Tribal hatred didn't cause violence in Kenya

[zomba]

By Sasha Chanoff
January 19, 2008
FROM READING recent headlines about Kenya, one would think that the post-election violence is the result of tribal hatreds. But this assessment is wrong.
"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," "tribal war," "tribal bloodletting" announced headlines around the world. A recent New York Times article said the mayhem in Kenya is a result of the "atavistic vein of tribal tension that . . . until now had not provoked widespread mayhem."
This is a facile explanation of Kenya's post-election violence. Yes, some people from different tribes are attacking one another. It's ugly and scary. But it's not inevitable; it's not part of the genetic makeup of the president's tribe, the Kikuyu, and the runner-up's tribe, the Luo or of any other tribes to both hate and kill one another.
Why the violence then? It's about politics and poverty. For their own gain, politicians exploit tribal differences and manipulate the poor and the destitute. It's no surprise that the perpetrators of "tribal violence" are usually idle young men who also loot and thieve while rampaging. Politicians often covertly hire or encourage them.
Don't think in terms of tribal violence. Consider, instead, "politically engineered violence," or "politically instigated violence." These are much more apt descriptions. And the difference is critical. To understand why, it's worth looking at some other places where the concept of ethnic hatred has been inaccurately and dangerously blamed as the trigger for mass atrocities.
After the Bosnian war broke out, the Clinton administration outlined a bold military plan of action to protect civilians. President Clinton had read "Balkan's Ghosts," the book by Robert Kaplan that depicts different people in the Balkans as destined to hate and kill one another. Influenced by this "ancient tribal hatreds" explanation of violence, Clinton turned fearful of a quagmire in what he perceived to be an unfixable region. His buy-in to thinking about Bosnia in terms of inevitable tribal animosity overlooked the commonness of interethnic life and intermarriage among Bosnians.
Serbian extremist and nationalistic rhetoric was a major trigger for the Bosnian war, not tribal hatred. Misunderstanding this cost lives as the United States and European powers shied away from military support. The consequences: More than 100,000 dead, the Srebrenica massacre, mass rapes, and destruction.
When the Rwandan genocide began, many journalists touted the same explanation - age-old tribal hatred - and in so doing gave the world more legroom not to act. In "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," author Samantha Power highlights this reporting and quotes the more nuanced and accurate perspective of an African studies professor who said, "Ethnic groups do have prejudices and people do tend to feel that they may be different from other groups. But it's not enough to make a person pick up a knife or a gun and kill somebody else. It is when politicians come and excite passion and try to threaten people" that violence can occur.
Kenya doesn't have a Slobodan Milosevic or Hutu extremists spreading propaganda of nationalism and hate to incite and justify killing. Comparisons to such extremes are out of place. They are also, unfortunately, emblematic of the pithy yet distorted media summaries.
Sure, there are differences and grievances between some of Kenya's 42 tribes, especially evident when politicking brought about violence in 1992 and 1997. More significantly, Nairobi hums with interethnic life. Intermarriage and people working and living alongside one another are the norm, not tribal tension.
But this election brought out unprecedented havoc. Many Kenyans felt cheated when election monitors reported vote-counting irregularities and the incumbent was sworn in for a second term. In the most impoverished and diverse areas, protests, riots, attacks, and looting broke out, mainly along tribal lines. The media quickly jumped on the "tribal hatred" explanation.
Kenyan intellectuals, such as Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai and Binyavanga Wainaina, have countered this portrayal, writing about the political roots of the violence. Wainaina highlights power-hungry politicians exploiting ethnic sentiments. The result can be serious and spiraling violence, a Pandora's box of vengeance. The backdrop, though, is politics and poverty, not genetics or simmering tribal animosity. But it's easier to accept (and write about) this explanation than to examine the complexities of political violence. It's easy to buy into misleading stereotypes, throw up our hands, and think, "what can you do, that's Africa."
To do nothing because we believe nothing can be done, because it's easy to believe the violence is inevitable, is to turn our backs on a country that is teetering on the edge of real democracy. We can act, and act decisively. We must influence and support Kenya to institute fair and transparent political processes. That is in its best interest and ours.
Sasha Chanoff is cofounder and executive director of the humanitarian organization Mapendo International.

