To build trust, Kenyans must tolerate divergent opinions
What you need to know:
- Such “an injunction to ‘move on’ to leave the past behind in the name of a conciliatory future, is [sometimes] too quickly prescribed, resulting in repression rather than release of the traumatic event”.
- Different narratives of injustice and suffering characterise Kenyan realities, and what seems like justice to one party may look unjust to others.
Fear and tension are building up in the lead up to the historic July 7 or Saba Saba and the planned Cord rallies.
Yesterday, a friend in Naivasha telephoned me and spoke, with great concern, of how hundreds of Luos were leaving the area for fear of reprisals against assumed Cord supporters.
Their fear was fuelled by memories of the post-election violence, an awareness that underlying issues had not been addressed, and heightened ethnic division as evidenced by leaflets in Nakuru and Naivasha that warned particular communities to leave.
That discussion followed an e-mail from a human rights activist – in response to a suggestion for a meeting on Monday – that movement might be restricted on that day and “it may not be wise to meet”. Such anecdotal evidence of ethnic division, fear and uncertainty, is supported by political statements and newspaper reports, and highlights a glaring need to foster more cohesive relations across the country.
To date, elements within Jubilee have sought to use the importance of “peace” and “reconciliation” to delegitimise critical voices.
The logic is that Kenya enjoys a fragile peace; people need to work together to foster development and build a more united nation; and government critics are agents of division and chaos and are stooges of “the West”.
However, while presented as a fait accompli, this stance rests on a particular understanding of peace and reconciliation and ignores different views about how to “move on”.
Thus, one can argue that justice poses a threat to peace. Or, one can insist that substantive justice is a precondition for a long-term or sustainable peace.
This peace versus justice debate has attracted significant discussion in Kenya. My view lies somewhere in between – peace and justice sometimes come into conflict, but a certain level of justice is a requirement for sustainable peace.
DELEGITIMISED AND SUPPRESSED
There is also significant debate surrounding “reconciliation”. Current thinking is captured by philosopher Trudy Govier’s focus on reconciliation as (re)building trust where relations exist on a sliding scale, from non-violent coexistence to a situation where the “other” can be trusted to actively protect one’s interests. But how can trust, even in the minimal sense, be (re)built?
One strand of thinking is that it is best to forget the past and “move on”, and to recognise people’s mutual interests, for example, in peace and development – with the latter presented in purely technocratic terms.
For others such as Alexander Hirsch, in Theorizing Post-Conflict Reconciliation, such “an injunction to ‘move on’ to leave the past behind in the name of a conciliatory future, is [sometimes] too quickly prescribed, resulting in repression rather than release of the traumatic event”.
According to this thinking, disagreements are a part of daily life, with contention and debate lying at the heart of “politics” – the process of deciding who gets what, when, how and why. According to this view, it is infeasible and dangerous to stifle debate.
Instead, sociologist Leigh Payne argues that we should aim for “contentious coexistence [which] emphasises the reality and importance of competition over ideas and conflict over values and goals”. I largely agree with them.
Different narratives of injustice and suffering characterise Kenyan realities, and what seems like justice to one party may look unjust to others. For example, land claims of “local” communities may clash with those of existing users or titleholders, while different communities may claim overlapping land rights.
In short, Kenyans have different opinions about who should get what, when, how, and why. And a sense of trust – and level of reconciliation – is more likely to be built when divergent opinions are recognised, discussed, and weighed up, rather than delegitimised and suppressed.
This is not an argument for a national dialogue conference per se, which I am ambivalent about, but a broader point about the value of an independent media and active civil society, and the need for real debate between elected officials and political activists if more cohesive relations and a sustainable peace are to be built.
The writer is an Associate Professor of Comparative Politics, University of Warwick ([email protected]; @GabrielleLynch6)
