially a government of tomorrow. A programme that such a political organisation draws while in opposition would obviously be the programme they'll try to implement when in power. That's why such acts must be condemned even when they are clothed in progressive, democratic-sounding words and phrases. I therefore call upon the United Nations to act and investigate the massacres in Kenya as crimes against humanity and let the chips fall where they may.
For the sake of justice, healing and peace now and in the future I urge all progressive forces not to be so engrossed with the political wrongs of election tampering that they forget the crimes of hate and ethnic cleansing - crimes that have led to untimely deaths and the displacement of thousands. The world does not need another Bosnia; Africa certainly does not need another Rwanda."
Pressure mounts on Kenya to defuse crisis
By Daniel Wallis and Alistair Thomson
Sat Jan 12, 2008
The European Union, United States and United Nations urged Kenya's feuding politicians on Saturday to agree a peaceful and democratic end to violence that has killed 500 people since disputed December 27 polls. A day after the opposition urged foreign sanctions against President Mwai Kibaki, who it says rigged his re-election, Washington and Brussels said it could not be "business as usual" with east Africa's biggest economy without a deal. "All political parties in Kenya should recognize that it cannot be business as usual in Kenya until there is political compromise which leads to a lasting solution that reflects the will of the Kenyan people," the EU said in a statement.
The European Union and United States are coordinating their efforts to end the crisis in Kenya, an EU diplomat said. The top U.S. diplomat for Africa, Jendayi Frazer, said Washington was "deeply disappointed" that Kibaki and his rival Raila Odinga had not yet held face-to-face talks. "Both should acknowledge serious irregularities in the vote tallying which made it impossible to determine with certainty the final result," she said in a statement. "In the meantime, the United States cannot conduct business as usual in Kenya." Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is due to lead a new push for peace in Kenya this week. But the opposition is planning new protests after African Union talks collapsed. An EU source said it was too early to talk about sanctions. "If there is not a positive outcome from the Annan intervention, then the EU has agreed that it will seriously review its relations with Kenya. This would include the issue of sanctions," the source said.
The unrest has badly dented Kenya's democratic credentials, worried world powers and damaged its previously booming economy. U.N. staff say 500,000 Kenyans will need emergency aid such as food handouts after two weeks of riots and ethnic bloodshed.Fears have grown of further violence after Odinga's opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) vowed to hold three days of protests beginning with a mass demonstration in Nairobi on Wednesday. Police have banned all political rallies.
"Dark Days Ahead "
"The potential for further bloodshed remains high unless the political crisis is quickly resolved," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement issued in Nairobi.Kenyan media forecasted dark days ahead. "Recalling the lives lost and destruction visited on this country, both sides should pause a little and consider whether they want to be responsible for any chain of events that could wreck Kenya," the Daily Nation newspaper said in an editorial. "Given the government's intransigence and ODM's unrelenting demand for justice, the days ahead are bound to be the most difficult ... there is a dark, ominous cloud hovering above us," the Standard newspaper said.
Parliament, where Odinga's party won 99 seats to 43 for Kibaki's Party of National Unity, is due to resume business on Tuesday and that is likely to prove another flashpoint. Since being sworn-in after a ballot that foreign monitors said fell short of democratic standards, Kibaki has entrenched himself by leading state functions, recalling legislators and naming most of a new cabinet. Analysts say protests appear to be the only way for Odinga to maintain pressure.The prospect of more turmoil has dismayed Kenyans enduring one of the worst episodes in 45 years since independence from Britain. More than 250,000 have been made homeless.
Annan is expected in Kenya next week after AU Chairman and Ghanaian President John Kufuor failed to broker a deal. But the Nation newspaper said the former U.N. chief might have little to work with. "A cycle of attack and counter-attack could lead to complete anarchy," it said. "If this country goes down the drain, history will not record the hardliners in their respective entourages, but the principals who will bear personal responsibility."