 

[zomba]

Source: Nipashe

Subject: [Kiswahili] Mapinduzi ya Odinga Kenya yatakuwa na athari gani Afrika?

Mapinduzi ya Odinga Kenya yatakuwa na athari gani Afrika?

21 Jan 2008
By Mwondoshah Mfanga

Kwamba Raila Odinga wa ODM, mgombea urais Kenya ambaye anamlalamikia
Rais Emilio Mwai Kibaki kwa kuiba kura ili kushinda katika
kinyang`anyiro cha Urais mwezi uliopita, ataukwaa urais ni suala la
siku au miezi michache tu na sio kwamba halipo au haliwezekani.

Kila kigezo cha kisiasa na kisheria nchini Kenya na katika nyanja za
kimataifa zinaonyesha kuwa kwa njia yoyote mambo yanavyokwenda
yanaelekea kumweka Raila madarakani na Kibaki kuachia ngazi vinginevyo
nchi itaingia katika mgogoro mkubwa zaidi wa kisiasa na kijamii.

Kwa jinsi mambo yanavyokwenda nchini humo inaelekea kuwa Rais Kibaki
hakuwa tayari kuachia madaraka baada ya kumaliza kipindi chake cha
miaka mitato (2002-2007). Lakini pia inaelekea kwamba hakuwa pia
amejitayarisha kuondoka baada ya kuona anaelekea kushindwa.

Kinachotokea sasa ni kuwa, yaelekea Kibaki ameng`ang`ania kushika
madaraka ili kujitayarisha kuondoka baada ya kuona kuwa ushindi wa
Raila ni dhahiri.

Dhana hapa zinapingana na inavyoelekea baadhi ya wanazuoni wa kisiasa
wanautazama mgogoro uliopo Kenya kwa sasa kama vile ni suala tu la
uchaguzi na kuibwa kwa kura mambo yalivyopelekea kutokea kwa maasi na
mauaji.

Wengine wanalitazama suala hili kama migongano ya kimakabila na hivyo
wanaona kuwa kuondokana na hali hiyo pengine ni kugawanya majimbo
mbalimbali ya nchi hiyo ili hatimaye kuua ule ushawishi wa makabila
ambao unapelekea katika kusambaratisha umoja wa kitaifa.

Lakini ukiitazama hali iliyopo nchini Kenya na historia yake tangu
enzi za kupigania uhuru utaona kuwa mgogoro uliopo nchini humo sio
suala la uchaguzi, wizi wa kura au ushindani katika misingi ya
kikabila tu kama watu wengi wavyojaribu kubainisha mambo.

Aliyekuwa Mshauri wa masuala ya kisiasa wa Rais Francois Miterand wa
Ufaransa, Regis Debray, aliwahi kusema: Kamwe sisi binadamu hatupo
makini katika kuzitazama zama zetu.

Mara nyingi tunatazama historia katika jukwaa ikiwa imevaa baraka la
wakati uliopita na tunapoteza maana ya mchezo mzima.

Kila mara historia inaposonga mbele muendelezo katika kuiba dua na
kuitalii ni lazima ufanywe, kwani wakati mwingine tunaweza tukaiona
hali kuwa ni ya kawaida kumbe ni mapinduzi ya kweli.``

Hali ya Kenya na ile ya sasa ya Afrika ya Kusini, zinawatatanisha sana
wanazuoni wengi, lakini zinaashiria kitu kimoja kikubwa kwamba kuna
mapinduzi-fifi.

