Even as early reports on the AU-facilitated talks between Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga suggest substantial progress has been made, I find myself deeply concerned about the peripheral issues suggested by the recent political crisis in Kenya.

The two issues which I find particularly troubling are the use of violence as a means to attempt to alter the democratic process, and the highly one-sided and prejudicial media coverage of the political process, both within African media, but even more strikingly in the western media. Because the absence of a discussion of the former problem is an important part of the latter problem, I will begin with the latter.

From the very beginning of the crisis, the media has displayed an overwhelming and, in my view, highly troubling bias in favor of the opposition. I don't feel the need to supply examples: simply go to google news and browse various western news sources, or for that matter go to the western news site of your choice and you will see it for yourself. Very nearly every article on the subject covers the position of the ODM and Raila Odinga exclusively. Interviews with ODM members and representatives are widespread, whereas no one seems to be interested in the position of Kibaki and the incumbent government.

In contrast, the African press, while still seemingly biased in favor of the ODM generally, does offer a more "mixed" bag of coverage and opinion. Probably the most insightful commentary I've seen thus far on the matter is an example of this:

quote:

Originally posted in The New Vision Why the silence about the ethnic cleansing in Kenya? Wednesday, 9th January, 2008 By Ssemakula Kiwamuka PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has congratulated President Mwai Kibaki because Kibaki was declared the winner of the Kenya election. Prominent among the critics are Ogenga Latigo and Reagan Okumu. No level is too low for them not to sink. The lowest depth they have now sank is to allege that Museveni helped Kibaki to rig the election and is therefore a party to the so-called Kibaki’s fraudulent victory. Fourteen years ago there was genocide in Rwanda when the Tutsis were massacred because they were Tutsis. Today we see a repeat of the same in Kenya though on a smaller scale. I find it extremely appalling because of the dead silence and lack of condemnation of the systemic and premeditated ethnic cleansing by well-organised killers in various parts of Kenya. The international media reported that the killer weapons were acquired in advance, which suggests a premeditated plan. It is terrible that people were being asked whether they were Kikuyu and those who were identified as such were brutally murdered. Others were asked to speak a few words so as to be condemned to death by their accents. The absence of condemnation of such barbaric ethnic cleansing of women and children even is a despicable shame even on the BBC and a frightening reminder of what happened in Rwanda. BBC reporters were busy running around talking about stolen votes. The burning to death in a church of innocent children was of secondary interest! Assuming the votes had been stolen, must you commit genocide; burn children and women in order to reach the top? In Rwanda, even those who ran to churches as sanctuaries were not spared. The poor innocents of Kenya, some of whom did not even vote or understand what elections were about ran to the church, thinking that they would be safe. How can the East Africa of the 21st Century condone the turning of its citizens into refugees in their own country? Africa should not tolerate a leader who incites and champions ethnic cleansing as a means of getting to the top. In Uganda, I am worried by what I am hearing in the media. On January 3, on WBS TV, there were three commentators on the Kenya elections. One of the speakers warned Ugandans that genocide was awaiting us. Whom or what ethnic groups are being targeted for cleansing? On January 5 on the Kimeza, a female participant went further and told Ugandans that even if millions of people were butchered for alleged vote stealing she will congratulate those who defend their votes. Obviously, these two speakers are openly inciting ethnic hatred and violence. Such incitement should not be tolerated. In Rwanda, genocide was fueled by radio. Uganda should stop these tendencies immediately. Today President Museveni is allegedly in power because he stole Dr Kizza Besigye’s votes. I get flabbergasted by the mindset of even the so-called election observers. According to them, it is only incumbent governments which rig elections and violence and intimidation are the monopolies of incumbent parties. For these glorified observers, the opposition party leaders are innocent and are assumed to be incapable of rigging elections! Experience has shown us that media houses tend to build the opposition to gigantic proportions and inflate their often non-existing electoral strength. I must say that to believe that is a demonstration of gross naivety. The purpose of course is to stage-manage the outcome. When they lose, the loss must be because their votes were stolen. The winner is labeled a vote stealer. Yet any independent election study will always expose the shallow way of reasoning. I have participated in three presidential elections in Uganda by actually being on the ground. During the 2006 presidential elections, the Weekly Observer published seven days before the election poll, projections which gave Besigye a clean sweep in Buganda. But these projections were the most scandalous because they were lies. Both The Observer and besigye knew it. I challenged the editor to come to the ground and show the country those districts and counties where Besigye was poised for a clean sweep. I knew how weak Besigye was in Buganda. But that was not the issue for the Observer. The issue was to stage-manage Besigye’s heavy losses and attribute them to Museveni’s ‘vote stealing’. Today the opposition still claims that Museveni’s victory was fraudulent and this is still touted because the newspapers had created that impression. The following observations should be considered by any unbiased analyst. There were three polling companies. Two consistently showed the opposition in the lead. The third polled otherwise. The question is how accurate were these pollsters to the last day? The second observation is what we call tactical or split ticket voting. In Kenya, because many ministers lost their seats, their losses were automatically translated into Kibaki losses by uncritical and ill-informed analysts. In many countries, and this certainly happened in the Kenya election, there was split voting. Why have the political experts ignored this trend? Did it happen or did it not? The third observation is what the newspapers reported on December 29, 2007. It was reported that the votes from Central and Northeast were not yet in. The papers went further and added that the majority of those votes were likely to go to Kibaki. The question is if these votes were numerous enough, did that not mean they enabled Kibaki to overhaul the opposition? I ask again why has this possibility been ignored by the so-called expert analysts? These are pertinent questions which must be answered when considering a verdict on the election outcome. The fourth observation is that during the night of Saturday, the Kibaki and the opposition groups at the Electoral Commission went over the tallies of nearly 200 constituencies. This was stated by the High Commissioner of Kenya to the UK, Mr. Joe Muchemi when he was interviewed by the BBC. If this claim is true, what was the outcome of the scrutiny of all these constituencies? This question must be answered by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission. On Saturday evening, the reports were that the opposition was leading by 40,000 votes. If the opposition had won by a margin of 40,000 votes, would the international media have alleged that Kibaki was cheated? I am asking these questions as an independent analyst who wants to establish a logical approach to the investigation so that sanity can return to Kenya. My final observation concerns the behaviour of the Electoral Commission. Asked by the BBC why President Kibaki was sworn in with indecent haste, the Minister of Justice alleged that there was a strategy not to announce the winner before the expiry of the tenure of the Government on Sunday midnight. The implication of that statement is that the Electoral Commission was deliberately withholding the verdict of the poll and wait for the expiry of the government. If the allegation by the Minister of Justice is true, the ECK must be asked whose strategy it was implementing for not announcing the results? Was it, for Kibaki or for the Opposition? In the former Yugoslavia, those who engaged in acts of ethnic cleansing have been and are being hunted to be brought before the ICC for prosecution. Will those who burnt innocent children and women in Kenya be prosecuted? This is the question which Africa and the International Community cannot be allowed to ignore. The politics of ethnic cleansing must be condemned and outlawed.