TransAfrica Forum Supports Ongoing African Leadership in the crisis in Kenya and an Independent Investigative Audit of the December 2007 election
TransAfrica Forum News
January 11, 2008
(Washington, DC)– TransAfrica Forum urges all political parties and Kenyan civil society to call an end to the violence and enter into good faith negotiations to resolve the controversy over the December 2007 presidential elections. Under the independent leadership of the African Union or other African based organizations or individuals, TransAfrica calls for all parties to commit themselves to implementing the will of the Kenyan people. The well stated will of the Kenyan people would be reflected in an accurate count of the election ballots through an immediate independent audit of the election results, or internationally supported new elections.
By all accounts, including the European Union, Kenyan human rights organizations, and civil society groups, the process leading to the December 27th elections was orderly and consistent with the law. Polls opened on time, voting materials were in place, and election observers witnessed a large turnout. During national ballot counting, numerous irregularities were identified. According to Kenya ’s human rights community, the election results are clearly invalid.
The Kibaki government disputes the charges of illegitimacy and has moved to install new cabinet members. These actions seem to indicate a belief that once in place neither he nor key supporters will be displaced and key decisions will not be reversed. “The strategy to establish a government in the midst of unresolved election irregularities is a blatant attempt to create a pretense of legality and legitimacy. The Kibaki government must respect the rule of law and human rights and welcome a truly independent audit of the election results,” says Executive Director Nicole Lee.
The violence that has erupted has, according to analysts, “shattered Kenya ’s international image,” undermined the economy, displaced over 250,000 people, and cost the lives of nearly 600 people. The possibility of continued violence remains unless all parties are willing to submit themselves to the will of the Kenyan people, whom they claim to represent.
The world view of the conflict in Kenya is worsened by western media coverage which over simplifies a very complex situation by calling it ‘tribal’ warfare. “The violence has ethnic overtones, but the deep disappointment with the voting irregularities is felt throughout Kenyan society. The reality is that the pre-conditions for violence have been present in Kenya for a long time. Extreme income inequality, high crime, particularly in urban areas, high unemployment, and food insecurity, are all predictors of conflict,” says Imani Countess, TransAfrica Forum Senior Director for Public Affairs. “Kenyans had high expectations that their votes would be respected; the extreme disappointment has led to spontaneous political unrest.”
TransAfrica Forum has historically criticized the Kibaki government for its complicity in U.S. government renditions in violation of human rights, as well as its support for the U.S.-backed Ethiopian war in Somalia . The ongoing Somalian conflict has further destabilized the region and resulted in large numbers of refugees and displaced persons throughout the Horn of Africa.
Immediate resolution of the crisis is also required given Kenya ’s role as a gateway to other Central African nations. Shortages of food, fuel and other supplies are being reported in Rwanda , Uganda , Burundi , and the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
Founded in 1977, TransAfrica Forum is the oldest and largest African American human rights and social justice advocacy organization promoting diversity and equity in the foreign policy arena and justice for the African World. http://www.transafricaforum.org
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/45291
Let us not find revolutionaries where there are none
A look at the Kenyan opposition party
Mukoma wa Ngugi
(2008-01-10)
Mukoma Wa Ngugi argues that rather than being a people power movement, Kenya’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) is modeled after political parties that consolidate democracy for International capital and US Foreign Policy. He discusses the differences between a people powered movement and one such as ODM that employs techniques modeled after the Ukrainian orange revolution and the ouster of Aristide in Haiti
One cannot fully grasp what is happening in Kenya and Africa without considering the changing nature of opposition movements and the differences between a people powered movement, or a democratic revolution, and a plethora of movements that consolidate democratic institutions for international capital while flying under the radar of democracy. Even though here below I am mainly speaking about Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), I could just as easily be speaking about Mwai Kibaki and the Party of National Unity (PNU). It is only because ODM has actively courted the image of being a people powered movement engaged in a democratic revolution that I draw your attention to it. Amilcar Cabral once said “tell no lies, claim no small victories.” It is in that spirit that I write.
