Restoring Credibility in Kenya

A few months ago when I walked down the narrow alleyways of Mombasa, I never would have imagined that this sleepy city could turn into the war-zone that it is today. But, since the rigged December 27th presidential elections, violence has swept over Kenya from the port city of Mombasa to the slums of Nairobi.

By comparison to some of its East African neighbors, Kenya has been an example of peaceful democracy. Nevertheless, Kenya’s current unrest is the legacy of its failure to address historical injustices and is a sad reminder of the virulent resentments that longstanding inequalities have inspired. Still, under the right leadership, Kenyans will stop taking justice into their own hands and turn to their leaders to resolve the electoral dispute. But for that to happen, the government and opposition parties need to work together to end the violence, and then create the institutions of justice that can support a new election.

The electoral commission’s failure to produce credible results in December is evidence of Kenya’s long struggle with corruption. The Kenyan elections pitted incumbent Mwai Kibaki, against the populist opposition leader, Raila Odinga. Although Odinga’s party won a majority of the parliamentary seats, and it looked as though he would win the presidency, Kibaki made a last minute come back to eek out victory with 46 percent of the vote to Odinga’s 44. Election observers have concluded that there were inconsistencies in the process, accusing both the government and the opposition of trying to rig the election.

In response to the election results, millions of Odinga’s supporters have taken to the streets in protest, and although they have the right to object, they should do so non-violently. In the two weeks since the elections in Kenya, more than 500 people have died and tens of thousands have fled their homes. What was a peaceful nation, a beacon of hope in Africa and an economic powerhouse in the region, is now descending into havoc.

It is increasingly clear that opposition party leaders are instigating the violence in spite of their public statements advocating peaceful protest. It is Odinga’s imperative to ensure that supporters of his party, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), do not continue to use violence By provoking anger, Odinga and his cohorts only embolden the government’s position when it prevents Odinga’s supporters from gathering in mass because those protests present the risk of large-scale massacres. Free speech is an important right, but the government will continue to prioritize restoring stability over protecting free speech.

Media surrounding the issue has jumped to call the conflict ethnic violence and tribalism, which is understandable considering specific ethnic groups have been targeting each other. However, this characterization overlooks the fact that the violence in Kenya is the result of persisting socio-economic and land disputes. Instead of dismissing this as just another African election gone awry, or another case of African tribalism, understanding who and what lies behind the violence is the key to stopping it. Much of the election violence has been directed against people of the Kikuyu ethnic group because Kibaki, a Kikuyu, has surrounded himself with a cabinet of Kikuyu officials, and has been known to prioritize the interests of Kikuyu businessmen. But, ethnic groups in Kenya are not rigidly divided, and attributing the violence to ethnic conflicts between the Kikuyus, Kalenjins and Kenya’s 40 other ethnic groups ignores the extremely complex disputes over land apportionment that are driving the violence in much of the country.

From the tightly packed slums of Nairobi to the farms of the Rift Valley, land has been a continual source of conflict in Kenya. Since the colonial period when British settlers displaced Kenyans from their land at the beginning of the 20th century, there has yet to be adequate compensation for those who lost property. During the years following independence, Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya, distributed national resources to an elite inner circle rather than to the landless peasants. Kenyatta began a cycle of favoritism that continued under the dictatorship of Daniel Arap Moi and most recently under President Mwai Kibaki. Because presidents had been able to get away with such unabashed favoritism, those succeeding them today have done the same.

In order to establish peace in Kenya and to hold free and fair elections, Kenya needs to build trustworthy and stable institutions of justice. The election results were clearly unfair, but even a recount would not salvage this election. Holding a new election immediately wouldn’t ensure peaceful or fair results, either. Therefore an interim government must keep peace in the country until a second round of elections is possible. The Kenyan people have reason to fear corruption on the executive level—a long string of presidents has been notoriously corrupt—but hopefully credible institutions of justice will engender trust in the elected leadership. Ending the violence in Kenya must be the first priority, and once peace is established the opposing parties can work together to ensure fair distribution of resources and credible institutions for the future.



Megan A. Shutzer ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House.