No real reason to curtail the work of civil society groups

It is no surprise that Uhuru Kenyatta has, once again, marked out civil society and donors for demonisation as he starts his election campaign.

Using a British PR company, this tactic worked in 2013, as he managed to paint himself a victim of a non-existent conspiracy, by vilifying accountability-focused NGOs and donors.

This meant that he spent little time dealing with the real victims of the 2007/8 crisis, especially those who suffered at the hands of the Mungiki and police in Naivasha and Nakuru.

These victims still languish in poverty, forgotten and marginalised.

The creation of an “enemy” is a tried and tested tactic that dictators use.

Donald Trump successfully used this in the US recently, vilifying Mexicans, blacks and women.

And this is the same approach the far right UKIP party used in ensuring the Brexit vote.

Three things stand out. First, today most donors in Kenya are firmly on Mr Kenyatta’s side, apologising for him, and making excuses for the excesses of his regime.

Those that have access to him claim he is serious about corruption, even though they can’t quite point out what actions he has taken that are not symbolic, nor can they explain why and how this regime is the most corrupt ever in Kenya’s history.

They also desperately try to find some good news in policing and security even when they know better than most that our police thrive through extortion, extrajudicial killings and dispersing legal and peaceful protests.

And they know that the KDF’s invasion and continued stay in Somalia is more about “business” and smuggling, than it is about security in Kenya.

INFORMED PEOPLE
That Mr Kenyatta can vilify them, knowing that many are apologists for his regime — at least since the ICC charges were dropped because witnesses had been killed, compromised or intimidated — speaks volumes about his need to create a bogey man that can rally people towards him again and ensure that his supporters do not become complacent.

Secondly, only dictators fear an educated populace that can make informed decisions.

Dictators prefer ignorant and uninformed people who will do as they are told, and whose information is controlled and limited.

Civic education is about providing information that is often uncommon to ordinary people.

Good civic education should include explaining the extent of corruption and who has benefited from it, tribalism and its manifestations, and the positions of different players on devolution.

And it should also be about ensuring that people vote for their particular interests, especially against the idea of a “six-piece suit” approach for one party.

All the major parties and political players detest wananchi being educated against the “six-piece” approach for it weakens the power of the party leaders, and creates leaders who are “owned” by the people themselves and who, thus, owe their constituents their loyalty.

Knowing that you do not need the blessings of the Big Man in your constituency or county creates a streak of independence that the Big Men loath.

But it also helps ordinary people get the dividends of the election as these candidates are more likely to focus on the direct and indirect needs of their people.

ONSLAUGHT
Third, we can be sure we will soon see a legal and political campaign against certain NGOs and their leaders that is bound to be more muscular, abusive and illegal, especially now that the role of overseeing NGOs has been moved to the Security docket, something common in dictatorships.

Already Gladwell Otieno of AfriCog has been the subject of threats by a legal advisor to Mr Kenyatta at a conference at The Hague.

But this is not confined to Jubilee.

Recently Mr Shakeel Shabir, an MP from Kisumu, used exactly the same tactics threatening and heckling Lucy Hannan of InformAction at an anti-corruption conference in Panama, for showing video clips of police bribery and of a chief’s clerk who demanded money to register people for ID cards.

Clearly our politicians like neither accountability nor truth.

This regime feels it needs to control NGOs while letting businesses have free rein.

Yet, the world over, businesses are preferred to NGOs as cover for insecurity, terrorism, corruption and illegality.

Clearly the problem with NGOs is that they seek accountability.

[email protected]