Why are Kenyans afraid of rallies and dialogue?

Ever since Raila Odinga returned from the US and called for national dialogue while announcing a series of public rallies over a month ago, the country has been gripped with anxiety.

The call for dialogue and the public rallies that have been held around the country in the past month are collectively viewed by some as a push by the Coalition for Reform and Democracy to share power.

This view is puzzling given Kenya’s constitutional architecture. Coalitions can be crafted before elections to win the presidential election and after the elections to secure parliamentary majorities in order to deliver on legislative programmes.

As matters stand, the only power-sharing arrangement possible is in Parliament, where a new coalition can be registered to achieve legislative goals and approve appointments, with possible trade-offs in public jobs.

Others have interpreted the calls for dialogue as summons to change the way the government is organised, even though such a change would not be possible without a referendum on the Constitution.

Yet others view the ongoing political contest as a foil for bloodshed, chaos and revolution. Some view the call for dialogue as a political risk likely to pave the way for the removal of the President from power.

Yet, the exits from the presidency are clearly marked: expiry of the term of office of the occupant, resignation, and impeachment. The processes in each instance are clearly outlined in the Constitution and known to both the Government and the Opposition.

The only time every Kenyan is obligated to “rise up” is in defence of the Constitution. Any attempts to establish a government by any other means other than those set out in Constitution would be the only way to invite revolution.

These facts notwithstanding, a state of paranoia and panic has gripped the country in the lead-up to the public rally on July 7, on the anniversary of the thwarted Saba Saba meeting to demand political plurality in 1990.

PEACEABLY AND UNARMED

One outcome has been the emergence of a trend to zone off areas where rallies cannot be held. Subsequently, threatening leaflets have appeared in Kipini at the coast, Nakuru Town and Naivasha, which have not yielded prosecutions but rather vacant assurances of safety from security officials.

The latter have thrice attempted to dissuade organisers from holding public rallies on the pretext that they could not guarantee their safety. Interestingly, after repeated last-minute turnarounds, all of the meetings in question have been concluded without incident.

Officially and unofficially, a vicious propaganda campaign spearheaded by leaders in government has played on public fears of anarchy, disruption and economic collapse.

Additionally, several leaders have recorded statements with regard to allegations of hate speech. While this is as it should be at all times, the high numbers in a very short period suggests a renewed enthusiasm that is not entirely unconnected to the political contestations in the public sphere.

The suited and deodorised private sector has warned that demands for dialogue raise political temperatures and cause tension. They believe that these calls will result in violence, loss of property and perhaps lives.

It seems that public voice is only required at election time, and in the payment of taxes, period.

Yet, the right to assemble peaceably and unarmed to petition the authorities is guaranteed in Constitution. The freedom of movement and to reside anywhere in the country is similarly provided for and protected. So is the freedom of opinion, speech, conscience and belief.

It is ironical that 24 years after the July 7, 1990, dialogue and public rallies produce such fear and panic from government even with a four-year-old Constitution that boasts one of the most extensive Bill of Rights. It is still a long walk to freedom.

[email protected]