Let me begin by pointing to the question of ethnicity and say this: In the same way you ought to be surprised to meet a white American denying the existence of racism in American politics, so should you be when you meet an African denying that ethnocentrism is deeply entrenched in African politics. Racism is a historical creation that serves a function – so is ‘tribalism.’ In the same way that leaders in the West manipulate race and fear for political goals, so do African leaders. Ethnocentrism can be benign or extremely vicious depending on its conductor. Ethnocracy, like a racist power structure, exists to the extent it is able to obscure for the victim and the activist the root causes of economic, olitical and social exploitation. It misdirects.
Let us also consider Kwame Ture’s (Stokely Carmichael) reminder that we should not mistake individual success for collective success. The majority of Kenyans -- Luos, Kikuyus, Luhyas etc -- are poor. The 60 percent of Kenyans living under two dollars a day cut across all ethnicities. The Kikuyu elite live at the expense of the Kikuyu poor; it is the same for other ethnicities. There is much more in common between the poor across ethnicities, than between the elite and the poor of each ethnicity. Racism, nationalism, and ethnocracy all ask that the poor die in the defense of economic and social structures that keep them poor. It is no surprise that those who have been both dying and doing the killing in Kenya in the past week are the poor. Yet they are killing along ethnic, not class, lines.
And in the same way that over time western political parties come to represent different and contradictory positions, so have African political parties. In the dictatorships of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the opposition parties were the good guys. Progressive international political analysts are still working with that framework, which has blinded us to glaring present-day contradictions. The assumption that opposition immediately means people-power cannot be sustained by an analysis informed by the complex shifts in African politics in the last two decades. Take Zimbabwe, for example. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change is a neo-liberal party. Calling it revolutionary or anti-imperialist would be wrong. In Kenya, both the sitting government and the opposition exchange members fluidly as they position and reposition themselves, eyes on the national cake. William Ruto, a top leader in the ODM was previously a treasurer for the KANU Youth Wing – a political thug organization created by former dictator Moi, who is now in Kibaki’s camp. And the recent church killings that claimed over 50 lives took place in Eldoret, which William Ruto has represented in parliament for many years.
Therefore not all opposition parties are anti-imperialist or opposed to the move by global capital to consolidate the world. At a time when the rich nations and their elite are getting richer, and the poorer nations and the poor within them are getting poorer, some opposition parties will choose the side of global capital. ODM is composed of some of the wealthiest people in the country. For example, the Odinga family owns Spectre International, a molasses company in conjunction with a multi national petroleum and diamond mining company. The international press, which refers to Raila as a “flamboyant millionaire”, is not entirely wrong.
With the above said, analysis of what it means to be a people powered movement is crucial. For people-power politics to be effective, solidarity has to be across ethnicity not along it. In other words, a people power movement has to at its basis be informed by the consciousness of a collective oppressed. Because it has no real grass roots developed over years of working with and for the people, ODM can only rile up discontentment by pointing to one ethnicity rather than organizing the whole country against elite exploitation. Like any populist movement it takes the worst fears of a people (fear of Kikuyu domination for example) and plays them out in the national stage. A people power movement on the other hand peels away these fears to reveal how power and wealth are being distributed. Because ODM has not done this, its supporters have identified the fellow poor Kikuyu as the enemy. A people power movement would have directed its energies and anger at the state not at another ethnicity.
A people power movement declares its solidarity with other marginalized peoples across the world. It is third-worldist in vision. A people power movement, because its vision grows organically from its struggle and engagement with the people, exhibits a stand against exploitative international economic arrangements because its constituents are impoverished through them. ODM cannot be termed as radical pan-Africanist or third-worldist, rather it has a populist consciousness.
Also, the shell – the façade -- of a people power movement can be used by a national elite to seize power for international capital. Rather than use the term populist/people power to refer to ODM, it is appropriate to borrow a term from the International Republican Institute. The term the IRI (www.iri.org) uses is “consolidating democracy,” referring to a technique it used in the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and in Haiti against Aristide. Consolidating democracy translates into bringing together civil organizations (religious, universities, local NGO’s, women’s organizations etc), and uniting various opposition factions into one large electoral force. If missionaries paved the way for colonialism, evangelists of western democracy like IRI pave the way for US foreign policy.