Though I am not sure the situation is as analogous to the ethnic conflict in Rwanda as the author would seem to suggest, I must say that I find his commends on the media to be particularly insightful.

The media -- and, in particular, the western media -- seems to have a certain skepticism towards African democracy, whereby any irregularity or controversy is presumed to demonstrate that, in fact, the process is corrupt.

Certainly, that skepticism is not without some basis in fact, however it seems to me to be a selective skepticism. A balanced, skeptical viewpoint would point an equally critical eye towards the accusations of fraud which, as Mr. Kiwamuka points out, are regularly employed as a political tactic. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I find it implausible that Kibaki and the PNU may have engaged in fraud or attempted fraud in the election. However, I find it no less plausible that the ODM may be responsible for any irregularities which took place, and, in fact, I find it more probable since they no doubt knew that, if irregularities were discovered, the incumbent would most likely be presumed responsible.

Further, I have more doubts about the character of Raila Odinga than I do Mwai Kibaki (though, to be sure, I have some doubts about him too.) Odinga was involved in an attempt to seize power by force in 1982, and if the claims made in the above article regarding the pre-election arming of certain tribal factions are true (which, given their post-election behavior and Odinga's past seems entirely coherent) then he may presently be involved in an attempt to grab power through violent means as well. But that is a subject best left to the discussion of the violence issue.

Reports on the allegations of fraud or irregularity in the electoral process were rampant in the press. I find them believable. If even the United States cannot conduct elections without some controversy and irregularity, then I find it an absurd expectation that Kenya, a young democracy whose electoral process has a minute fraction of the budget we have for ours, would be free of any irregularity. But where are the specifics? Supposedly, some conveniently anonymous and apparently unaccountable "election observers" noted irregularities, but these vagaries are surely insufficient for the apportionment of blame, much less the judgment that an election may well have been fraudulent. The western media has occasionally referred to a "suspicious" last-minute change from Odinga leading the vote totals to Kibaki. But does the western media report that the final votes to be tallied came from the central and northeast regions, where Kibaki was known to have overwhelming support? No -- because then instead of the change being "suspicious" it would be more like "expected."