Ile ya Kenya inaashiria kupatikana kwa kile baba wa Raila, Odinga
Oginga, alichokiita ``Not yet Uhuru`` kwamba bado uhuru Kenya na bara
la Afrika haujapatikana na kwamba hii inaashiria uhodhi wa madaraka ya
kisiasa, ardhi na hata nyenzo za kiuchumi na baadhi ya watu au
makabila yanayochukua nafasi ya Wakoloni.

Hali inayojidhihirisha kikweli kweli ni ile ya walio nacho dhidi ya
wale wasio nacho na kabila la Kikikuyu linaonekana kuwa limetumia
nafasi liliyo nayo kwa ajili ya kuwaneemesha watu wake hata katika
maeneo wanayoishi makabila mengine.

Hii pia imelifanya kabila (ambalo pia lina watu wengi zaidi, ingawa
aliyekuwa Rais wa nchi hiyo kabla ya kuja kwa Kibaki, Daniel arap Moi
aliwahi kusema kuwa hakuna kabila kubwa nchini humo kuliko lile la
kwake la Wakalenjin) hili kushikilia madaraka ya kisiasa na pengine
kuhakikisha kuwa yule anayeshika madaraka ya kisiasa ni lazima atimize
matakwa ya kabila hilo ya kiuchumi.

Lakini suala kubwa ni kuwa ni kwa nini baadhi ya wanasayansi wa siasa
wanashikilia kuwa kinachotokea nchini Kenya sasa hivi ni mapinduzi ya
Raila.

Historia inatupeleka hadi nyuma wakati wa kupigania uhuru ambapo
Wakenya wakishirikaina na chini ya Kenya African Union (KAU) na
baadaye KANU walipata uhuru lakini mara tu baada ya uhuru huo baadhi
ya viongozi wa juu nchini humo walitokea kuwatenga wanaharakati na
kushikana na Wazungu katika harakati mpya za kuhakikisha kuwa Mkenya
Mweusi anachukua nafasi ya Mkoloni Mweupe.

Baba yake Raila anaandika katika kitabu chake cha `Not Yet uhuru` mara
tu baada ya kutoka katika chama cha KANU na kuunda Kenya People Union
(KPU) kuwa:``Ndani ya Kenya mapambano yaliyo mbele yetu sasa yatakuwa
magumu ya nguvu na yenye kuhitaji uangalifu mkubwa.

Tunapambana kuwazuia Wakenya Weusi wanaowasilisha matakwa ya watawala
wa nchi hii kama warithi wa watawala walioondoka wa kikoloni…
Sijidanganyi kwa kutoka kwangu ndani ya serikali hii iliyopo
madarakani na kuunda chama kitakachotafuta ufumbuzi wa matatizo
yanayowakabili wananchi wetu.

Kwani adhima yetu ni kuwakilisha matakwa ya wananchi wa Kenya ambayo
lazima yashinde hata kama harakati zenyewe zitakuwa za muda mrefu na
ngumu.``

Oginga, Bildad Kaggia, Denis Akumu, Achieng Oneko, Tom Okelo-Odongo na
baadhi ya wana KANU ni miongoni mwa wanachama wa chama hicho ambao
waliachia ngazi na kuunda KPU mwaka 1966 wakieleza kuwa sera za
serikali zilikuwa zinakwenda kinyume na makubaliano ya awali na kuwa
walioshiriki katika kutafuta uhuru wa nchi hiyo walikuwa wamepanguliwa
kando na badala yake wale wenye uhusiano na wakoloni ndio waliokalia
madaraka.

Oginga anatabiri kuwa mapinduzi ya Wakenya walio wengi na
waliosahaulika yatakamilika hapo tu wengi kati ya wanaomaliza shule
watapobaki bila kazi, wasio na kazi wanakuwa wakali katika mitaa na
wasio na kazi, wenye kunyanyasika na wakulima watakapokufa njaa au
kuingia katika hali ngumu ya kimaisha kiasi kwamba uvumilivu
utashindikana.