The sole purpose of consolidating democracy is to remove the sitting government. There is no coherent underlying people centered ideology in this goal – no interest in empowering the people, or returning economic and political institutions to them. Rather than develop real roots with the people so that when in power ODM becomes an extension of them, ODM has taken the easy route of consolidating democracy following the IRI model.
We urgently need to distinguish between people power movements (such as those we have seen in Latin America), populist movements, and neo-liberal opposition movements that consolidate democratic institutions for global capitalism. People power movements are a fifth force usually in opposition to the legislature, executive, judiciary and military. When they seize power through democratic means, they immediately attempt to transform the other four forces into revolutionary instruments. Laws nationalizing resources or redistributing land and resources are passed. The army is transformed from an instrument of intimidation into one that helps in times of disasters – in short a people power government places the people at the center of the state. When a movement that has been consolidating democracy gets into power it does the opposite, and the democratic structures become instruments of global capital and US Foreign policy. Liberia, for example, after working with IRI is one of the few countries to open its national door to the US African Command Center.
We should at least consider that the ODM has in the last few weeks not been engaged in the last phase of a people power revolution but rather in the last stage of consolidating neo-liberal democracy - using the people as the battling ram against the state. This is where the neo-liberal party calls for millions to take to the streets with the hope of immobilizing the state. Because consolidating democracy requires the ebb and flow of violence from the state and protest from the people, Raila could cynically tell a BBC reporter when asked whether he will appeal for calm that "I refuse to be asked to give the Kenyan people an anesthetic so that they can be raped."
In case you are wondering, let me say this: for progressives, Kibaki is not the answer. Before the elections, the Kenyan Human Rights Commission released a report implicating the Kenya police in extra-judicial killings of close to 500 young men, all from poverty stricken areas such as Kibera and Mathare, slums currently up in flames. This is a stark reminder that the 6 percent economic growth was not trickling down to the people. Also that vote rigging took place (on both sides it is turning out) is almost certain. Enough doubt has been cast by the electoral commissioners to make a recount of the votes, a reelection, a united government or another suitable solution a matter of democratic principle.
If the country is to heal, reconcile and find justice, progressive voices should call for a UN probe into the December – January post-election ethnic cleansing in Eldoret and other areas. There should be calls and support for a United Nations probe into the 1994 Rift Valley killings in which a reported hundreds of Kikuyus were killed and thousands displaced during Moi’s regime, and The Wagalla Massacre of 1984 (again during Moi’s regime) in which hundreds of Somali Kenyans were shot to death. Finally the non-electoral extra judicial killings of the 500 young men last year should also be investigated.
Progressives should also call for the crisis to be resolved within democratic structures. When Bush won an election that the rest of the world understood as rigged, we did not ask Al Gore to try and overthrow the government through an Orange revolution, we did not ask him to divide the country across racial lines, blacks pitted against whites, whites pitted against Latinos; we asked him to find redress through peaceful and democratic processes. And for that, the United States remains standing, in spite of Bush. Al Gore did not ask for a recount of all the votes, or for a re-election. But both Raila and Kibaki can form a united government; ask for a recount, and even a re-election. Whatever process or option is used to adjudicate this must be one that leaves Kenya standing for generations to come.
My plea to you is this: Let us not find revolutionaries where there are none. A whole nation, where ethnic cleansing has already started, is at stake. International solidarity should be with the Kenyan people and not with individual leaders. The best thing for Kenya right now is a return to a non-violent path governed by principled democratic structures that will outlive both Raila and Kibaki. It is this that will make possible a people powered government through a democratic revolution.