And while the western press was quick to report on the violence, it seemed to take every opportunity to downplay the fact that it was overwhelmingly initiated by the supporters of the opposition, and, moreover, that the opposition was both slow and half-hearted in its condemnations of the violence, whereas retaliatory violence on the part of the Kikuyu and other tribes known to support Kibaki did not begin in earnest until several days later, after hundreds of members of those groups had already been slaughtered. And furthermore there were few reports on Kibaki's quick condemnation of that retaliatory violence, but numerous reports on the ODM's claim that Kibaki was somehow "to blame" for the violence.

In fact, the press has not seemed to give any attention to Kibaki's position at all. After the violence broke out, Odinga and the ODM were demanding a second election -- a process which would necessarily be entirely extralegal -- on the basis of nothing more than vague accusations of fraud. Kibaki's response was, essentially, that another election could take place, but only if approved by the courts, and furthermore, that violence must not be allowed to influence the democratic process.

I could not agree more. I do not believe that genuine democratic progress can be made against a backdrop of violence. The ODM repeatedly called on Kibaki to accede to their various demands as a means to "end the violence" -- but does this message not entail violence as a motivator for political change. I can't see it in any other way. Let me put it in a more familiar context:

The EU defines "terrorism" as crimes which:

quote:

"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." (emphasis mine)

Taken in this context, the actions of many ODM supporters and, indeed, the ODM and Raila Odinga themselves through their initial tacit support for the rioting and subsequent implication that it ought to dictate Government action are, by definition, terrorism.

That's right, the supposedly helpless Kenyan opposition that have seemingly become the darlings of the western media can quite reasonably be categorized as terrorists. So is the U.S. media, or for that matter, the U.S. Government which is so intent upon its "War on Terror" calling a spade a spade? Well, if they are, I sure don't see it. Hell, if we wanted to, we could dump another generation's over-used accusatory label on Odinga as well: communist.

Though he claims not to be a Marxist and labels himself a "social democrat" instead, the man did name his son "Fidel Castro Odinga," and I have to be honest, actions speak louder than words. Now, I am not one for hunting down the commies, but I have to wonder, if Odinga came to power, how much of the substantial economic progress made under Kibaki would be lost. As someone who genuinely cares about Kenya's future, I'll tell you that I'd rather not find out.

But to get back to the matter at hand, the violence is a serious problem. The serious problem, to me, is this: suppose that Kibaki and Odinga are able to reach some amicable accord regarding some form of power-sharing government. That may be good for Kenya (at least in the short term...), but what precedent does it create? To be sure, no one will ever be able to say for certain how much, if at all, the terrorism (violence if you prefer) affected the outcome. But there will surely be the impression among some that it had a significant impact. And that is bad news for many of Africa's young democracies. Already, it is hard to have a contentious election there that does not result in violence, but if violence is seen as a productive means of eliciting change, then in some respect it will be legitimized, and at best, it will only further ingrain itself as a part of African politics. At worst, and more likely, it will grow even more prevalent.

The lasting effects of this crisis may be felt not only in Kenya, but much of Africa. And I am afraid it does not paint an optimistic picture for the future. Even more troubling, the western media seems either blissfully ignorant or just plain disinterested regarding this deeper issue.

I really want to respond to this but am on my way out the door and don't have time right now. You've made some really good points, and I will hopefully get to this tonight.

___________________

I had wanted to include this as well, but I read it in the actual, physical newspaper and only just now found the online equivalent.

quote:

... On Sunday, a Red Cross food distribution had to be moved from a crowded neighborhood in the Mathare district to a nearby police compound when the large crowd got out of hand. As people jostled for food in the police compound, opposition lawmaker Margaret Wanjiru of Raila's Orange Democratic Movement arrived. Addressing the clamoring crowd through speakers, she told them that she had brought the food in the Red Cross trucks. (In fact, the aid was supplied by the World Food Program and distributed by the Red Cross.) ... (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...ld/5432428.html)

If this sort of manipulation and demagoguery is representative of the ODM's electoral strategy in general, then I find that very troubling.

I think that one of the fundamental problems Africa faces with regards to democracy is that, on the one hand, you have a large, mostly uneducated, and highly impoverished population which will tend to support whatever leader promises the most immediate benefits, and on the other hand, what African nations need if they are to be prosperous and self-sustaining in the future is a considerable and long-term investment in the development of national infrastructure. Unfortunately, given limited resources the goals of infrastructure development and short-term poverty reduction are very much at odds with one another.

