Mar
7
Myths about Kenya’s conflict
March 7, 2008 | Tagged Africa, Kenya | Leave a Comment
By Meryam
Independent reporter John Barbieri discusses three myths about Kenya’s political conflict, as well as the role played by the media in perpetuating these, in an article titled ‘The poverty of international journalism’.
Firstly, and most importantly, Barbieri makes a clear distinction between an ethnic conflict and a political conflict, and asserts that we saw in Kenya was a political conflict, not an ethnic one. Statements of ‘tribal conflict’ he says, are “an extremely racist, antiquated and inaccurate depiction of the situation. Though there has been an ethnic factor to some of the conflict, this factor is largely overemphasized at expense of the more pervasive factor of the rich/poor and the gross inequities in resource distribution” amongst different groups.
Moreover, Barbieri notes that the immediate post-election violence was organized by the political elite and should be framed as politicians manipulating their supporters into fomenting violence and hatred.
By treating the conflict as an ethnic or tribal issue, many key factors such as historical injustices, international and regional politics are ignored. This is linked to the second myth that Barbieri dismisses; that the violence in Kenya came as a ‘shock’. For anyone who knows the history of colonialism and independence of Kenya, he says, the recent developments have been long in the making. They are “directly connected to the inability of the Kenyan government to come to terms with the brutal legacy and power distributions inherited from British rule, including the constitution itself. And specifically the developments were written all over the wall leading up to the election to anyone who was paying attention to the fomenting of ethnic tension by Kibaki/PNU and Odinga/ODM”.
Similarly, those who are ‘shocked’ by events in Kenya also claim that Kenya had been a grand ‘beacon of stability, democracy and economic growth in Africa’, which Barbieri calls a misrepresentation of “the hardships and injustices that the vast majority of Kenyans desperately face on a daily basis”. This is because the “booming economic growth witnessed under the Kibaki regime,” through exorbitant corruption and increasing income inequality, has benefited only the elite.
Thirdly, Barbieri clarifies the significant role played by the United States in shoring up Kenya’s economic and political structures, to assist in its war on terror. US allies in the region—Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Djibouti and Somalia—are meant to act as a counterbalance to the threats of Eritrea, the Bashir regime in Sudan and the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia. The Kibaki administration has worked closely with the US in so called anti-terrorism operations along its coast. These raids have included the torture, round-up and extradition of the Muslim populations living there without being charged or given a trial. It is for such reasons of national interest and security that the US State Department promptly congratulated Kibaki on his election victory, even though “every diplomat in the country clearly knew of the irregularities in the election and the hastily swearing in process of the President”. Only much later did the US attempt to coerce Kibaki into sharing power with the opposition, again due to its own interest in a stable Kenya.
In his critique of international media in reporting the Kenyan conflict, Barbieri notes that journalists tend to report the news without proper historical context, and without respect for those they are discussing. The end product is ‘sensational and callous’ stereotyping. Barbieri laments that voices of Kenyans (and Africans) themselves are not heard. This critique can in fact apply to not only the recent reporting on Kenya, but to many African and other countries.
In light of these, particularly the first two myths, it will be interesting to see how the power sharing deal struck between President Kibaki and opposition leader Odinga will play out, and more importantly, how it will address the historical injustices and grievances leading to the violence. While there has been a lot of news regarding the new governance structure and its political implications, very little has been said about how the consequences and causes of the violence will be dealt with. How for instance, will those surviving in the IDP camps be resettled? What is being done to apprehend the perpetrators of the violence and crime? For the ordinary citizens of Kenya, these are the questions that need answering.