* Mukoma wa Ngugi is co-editor of Pambazuka News
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/879/in2.htm
Kenya in flux
Let us not find revolutionaries where there are none
A look at the Kenyan opposition party
Mukoma wa Ngugi
(2008-01-10)
Mukoma Wa Ngugi argues that rather than being a people power movement, Kenya’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) is modeled after political parties that consolidate democracy for International capital and US Foreign Policy. He discusses the differences between a people powered movement and one such as ODM that employs techniques modeled after the Ukrainian orange revolution and the ouster of Aristide in Haiti
One cannot fully grasp what is happening in Kenya and Africa without considering the changing nature of opposition movements and the differences between a people powered movement, or a democratic revolution, and a plethora of movements that consolidate democratic institutions for international capital while flying under the radar of democracy. Even though here below I am mainly speaking about Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), I could just as easily be speaking about Mwai Kibaki and the Party of National Unity (PNU). It is only because ODM has actively courted the image of being a people powered movement engaged in a democratic revolution that I draw your attention to it. Amilcar Cabral once said “tell no lies, claim no small victories.” It is in that spirit that I write.
Let me begin by pointing to the question of ethnicity and say this: In the same way you ought to be surprised to meet a white American denying the existence of racism in American politics, so should you be when you meet an African denying that ethnocentrism is deeply entrenched in African politics. Racism is a historical creation that serves a function – so is ‘tribalism.’ In the same way that leaders in the West manipulate race and fear for political goals, so do African leaders. Ethnocentrism can be benign or extremely vicious depending on its conductor. Ethnocracy, like a racist power structure, exists to the extent it is able to obscure for the victim and the activist the root causes of economic, olitical and social exploitation. It misdirects.
Let us also consider Kwame Ture’s (Stokely Carmichael) reminder that we should not mistake individual success for collective success. The majority of Kenyans -- Luos, Kikuyus, Luhyas etc -- are poor. The 60 percent of Kenyans living under two dollars a day cut across all ethnicities. The Kikuyu elite live at the expense of the Kikuyu poor; it is the same for other ethnicities. There is much more in common between the poor across ethnicities, than between the elite and the poor of each ethnicity. Racism, nationalism, and ethnocracy all ask that the poor die in the defense of economic and social structures that keep them poor. It is no surprise that those who have been both dying and doing the killing in Kenya in the past week are the poor. Yet they are killing along ethnic, not class, lines.
And in the same way that over time western political parties come to represent different and contradictory positions, so have African political parties. In the dictatorships of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the opposition parties were the good guys. Progressive international political analysts are still working with that framework, which has blinded us to glaring present-day contradictions. The assumption that opposition immediately means people-power cannot be sustained by an analysis informed by the complex shifts in African politics in the last two decades. Take Zimbabwe, for example. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change is a neo-liberal party. Calling it revolutionary or anti-imperialist would be wrong. In Kenya, both the sitting government and the opposition exchange members fluidly as they position and reposition themselves, eyes on the national cake. William Ruto, a top leader in the ODM was previously a treasurer for the KANU Youth Wing – a political thug organization created by former dictator Moi, who is now in Kibaki’s camp. And the recent church killings that claimed over 50 lives took place in Eldoret, which William Ruto has represented in parliament for many years.
Therefore not all opposition parties are anti-imperialist or opposed to the move by global capital to consolidate the world. At a time when the rich nations and their elite are getting richer, and the poorer nations and the poor within them are getting poorer, some opposition parties will choose the side of global capital. ODM is composed of some of the wealthiest people in the country. For example, the Odinga family owns Spectre International, a molasses company in conjunction with a multi national petroleum and diamond mining company. The international press, which refers to Raila as a “flamboyant millionaire”, is not entirely wrong.
With the above said, analysis of what it means to be a people powered movement is crucial. For people-power politics to be effective, solidarity has to be across ethnicity not along it. In other words, a people power movement has to at its basis be informed by the consciousness of a collective oppressed. Because it has no real grass roots developed over years of working with and for the people, ODM can only rile up discontentment by pointing to one ethnicity rather than organizing the whole country against elite exploitation. Like any populist movement it takes the worst fears of a people (fear of Kikuyu domination for example) and plays them out in the national stage. A people power movement on the other hand peels away these fears to reveal how power and wealth are being distributed. Because ODM has not done this, its supporters have identified the fellow poor Kikuyu as the enemy. A people power movement would have directed its energies and anger at the state not at another ethnicity.