Part of my concern regarding this situation -- which is largely irrespective of the "legitimate" outcome of the election -- is that Kibaki has (uncharacteristically among African leaders) made substantial investments in economic and infrastructural development. And it seems to me that Odinga's supporters, by in large, are those most impoverished individuals who struggle to meet their most basic needs. It would seem to be supported by the above mentioned actions that the ODM's platform consists significantly of promises to reduce poverty. But -- if they even intend to follow through on their promises, which is always questionable in African politics -- then there is still the concern about what effect this would have on Kenya's economic progress. In particular, if projects currently in development, but requiring considerable ongoing funding, are cut, much of what was put towards them in the first place could be wasted, while the considerable long-term benefits they may have yielding may never come to fruition.

From a historical perspective, this may be unsurprising. When Kibaki was first elected in 2002 following the extremely corrupt reign of Daniel arap Moi, there was tremendous optimism among Kenyans that it would usher in a new era where great progress could be made in the economic development, reduction of poverty, and elimination of corruption. However, I suspect that the population was excessively optimistic about how fast these aims could realistically be achieved. The deeply entrenched culture of corruption is not something that one might expect to be fixed within six years, and while there has been substantial economic progress, it probably has not yet had the day-to-day effect on many people's lives that they may have anticipated.

To be sure, Kibaki's apparent insistence on a very strong executive branch is a little troubling, and there are some questions regarding the circumstances of his re-election that have yet to be satisfactorily explained. But I must say that overall, he appears to have a very strong and effective vision for Kenya. As for his opponent, the further I explore the issue, the more troubling I find him. I genuinely hope that he is not as bad as I fear (because if he is, we may be looking at another attempt at a violent overthrow if the current situation ultimately doesn't go his way,) but he does not appear to me to be a statesman.

Maybe I'm just talking to myself here, but there's more.

quote:

Originally said by Raila Odinga "We want the mediation to take place in a peaceful environment, which is why the rallies have been cancelled." (link)

That strikes me as a curious statement. Especially in light of the new rallies that are now planned (link). What am I to infer from this? That the ODM, not having gotten their way, no longer wants a peaceful environment? Charming, really.

For that matter, calling for sanctions strikes me as a rather insidious strategy. It's obvious that those who would bear the brunt of any such action would be poorest Kenyans, i.e. the people the ODM claims to represent. So what exactly is the objective here? To increase poverty, and then try to blame it on Kibaki, even though the poverty results from sanctions called for by the ODM? And then, presumably, to use that poverty as a tool for the incitement of further violence to achieve their political ends?

Unfortunately, as far as the U.S. is concerned, I doubt that Odinga is going to get what he wants. Though the government has carefully avoided taking sides in the conflict, I believe there is some degree of tacit support for Kibaki, who has been extremely cooperative with regards to U.S. anti-terrorism intelligence operations in the region, as opposed to Odinga, who apparently admires noted U.S. foe Fidel Castro enough to name his son after him.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Even as early reports on the AU-facilitated talks between Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga suggest substantial progress has been made, I find myself deeply concerned about the peripheral issues suggested by the recent political crisis in Kenya. The two issues which I find particularly troubling are the use of violence as a means to attempt to alter the democratic process, and the highly one-sided and prejudicial media coverage of the political process, both within African media, but even more strikingly in the western media. Because the absence of a discussion of the former problem is an important part of the latter problem, I will begin with the latter. From the very beginning of the crisis, the media has displayed an overwhelming and, in my view, highly troubling bias in favor of the opposition. I don't feel the need to supply examples: simply go to google news and browse various western news sources, or for that matter go to the western news site of your choice and you will see it for yourself. Very nearly every article on the subject covers the position of the ODM and Raila Odinga exclusively. Interviews with ODM members and representatives are widespread, whereas no one seems to be interested in the position of Kibaki and the incumbent government.

You've hit on a very interesting point here - despite the track record of Kibaki opening up civil society and curtailing corruption in government during his first term, it is is Odinga that is championed as the force of democratic reform. And in a very savvy move, Odinga has capitalized on the popular notion in the Western press by announcing, days after the violence first emerged, that he has close familial ties to Barack Obama - an obvious attempt to foster a closer relationship with Washington and the sentiments of Western observers. The idea also plays phenomenally well in Kenya, which sees the possible ascendancy of Obama to office in the US as an opportunity to foster an even closer relationship to the West and the many donors there. And despite the difficulties posed by developmental assistance, the prospect of more money flowing into Kenya is still very appealing.

quote:

In contrast, the African press, while still seemingly biased in favor of the ODM generally, does offer a more "mixed" bag of coverage and opinion. Probably the most insightful commentary I've seen thus far on the matter is an example of this: Though I am not sure the situation is as analogous to the ethnic conflict in Rwanda as the author would seem to suggest, I must say that I find his commends on the media to be particularly insightful.