Ukitanzama hali ya Kenya kwa hivi sasa inaendana na utabiri huu
uliofanywa zaidi ya miaka 40 iliyopita na baba mtu-wakati baadhi ya
wakubwa wachache wa makabila fulani wakishirikana na Wazungu ndio
wanaohodhi ardhi, wanaokufa njaa, maskini, wasio na kazi na jua kali,
vibaka na wezi wanaongezeka mitaani na kuchafua amani na usalama wa
nchi.

Tatizo la Kenya ni kuwa mfumo wake wa uchumi na siasa unasadifu kabila
moja au baadhi yenye nguvu za kiuchumi pia kutawala kisiasa na kuhodhi
sehemu kubwa ya ardhi.

Kwa hiyo mapinduzi ya Raila ambayo hayakuanza na muasisi huyu wa
Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) bali baba yake hayakuanza jana.

Katika chaguzi zote zilizopita hata wakati wa utawala wa Daniel arap
Moi, mapambano siku zote yalikuwa ni katika vigezo hivi alivyokuwa
akivipigania baba yake dhidi ya hodhi ya mali na wasio nacho.

Tofauti ya wakati huu na nyakati zilizopita ni kuwa awali harakati
hizi zilionekana kama ni vita ya Waluo dhidi ya Wakikuyu.

Lakini jinsi siku zilivyokwenda inaelekea kama harakati za mapambano
zimevuka vigezo hivi vya kikabila ambavyo vimekuwa vikitumika na hivyo
masuala muhimu kuonekana kuwa ni walio nacho dhidi ya wasio nacho.

Anazungumza mwandishi mmoja wa Kiingereza ambaye alikuwa nchini Kenya
wakati wa uchaguzi kuwa suala sio tena la ukabila bali ni la wale
walio nacho dhidi ya wale wasiokuwa nacho.

Na kwa vile wengi walionacho wametokea kuwa ni Wakikuyu, basi
inaonekana kama ni harakati baina ya makabila kumbe ukweli ni kuwa si
hivyo.

Jambo ambalo wapatanishi wanashindwa kuliona kwa sasa ni kuwa hali ya
Kenya ni tete zaidi kuliko wanavyoiona na kwamba suala sio la uchaguzi
ulioharibika peke yake. Bali ni kuwa ilibidi uchaguzi wenyewe
uharibike au uharibiwe kutokana na hali ya utata uliyopo.

Mahojiano na Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Uchaguzi ya Kenya Bw Kivuitu
yanaonyesha kuwa, alikuwa anajua jambo fulani kubwa zaidi kati ya
makundi ya wagombea hao wawili kabla hata ya kutangaza majibu na hivyo
kuamua kuwa ni vema ampe ushindi Kibaki na sio Raila.

Kwamba hata kama Raila ndiye aliyeshinda, angemtangaza haina maana
kuwa kusingezuka fujo, na pengine kubwa zaidi kuliko zile zilizotokea
kwa kutangazwa Kibaki.

Hii ina maana kuwa alitoa maamuzi yake kwa kulingana na sosholojia
pengine na saikolojia ya Wakenya zaidi kuliko kuangalia mshindi wa
kweli.

Hali ya kwamba wanaonyanyaswa wanataka kuchukua madaraka, lakini
hawana dhima ya kufanya hivyo kwa sababu hali haiwaruhusu na hali ya
kuwa walio na madaraka wanataka kuendelea kutawala lakini wanashindwa
kufanya hivyo kwa sababu wakati wao umeshapita.

Hizi ni alama za mapinduzi-fifi ambazo ni vema kuzielewa wakati wa
kuchambua masuala ya kisiasa jamii yanayoitanza hali tete ya Kenya.

Nini basi athari za mapinduzi-fifi haya. Moja ni kuwa endapo
yatakamilika na Raila kushika madaraka hali ya Kenya itabadilika na
kuwa kitu kingine kabisa ambacho, kinaweza pia kubadilisha hali nzima
ya kisiasa na pengine uchumi katika eneo hili la Afrika.