A people power movement declares its solidarity with other marginalized peoples across the world. It is third-worldist in vision. A people power movement, because its vision grows organically from its struggle and engagement with the people, exhibits a stand against exploitative international economic arrangements because its constituents are impoverished through them. ODM cannot be termed as radical pan-Africanist or third-worldist, rather it has a populist consciousness.
Also, the shell – the façade -- of a people power movement can be used by a national elite to seize power for international capital. Rather than use the term populist/people power to refer to ODM, it is appropriate to borrow a term from the International Republican Institute. The term the IRI (www.iri.org) uses is “consolidating democracy,” referring to a technique it used in the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and in Haiti against Aristide. Consolidating democracy translates into bringing together civil organizations (religious, universities, local NGO’s, women’s organizations etc), and uniting various opposition factions into one large electoral force. If missionaries paved the way for colonialism, evangelists of western democracy like IRI pave the way for US foreign policy.
The sole purpose of consolidating democracy is to remove the sitting government. There is no coherent underlying people centered ideology in this goal – no interest in empowering the people, or returning economic and political institutions to them. Rather than develop real roots with the people so that when in power ODM becomes an extension of them, ODM has taken the easy route of consolidating democracy following the IRI model.
We urgently need to distinguish between people power movements (such as those we have seen in Latin America), populist movements, and neo-liberal opposition movements that consolidate democratic institutions for global capitalism. People power movements are a fifth force usually in opposition to the legislature, executive, judiciary and military. When they seize power through democratic means, they immediately attempt to transform the other four forces into revolutionary instruments. Laws nationalizing resources or redistributing land and resources are passed. The army is transformed from an instrument of intimidation into one that helps in times of disasters – in short a people power government places the people at the center of the state. When a movement that has been consolidating democracy gets into power it does the opposite, and the democratic structures become instruments of global capital and US Foreign policy. Liberia, for example, after working with IRI is one of the few countries to open its national door to the US African Command Center.
We should at least consider that the ODM has in the last few weeks not been engaged in the last phase of a people power revolution but rather in the last stage of consolidating neo-liberal democracy - using the people as the battling ram against the state. This is where the neo-liberal party calls for millions to take to the streets with the hope of immobilizing the state. Because consolidating democracy requires the ebb and flow of violence from the state and protest from the people, Raila could cynically tell a BBC reporter when asked whether he will appeal for calm that "I refuse to be asked to give the Kenyan people an anesthetic so that they can be raped."
In case you are wondering, let me say this: for progressives, Kibaki is not the answer. Before the elections, the Kenyan Human Rights Commission released a report implicating the Kenya police in extra-judicial killings of close to 500 young men, all from poverty stricken areas such as Kibera and Mathare, slums currently up in flames. This is a stark reminder that the 6 percent economic growth was not trickling down to the people. Also that vote rigging took place (on both sides it is turning out) is almost certain. Enough doubt has been cast by the electoral commissioners to make a recount of the votes, a reelection, a united government or another suitable solution a matter of democratic principle.
If the country is to heal, reconcile and find justice, progressive voices should call for a UN probe into the December – January post-election ethnic cleansing in Eldoret and other areas. There should be calls and support for a United Nations probe into the 1994 Rift Valley killings in which a reported hundreds of Kikuyus were killed and thousands displaced during Moi’s regime, and The Wagalla Massacre of 1984 (again during Moi’s regime) in which hundreds of Somali Kenyans were shot to death. Finally the non-electoral extra judicial killings of the 500 young men last year should also be investigated.