I think comparing the tensions in Kenya to Rwanda is misleading, and an oversimplification of African complexities. The Hutu-Tutsi relationship was much different, in the post-colonial composition of the state and in the history of violence between the two groups. Though Luo and Kikuyu have never gotten along persay, there haven't been the periodic violent conflagrations that preceded the 1994 genocide for the prior two decades.

quote:

The media -- and, in particular, the western media -- seems to have a certain skepticism towards African democracy, whereby any irregularity or controversy is presumed to demonstrate that, in fact, the process is corrupt.

This is another very good point - the common conception of Americans is very much that the continent of Africa is filled with wild beasts and impoverished, warring savages. Few Americans have any conception of good governance anywhere on the African continent, and while this is most striking in the US, it is also true to an extent in Europe and on the African continent itself. There was a thread on Kenya in the cor recently in which somebody stated that the current breakdown in Kenya isn't surprising since all of Africa is mired in conflict anyway. But there are a couple of things that this opinion completely misses - most notably the improvements over the Moi regime that happened under Kibaki, but also the greater historical picture. African countries are still in their infancy as independent, self-governing entities. African states don't have a history of good governance in large part because their history is so short and there were so few examples to follow. Improvements in transparency and good governance should be lauded, and yet, the media highlights only failure, glossing over reforms under the Kibaki regime in order to portray the elections as stolen, Kibaki as wildly undemocratic, and Odinga as an oppressed reformer being denied the chance to instill a perfect democracy in the heart of Africa.

It's very true that the popular media often takes the frame of reference of the lowest common denominator in order to attract readers. Since there are very few informed opinions about Africa, there are very few articles that lay out the situation with any complexity - instead we are given a "pro-democracy" candidate and a candidate that will only perpetuate what Americans already perceive Africa to be: a corrupt, conflict-ridden, diseased continent.

quote:

Certainly, that skepticism is not without some basis in fact, however it seems to me to be a selective skepticism. A balanced, skeptical viewpoint would point an equally critical eye towards the accusations of fraud which, as Mr. Kiwamuka points out, are regularly employed as a political tactic. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I find it implausible that Kibaki and the PNU may have engaged in fraud or attempted fraud in the election. However, I find it no less plausible that the ODM may be responsible for any irregularities which took place, and, in fact, I find it more probable since they no doubt knew that, if irregularities were discovered, the incumbent would most likely be presumed responsible. Further, I have more doubts about the character of Raila Odinga than I do Mwai Kibaki (though, to be sure, I have some doubts about him too.) Odinga was involved in an attempt to seize power by force in 1982, and if the claims made in the above article regarding the pre-election arming of certain tribal factions are true (which, given their post-election behavior and Odinga's past seems entirely coherent) then he may presently be involved in an attempt to grab power through violent means as well. But that is a subject best left to the discussion of the violence issue.

It is interesting to me that there was no comment from the Obama campaign about Odinga's claim to kinship... it strikes me as manufactured, though I don't know if there is any way of proving his claim either way.

quote:

Reports on the allegations of fraud or irregularity in the electoral process were rampant in the press. I find them believable. If even the United States cannot conduct elections without some controversy and irregularity, then I find it an absurd expectation that Kenya, a young democracy whose electoral process has a minute fraction of the budget we have for ours, would be free of any irregularity. But where are the specifics? Supposedly, some conveniently anonymous and apparently unaccountable "election observers" noted irregularities, but these vagaries are surely insufficient for the apportionment of blame, much less the judgment that an election may well have been fraudulent. The western media has occasionally referred to a "suspicious" last-minute change from Odinga leading the vote totals to Kibaki. But does the western media report that the final votes to be tallied came from the central and northeast regions, where Kibaki was known to have overwhelming support? No -- because then instead of the change being "suspicious" it would be more like "expected." And while the western press was quick to report on the violence, it seemed to take every opportunity to downplay the fact that it was overwhelmingly initiated by the supporters of the opposition, and, moreover, that the opposition was both slow and half-hearted in its condemnations of the violence, whereas retaliatory violence on the part of the Kikuyu and other tribes known to support Kibaki did not begin in earnest until several days later, after hundreds of members of those groups had already been slaughtered. And furthermore there were few reports on Kibaki's quick condemnation of that retaliatory violence, but numerous reports on the ODM's claim that Kibaki was somehow "to blame" for the violence.