Suala la ukabila Kenya ni lazima litashughulikiwa, ikiwa ni pamoja na
kugawa majimbo ya sasa ya nchi hiyo kuwa mengi zaidi kwa maana ya
kujaribu kuondoa ukabila.

Lakini mapinduzi makubwa zaidi ni yale yanayohusiana na tawala
malimbali katika Afrika ambazo zimekuwa zikiiba kura katika kila
uchaguzi ili kuendeleza kuwepo kwao katika madaraka.

Kilichotokea Kenya kitakuwa ni somo kubwa sana na endapo Raila
ataapishwa itapelekea watu wengi kujifunza kutokana na hali ya vurugu
katika nchi hiyo.

Tatu ni suala la ardhi ambalo limekuwa na ugumu wake katika nchi hiyo
kwa maana ya kuwa sehemu kubwa ya nchi hiyo ilitoka katika mikono ya
Wazungu na kuingia katika mikono ya Weusi wachache ambao ndio
wanaoinyonya Kenya wakishirikiana na baadhi ya wakoloni.

Hili litabadilika kwa kiwangoo kikubwa na pengine kuzifanya hali za
Afrika ya Kusini, Namibia na Zimbabwe ambazo kwa kiasi fulani
zinafanana nayo pia kubadilika.

Jambo lingine ambalo pia litabadilika kwa kiwango kikubwa ni masuala
yanayohusu wafanyakazi wa nchi hiyo na pengine katika nchi nyingine za
Afrika ambapo aidha vyama vya wafanyakazi vilitekwa na vyama vya
kifanyakazi vya kibeberu au na serikali zilizopo madarakani na
kuwafanya wafanyakazi kupoteza haki zao na harakati katika kutafuta
maslahi yao.

Jumuiya ya Afrika Mashariki pia itabadilika na huenda suala la
shirikisho likawa rahisi zaidi hususan ikitiliwa maanani kuwa, moja
kati ya vigezo Watanzania walivyovitaja ni suala la ukabila Kenya,
vita nchini Uganda na magomvi ya Watutsi na Wahutu huko Rwanda na
Burundi.

* SOURCE: Nipashe

 

[The Truth]