Progressives should also call for the crisis to be resolved within democratic structures. When Bush won an election that the rest of the world understood as rigged, we did not ask Al Gore to try and overthrow the government through an Orange revolution, we did not ask him to divide the country across racial lines, blacks pitted against whites, whites pitted against Latinos; we asked him to find redress through peaceful and democratic processes. And for that, the United States remains standing, in spite of Bush. Al Gore did not ask for a recount of all the votes, or for a re-election. But both Raila and Kibaki can form a united government; ask for a recount, and even a re-election. Whatever process or option is used to adjudicate this must be one that leaves Kenya standing for generations to come.
My plea to you is this: Let us not find revolutionaries where there are none. A whole nation, where ethnic cleansing has already started, is at stake. International solidarity should be with the Kenyan people and not with individual leaders. The best thing for Kenya right now is a return to a non-violent path governed by principled democratic structures that will outlive both Raila and Kibaki. It is this that will make possible a people powered government through a democratic revolution.
* Mukoma wa Ngugi is co-editor of Pambazuka News
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/879/in2.htm
Kenya in flux
Gamal Nkrumah looks ahead at the uncertain future of Kenyan politics
----------------------------------------------------------
It is easy to be mesmerised by Kenya. It is an enchanting country as the 1980s Hollywood box office hit Out of Africa so abundantly demonstrated. As news that the Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga called off a public protest rally on Tuesday filtered through, it became crystal clear that opposition parties in Kenya must actively win elections rather than rely on the government of President Mwai Kibaki to lose them. Odinga argues that his Orange Democratic Movement has already done so. The opposition needs a filibuster-proof majority in fresh elections. That they cannot secure. The fact is that Odinga was running neck and neck with Kibaki and there is no absolute proof of vote-rigging.
On the bright side, Kenya's presidential election, for all its drama and violence, will usher in a period of pragmatic caution in the country's politics rather than instability and more violence. Odinga could create a credible government-in-waiting. What will his agenda be? That is the pressing question. This is a defining moment for the Kenyan democratic experiment. Indeed, 2008 may be a year in which Kenyan politics becomes more compelling than it has been since former Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi lost power in 2002. But the sun will not be shining on everyone if the carnage continues unabated. Western donors will be stingier with credit. Kenya, a promising emerging market that has been buzzing for a decade, is in turmoil.
The spat over the disputed presidential election results must be ironed out. Kibaki and Odinga must resolve to settle the matter. Since both believe they have too much at stake to risk showing weakness, neither will swerve on its own. The irony, however, is that a collision between Kibaki and Odinga can be prevented only if both decide to swerve out of the way.
Throughout the crisis, Kibaki had exhibited a shrewd pragmatism. Odinga, on the other hand, comes across as more bellicose and less willing to compromise. If, however, violence continues, then even the more pragmatic Kibaki will be unwilling to back down. Ethnicity and tribalism emerged as the most emotive issues in contemporary Kenyan politics, five decades after independence from Britain in 1964. Whoever rules Kenya in the next decade will inherit the challenge of detribalising Kenya. Ethnicity will overhang all other areas of domestic political concerns. It remains quite plausible that Kenya will continue to be incapable of coping with the tribal factor, which would set back its relations with not only its African neighbours, but with Western powers as well. However, there are sanguine signals from the main parties concerned.
The rivals have signalled their willingness to talk. "We are assured the mediation process is about to start," Odinga told reporters after meeting with the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer in Nairobi on Monday. The US is obviously keen to resolve the Kenyan political crisis, the country being a key ally in the war against terrorism. Be that as it may, Kibaki's offer to form a government of national unity was flatly rejected by Odinga. Ghana's President John Kufuor, the current chairman of the African Union, also flew to Nairobi to resolve the political impasse. It is hoped that this flurry of diplomatic activity will yield positive results. The signs are that Kenyan politicians are unlikely to devote more than token energy towards trying to resolve ethnic conflict. Many Kenyan politicians, both government and opposition, have a vested interest in keeping ethnic tension simmering, without it reaching boiling point.