This was an absurd double standard to me as well - what motivation would Kibaki's supporters have to begin the violence when they had already won the election? It seems clear that any violence initiated by Kibaki's supporters was retaliatory in nature. But ascribing any actual blame to either politician is somewhat dubious, since events have likely grown well out of control of either political party.

quote:

In fact, the press has not seemed to give any attention to Kibaki's position at all. After the violence broke out, Odinga and the ODM were demanding a second election -- a process which would necessarily be entirely extralegal -- on the basis of nothing more than vague accusations of fraud. Kibaki's response was, essentially, that another election could take place, but only if approved by the courts, and furthermore, that violence must not be allowed to influence the democratic process.

This is a point I hadn't given much thought to. Even if Odinga and the ODM didn't necessarily ask for the riots to begin, they have certainly benefited from them and therefore can continue to utilize them as a means of claiming widespread dissatisfaction with the state. I would hazard a guess that few of those affected by the violence are doing so as an affirmation or disavowment of the Kibaki regime - instead, since neither side can seem to agree on who commenced the violence, it would seem that both sides are simply responding in kind to one another, and that politics now has very little to do with anything. Which could be troubling in and of itself - will a political solution at this point really temper the violent inclinations of the populace at large? And if it does, will alienation and entitlement continue along ethnic lines until a future crisis?

quote:

I could not agree more. I do not believe that genuine democratic progress can be made against a backdrop of violence. The ODM repeatedly called on Kibaki to accede to their various demands as a means to "end the violence" -- but does this message not entail violence as a motivator for political change. I can't see it in any other way. Let me put it in a more familiar context: The EU defines "terrorism" as crimes which: Taken in this context, the actions of many ODM supporters and, indeed, the ODM and Raila Odinga themselves through their initial tacit support for the rioting and subsequent implication that it ought to dictate Government action are, by definition, terrorism. That's right, the supposedly helpless Kenyan opposition that have seemingly become the darlings of the western media can quite reasonably be categorized as terrorists. So is the U.S. media, or for that matter, the U.S. Government which is so intent upon its "War on Terror" calling a spade a spade? Well, if they are, I sure don't see it. Hell, if we wanted to, we could dump another generation's over-used accusatory label on Odinga as well: communist. Though he claims not to be a Marxist and labels himself a "social democrat" instead, the man did name his son "Fidel Castro Odinga," and I have to be honest, actions speak louder than words. Now, I am not one for hunting down the commies, but I have to wonder, if Odinga came to power, how much of the substantial economic progress made under Kibaki would be lost. As someone who genuinely cares about Kenya's future, I'll tell you that I'd rather not find out.

An official condemnation by the US of either side makes me uneasy, and could only serve to heighten discontent within the country.

quote:

But to get back to the matter at hand, the violence is a serious problem. The serious problem, to me, is this: suppose that Kibaki and Odinga are able to reach some amicable accord regarding some form of power-sharing government. That may be good for Kenya (at least in the short term...), but what precedent does it create? To be sure, no one will ever be able to say for certain how much, if at all, the terrorism (violence if you prefer) affected the outcome. But there will surely be the impression among some that it had a significant impact. And that is bad news for many of Africa's young democracies. Already, it is hard to have a contentious election there that does not result in violence, but if violence is seen as a productive means of eliciting change, then in some respect it will be legitimized, and at best, it will only further ingrain itself as a part of African politics. At worst, and more likely, it will grow even more prevalent.

This is a very interesting observation, and one that I can understand but don't necessarily agree with. The alternative to a political compromise is continued violence, and the festering of ethnic discontent and alienation. However, recent developments seem to show that Kibaki will not yield - his appointment of government officials was labeled rash - not including a single member of the ODM certainly added insult to injury, and will do little to reconcile differences, but it certainly does not reward the ODM for being complicit in inciting violence across the country.

quote:

The lasting effects of this crisis may be felt not only in Kenya, but much of Africa. And I am afraid it does not paint an optimistic picture for the future. Even more troubling, the western media seems either blissfully ignorant or just plain disinterested regarding this deeper issue.