By Sasha Chanoff
January 19, 2008
FROM READING recent headlines about Kenya, one would think that the post-election violence is the result of tribal hatreds. But this assessment is wrong.
"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," "tribal war," "tribal bloodletting" announced headlines around the world. A recent New York Times article said the mayhem in Kenya is a result of the "atavistic vein of tribal tension that . . . until now had not provoked widespread mayhem."
This is a facile explanation of Kenya's post-election violence. Yes, some people from different tribes are attacking one another. It's ugly and scary. But it's not inevitable; it's not part of the genetic makeup of the president's tribe, the Kikuyu, and the runner-up's tribe, the Luo or of any other tribes to both hate and kill one another.
Why the violence then? It's about politics and poverty. For their own gain, politicians exploit tribal differences and manipulate the poor and the destitute. It's no surprise that the perpetrators of "tribal violence" are usually idle young men who also loot and thieve while rampaging. Politicians often covertly hire or encourage them.
Don't think in terms of tribal violence. Consider, instead, "politically engineered violence," or "politically instigated violence." These are much more apt descriptions. And the difference is critical. To understand why, it's worth looking at some other places where the concept of ethnic hatred has been inaccurately and dangerously blamed as the trigger for mass atrocities.
After the Bosnian war broke out, the Clinton administration outlined a bold military plan of action to protect civilians. President Clinton had read "Balkan's Ghosts," the book by Robert Kaplan that depicts different people in the Balkans as destined to hate and kill one another. Influenced by this "ancient tribal hatreds" explanation of violence, Clinton turned fearful of a quagmire in what he perceived to be an unfixable region. His buy-in to thinking about Bosnia in terms of inevitable tribal animosity overlooked the commonness of interethnic life and intermarriage among Bosnians.
Serbian extremist and nationalistic rhetoric was a major trigger for the Bosnian war, not tribal hatred. Misunderstanding this cost lives as the United States and European powers shied away from military support. The consequences: More than 100,000 dead, the Srebrenica massacre, mass rapes, and destruction.
When the Rwandan genocide began, many journalists touted the same explanation - age-old tribal hatred - and in so doing gave the world more legroom not to act. In "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," author Samantha Power highlights this reporting and quotes the more nuanced and accurate perspective of an African studies professor who said, "Ethnic groups do have prejudices and people do tend to feel that they may be different from other groups. But it's not enough to make a person pick up a knife or a gun and kill somebody else. It is when politicians come and excite passion and try to threaten people" that violence can occur.
Kenya doesn't have a Slobodan Milosevic or Hutu extremists spreading propaganda of nationalism and hate to incite and justify killing. Comparisons to such extremes are out of place. They are also, unfortunately, emblematic of the pithy yet distorted media summaries.
Sure, there are differences and grievances between some of Kenya's 42 tribes, especially evident when politicking brought about violence in 1992 and 1997. More significantly, Nairobi hums with interethnic life. Intermarriage and people working and living alongside one another are the norm, not tribal tension.
But this election brought out unprecedented havoc. Many Kenyans felt cheated when election monitors reported vote-counting irregularities and the incumbent was sworn in for a second term. In the most impoverished and diverse areas, protests, riots, attacks, and looting broke out, mainly along tribal lines. The media quickly jumped on the "tribal hatred" explanation.
Kenyan intellectuals, such as Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai and Binyavanga Wainaina, have countered this portrayal, writing about the political roots of the violence. Wainaina highlights power-hungry politicians exploiting ethnic sentiments. The result can be serious and spiraling violence, a Pandora's box of vengeance. The backdrop, though, is politics and poverty, not genetics or simmering tribal animosity. But it's easier to accept (and write about) this explanation than to examine the complexities of political violence. It's easy to buy into misleading stereotypes, throw up our hands, and think, "what can you do, that's Africa."
To do nothing because we believe nothing can be done, because it's easy to believe the violence is inevitable, is to turn our backs on a country that is teetering on the edge of real democracy. We can act, and act decisively. We must influence and support Kenya to institute fair and transparent political processes. That is in its best interest and ours.
Sasha Chanoff is cofounder and executive director of the humanitarian organization Mapendo International.

Poverty and politics are just symptoms. The root cause is low average IQ (~72 points) of the population. Politicians are able to exploit and manipulate the people into violence if the people have low IQ. It would have been almost impossible for the politicians to do that in a society with a higher average IQ.

 

[Pundit]

I did not know all Kenyans took IQ tests and the average was 72.

Was the IQ test mainly about tea farming or Euclidean geometry?

 

[MzalendoHalisi]

Nauliza tu kwa curiosity... hivi ikitokea huu mshike mshike Tz ni watu wa kabila gani wanachukiwa?

Ni Wachagga? Maana ndo wamejaa kila kona Tz wanafanya biashara!

Wachaga wanaweza kulinyanishwa na Wakikuyu wa Kenya?

 

[The Truth]

I did not know all Kenyans took IQ tests and the average was 72.

They didn't have to, a significant enough testing sample is usually sufficient in predicting a trend in the general population. Similarly, I can say human beings on average have two arms and two legs without seeing all human beings. The human beings I have seen so far provide me with a significant enough sample to come to a conclusion that human beings on average have two arms and two legs.

Was the IQ test mainly about tea farming or Euclidean geometry?

IQ tests do not usually test any specific knowledge. They focus on your reasoning, critical thinking and other cognitive abilities. So there is no focus on specific subject.