Jan.4, 2008
It cannot be a zero-sum game
THE DECISION by the Kenyan opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement, to postpone what the group called a "million-man march" has averted what could have turned out to be the bloodiest event of the post-election chaos in the country.
However, there is no real sign of any end to the bloodletting has already killed more than 300 people and made 70,000 homeless.
The Orange Democratic Movement's leader, Raila Odinga, who was defeated in the presidential election against incumbent Mwai Kibaki, claims that the voting was rigged. Odinga has the backing of international observers who say the election process was flawed.
As is natural in such circumstances, the government and opposition are accusing each other of being behind the violence that is unprecedented in a country that had become known as a vibrant democracy and peacemaker in Africa, rather than a trouble spot.
In fact, Kenya is living true to the argument of many that in Africa there is no such thing as an incumbent president or prime minister losing a vote.
Pro-Kibaki MPs want Odinga and others to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "ethnic cleansing and genocide" while the Odinga camp contends that a police order to shoot during protests by its supporters was "bordering on genocide."
One thing is clear: The instigators of the violence that saw crazed killings, including the massacre of some 50 people inside a church, and those involved in the rampages in the country have little respect or consideration for the people of Kenya.
At the same time, it is also difficult to see how any group could stand to gain anything from the bloodletting.
In fact, the people of Kenya are being taken for a ride. None of the politicians could be expected to be anywhere near troublespots; they prefer to leave their supporters to confront police and their political rivals.The businesses, homes and families of the politicians are safe and secure while the people on the streets are turned into cannonfodder. Such is the politicians' greed for power and wealth that they brush aside all considerations for the faith their supporters have placed in them. Mass murders do not matter to them as long as their political interests are served.
Some contend that as in many other African countries, the politics in Kenya also has a tribal overtone, with Kibaki’s Kikuyu tribe pitted against Odinga’s Luo. They claim that the post-election violence brought to the front the latent tribalism present in daily life in the country.
Those claims and contentions overlook the reality that many of the African countries as they exist today are the creations of colonial powers with varying degrees of "democratic practices" mainly dictated by foreign powers in order to serve their own interests.
Indeed, the ferocity of the violence in Kenya — highlighted by reports of headless bodies being dragged from burnt-out shacks — has shocked the world, and that is what some could cite as supporting the theory that tribalism is showing its ugly head.
But that does not necessarily mean that old scores are being settled today. In reality, as could be assessed from the history of Kenya, the rival groups are fighting for control of local resources, and they are led by powerful politicians who also happen to be prominent tribal figures. The situation could easily be described as typical of Africa or any other part of the developing world.
The international community is desperate to find a compromise. But, with the core issue being the veracity of the voting and vote-counting process, the political leaders of Kenya have to accept to place the satety, security and welfare of the people and democratic interests of Kenya over everything else. They have to respect it cannot be a zero-sum game, where the winner takes it all and fight bitterly to keep it all.
The international community has to turn the heat until on the political leaders of all shades in Kenya are ready to accept the rules of democracy.
Until the time they are ready to do that, all efforts would be wasted.