Kenya is often touted by the West as one of the more developed, less corrupt countries in Africa, which hasn't necessarily been true. However, Kenya has served as a vital neutral party in negotiating conflicts across the continent, and is a symbolic example in the Western media at least of African stability. Now that the country that is the popular host for Americans on safari is on the verge of civil war... even more Americans will simply write off the continent as lost to poverty, disease, and savagery.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think that one of the fundamental problems Africa faces with regards to democracy is that, on the one hand, you have a large, mostly uneducated, and highly impoverished population which will tend to support whatever leader promises the most immediate benefits, and on the other hand, what African nations need if they are to be prosperous and self-sustaining in the future is a considerable and long-term investment in the development of national infrastructure. Unfortunately, given limited resources the goals of infrastructure development and short-term poverty reduction are very much at odds with one another.

You've hit upon the fundamental difficulty with international development, which I'm sure is a topic best discussed in another thread. But that irony - that poverty assistance often only serves to make more people dependent - is a problem that must be addressed in the future. Unfortunately it is one that many donors seem hesitant to undertake - donors want to know how many people they have fed, not how many irrigation trenches have been dug. Some organizations have begun to move away from handouts - most notably CARE - but unless the entire development industry comes to terms with the fact that their operational goals should be creating a situation in which they themselves are no longer necessary, real poverty alleviation will likely never happen.

quote:

When Kibaki was first elected in 2002 following the extremely corrupt reign of Daniel arap Moi, there was tremendous optimism among Kenyans that it would usher in a new era where great progress could be made in the economic development, reduction of poverty, and elimination of corruption. However, I suspect that the population was excessively optimistic about how fast these aims could realistically be achieved. The deeply entrenched culture of corruption is not something that one might expect to be fixed within six years, and while there has been substantial economic progress, it probably has not yet had the day-to-day effect on many people's lives that they may have anticipated.

The expectation gap is difficult to bridge - politicians (and NGOs) promise more and more, and failure to live up to high expecations leads to dissent - it is not only one of the reasons that African politicians quickly fall out of favor but also a reason that many Africans look at the United States with skepticism. When packages from USAID begin to arrive, many Africans believe the end of their problems won't be far behind. When that scenario fails to manifest itself, disappointment sets in, and soon thereafter comes resentment. Despite the successes of Kibaki, they were probably far below what was expected by Africans - alleviation of poverty, complete inclusion within society, eradication of disease and shantytowns.

I haven't looked much into the specific platforms of Odinga, but it is very surprising to me to see what hostility there is, both in the media and among the population, toward Kibaki. He was the best head of state Kenya has had in a long time, and one can only hope that Odinga (should he eventually come to power) would not be a step backwards.

Kenya was on the cusp of a development breakthrough... and now they are very much on the brink of disaster. One can only hope that the country doesn't fall off the edge.

___________________

quote:

Kenyan death toll to rise, aid agencies warn Last Updated: Monday, January 14, 2008 | 5:47 AM ET CBC News The death toll from more than two weeks of election-related violence in Kenya is nearing 600, aid agencies in the African country said Monday. Officials with the local Red Cross told Reuters it had verified 575 deaths on Friday and expected that number to rise by the end of the day Monday. Earlier estimates had placed the death toll at 500. As many as 250,000 people have also been internally displaced by the violence, which was sparked after President Mwai Kibaki was re-elected in a disputed Dec. 27 vote. Supporters of both Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga claim the vote was rigged, while the country's own electoral head has said he can't verify the results. Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan is due to arrive in Kenya Tuesday to begin a fresh round of negotiations with Kibaki and Odinga. Kibaki, 76, has said he's willing to arrange a power-sharing deal, but Odinga, 63, wants a new election. Last week, African Union head John Kufuor failed to bring the two sides together during two days of talks. After that failure, opposition leaders called for three days of nationwide anti-government protests beginning on Wednesday. Police have said they will not allow the demonstrations.

So the death toll keeps rising, and the international community is nowhere to be seen. Another Sudan in the making? Hopefully not. I was actually hoping to travel to Kenya this summer, but with all this turmoil I am reconsidering my plans. It is also noteworthy that Kibaki says he is willing to arrange some sort of power sharing due to the increase in violence. Although I do agree with Arbiter that this sets a bad precedent, I do think it might work as a short term fix as long as other measures are put in place in order to prevent a re-ocurrence of the use of violence as a political tool.

quote:

Western democracy unsuitable, says China Also Monday, China's official state newspaper published a commentary saying Kenya's election-related violence is proof Western-style democracy is a bad fit for African nations. "Western-style democratic theory simply isn't suited to African conditions, but rather carries with it the root of disaster," said the paper, the official mouthpiece of China's ruling Communist party. The editorial blames Africa's former colonial masters for "tyrannically" imposing Western democratic systems on countries that already had their own decision-making systems in place. "Colonialism is the chief culprit, the fuse that sparks ethnic conflict," the paper said. China has been criticized for its friendly relations with authoritarian African leaders in countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Source