Political stability in Kenya has a long way to go, and the search for peace will undoubtedly cause widespread hand- wringing. Even though Kibaki on Monday invited Odinga to face-to-face talks, the latter publicly wants the Kenyan president to stand down. Indeed, the tribal posturing of the opposition augurs ill. The ethnic conflict has subsided somewhat in recent days, but there is much antagonism between the different ethnic groups. There is even talk of ethnic cleansing and of kicking the Kikuyu out of government. Such offensive rowdiness is disturbing to say the least. Repairing President Kibaki and his Kikuyu people's fraught relations with the rest of the country's ethnic groups is of paramount importance. It is hoped that over the coming year this sorry state of affairs will not get worse.
Anyone who expects a dramatic lurch to reason might be sorely disappointed. The opposition, too, must not be seen as anti-Kikuyu. Odinga's right hand man, Musalia Mudavadi, is an ethnic Luhyah, the country's third largest ethnic group. The Luhyahs and Luo people of Odinga (Kenya's second largest ethnic group) are geographically concentrated in the western part of the country around Lake Victoria. While the Luhyahs predominate in Western Province, the Luo are dominant in neighbouring Nyanza Province. It is an interesting coincidence that the father of US Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama was an ethnic Luo. The senator paid a visit to his grandmother in Kenya last year. The fates of America and Kenya might be inextricably intertwined, after all.
Currently, the humanitarian crisis facing Kenya is the key concern. Hundreds of thousands of Kenyans have been rendered homeless, and the displaced people lack food and medical care. Food, medical and other relief supplies have been shipped to Mombasa and are on their way to the hardest hit areas of the Rift Valley, Nyanza and Western Kenya. The alleviation of the humanitarian suffering will only be contained when the violence subsides.
If Kibaki and Odinga did sit down to talk, they would inevitably bump into prickly issues. At least with the help of foreign mediators they have agreed to negotiate. Yet the process is in danger of stalling. The White House is doing its best to engage in the Kenyan democratisation process. The rich world has to help Kenya move in that direction. Familiar vested interests are invariably at work. Kenya is the economic powerhouse of East Africa. Mombasa, the second busiest port in Africa, serves the entire eastern region of the continent -- Burundi, the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, southern Sudan, Uganda and northern Tanzania.
The economic well-being of Kenya is paramount. And, it is based on the political stability of the country. The Kenyan shilling fell seven per cent against the US dollar since the results of the 27 December elections were announced. Mombasa's tea auction, the world's largest, was also postponed. The Kenyan economy relies on agriculture, manufacturing and tourism for growth. It is the communications, financial and service industry hub of East Africa.
The ideological shine has gone, too. Kenya used to be the model capitalist country in East Africa. Tanzania under its first president Julius Nyerere, on the other hand, espoused African Socialism. Both arguments are misplaced. Kenyan capitalism produced unacceptably high income differentials and the rampant poverty especially in rural areas. Poverty is widely seen as the real cause of the political violence in the country.
Business-like pragmatism has become synonymous with corruption. There is no doubt that a sizeable section of the Kenyan population is convinced that their country is heading in the wrong direction. There is also unanimity that Kenya should abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The West has made it abundantly clear that, for all its friendly intentions towards Kenya, full acceptance will not come until Kenya takes human rights seriously. The United States did not hesitate to press Kenya over human rights.
The judicial system is a travesty. This is one reason why the opposition declined to resort to the judiciary. The hitch is that the most promising aspect of the current Kenyan political crisis is that Kenyan political stability has become dependent on mediation efforts by outsiders. In the short term this might prove of vital necessity. However, in the long-run it might look increasingly counterproductive. The onus ought to be on the Kenyans themselves to remedy the situation. Other factors will add to the uncertainty. The atavistic strain of Kikuyu-bashing rhetoric by opposition forces must be contained, or more to the point stopped altogether. Kenyan politicians must restrain themselves from playing the tribal card. Thecurrent situation is untenable. It couldn't last.
Indeed, in spite of the carnage, the most likely scenario is that Kenya will pull through in the weeks ahead.
Publicité