Beijing's comments are also something interesting. It is something to consider. Democracy is an idea. How it is implemented can and should vary from country to country as circumstances vary and cultures vary. American democracy is obviously many times at odds with the cultures of other places. The question is, what kind of system should be put in place in a country such as Kenya (and for that matter other African countries)?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Came across this opinion piece in the CS Monitor yesterday and thought it was extremely relevant to this discussion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0114/p09s02-coop.html

quote:

The real reason for Kenya's violence Contrary to popular belief, it isn't simply 'tribal' or 'spontaneous.' By Jacqueline M. Klopp NEW YORK Hundreds have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in the three weeks since Kenya's hotly disputed presidential elections. Once considered an island of stability in Africa, the country is suffering what the media has called a "shocking outbreak of violence" and "tribal clashes." The key questions we should be asking are: Who is responsible for this violence? How is it happening? But we will not ask these questions if we continue to see the current violence as simply a spontaneous outburst of anger at the election rigging or "tribal warfare." The international community must realize that Kenya's violence today is fueled by strongmen on both sides of the political divide. They are exploiting ethnic identity, pitting one community against another, as a means to gain power. It is a practice with a long history in Kenyan politics. The fury of the violence may look like "tribal warfare" linked to election anger, especially in the worst instances of ethnic cleansing – as in Eldoret, where women and children were burned alive in a church. A common explanation is that members of the Kikuyu community are facing retaliation from others for their longtime "dominance." Like Kenya's first president, Jomo Kenyatta, President Mwai Kibaki is Kikuyu; opposition leader Raila Odinga is Luo. Part of the violence is not directly organized and is instead linked to confrontations between protesters and police, who have a history of brutality. Many understandably feel rage at the election fraud carried out on behalf of Mr. Kibaki. But much of the ethnicized violence is linked to organized efforts by political strongmen who have experience playing divide-and-rule. Remember Daniel arap Moi? He was Kenya's president from 1978 to 2002. He and most of his cohorts during this time were Kalenjin. In the 1990s, they faced the probable loss of power in multiparty elections to an opposition that included many Kikuyu. In response, Mr. Moi's men filled their campaigns with hate against all Kikuyu and convinced many that any member of that group, from a child to a poor farmer, represented "Kikuyu domination." This ploy conveniently shifted blame from Moi and his mostly non-Kikuyu crowd who had been in power for years. It shifted attention away from the massive land grabbing and corruption they continued from the previous government that helped put the poor, including the numerous Kikuyu poor, in slums or sent them across the country in search of a small patch of land to eke out a living. Sadly, this anti-Kikuyu campaign gained supporters among unemployed youth who learned to project their problems onto a Kikuyu face. Poor men were given weapons and paid to kill and displace. In return, they were promised or sold vacated land. Ultimately, in the 1990s, thousands of people died and almost half a million were displaced. This violence helped Moi's small group of corrupt "big men" stay in power for a decade. In the deeply flawed elections of 1992 and 1997, displacement became a form of gerrymandering. Not one person has been tried, let alone convicted, for these killings and displacements. The international community at the time seemed quite ready to forget as well. Since his election in 2002, Kibaki has collaborated in this deliberate forgetting. Part of the reason was that he had brought into his ruling coalition many of the worst perpetrators of violence. They could deliver votes in key areas and were willing to drop their anti-Kikuyu rhetoric once in power. Mr. Odinga, the opposition leader, has also brought notorious ethnic cleansers into his coalition. Their anti-Kikuyu rhetoric is a useful political tool against the Kikuyu incumbent. All these advocates of violence have lived with complete impunity. They have learned that they could preach hate, organize youth to kill and displace, and be rewarded with a cabinet post. They could get rid of voters who were unlikely to support them. They could use violence for bargaining power at the national level, something that appears to be happening today. The current project of "ethnic cleansing" in the Rift Valley suggests that some politicians, this time allied mostly with the opposition, have learned these lessons well. The key lesson for the international community to learn from past violence is that a new government alone, especially if it welcomes perpetrators of violence into its core, cannot fix this deep problem of strongmen politics. This time we must demand a thorough and independent investigation into all forms of violence. We should demand that those guilty of organizing, funding, or authorizing killings from any ethnic community be, at a minimum, excluded from high office. Let us not forget that this violence has a history and perpetrators and that there are responsibilities to be assigned. This time let us demand justice and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Otherwise, we set more roadblocks on Kenya's path toward a just, democratic, and truly civil society. Jacqueline M. Klopp is a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

___________________