Peace must go hand in hand with justice

Voter registration goes on in Isiolo on January 18, 2017. PHOTO | PHOEBE OKALL | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • As the country’s next General Election approaches, it is thus understandable and important that there be an increased emphasis on the need for peace.

  • To this end, and as in 2013, there will likely be extensive peace messaging that emphasises the need to campaign, vote and accept election results in peace, and to reject and report any activities that might incite or foster violence.

Elections can be transformative: new leaders can come to power and the process itself can help enact an ideal of citizenship and stateness and legitimise key institutions. However, elections can also be disastrous: State institutions can be undermined in the face of popular perceptions of widespread incompetence, irregularities or malpractice; and violence can be used as a political tool, or can erupt as a result of popular anger. Moreover, when violence erupts, it causes great suffering to those affected, but also undermines socioeconomic development and strains interpersonal and communal relations.

The potential for organised and spontaneous violence is something that Kenyans are keenly aware of. The post-election violence of 2007-2008 still looms large in people’s memory, while the clashes of the early 1990s ensure that 2007-2008 is not seen as an anomaly. This history goes hand in hand with the fact that the Opposition regularly states that they have little faith in the electoral commission, judiciary and security services, while there is increased competition and tension around contests for new county level seats. In this context, many fear a repetition of election-related violence of some form, and seek to ensure that violence is avoided.

INCREASED EMPHASIS

As the country’s next General Election approaches, it is thus understandable and important that there be an increased emphasis on the need for peace. To this end, and as in 2013, there will likely be extensive peace messaging that emphasises the need to campaign, vote and accept election results in peace, and to reject and report any activities that might incite or foster violence.

In this vein, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission worked with local administrators, organisations and networks to monitor hate speech ahead of the 2013 election. While media houses and international organisations trained journalists on conflict-sensitive reporting; and clergy, theatre groups, musicians, private companies and so forth called upon Kenyans to vote in peace.

Such activities are worthwhile and deserve support. Indeed, it is clear that – together with a number of other developments, such as the inauguration of a new constitution – such calls helped to minimise violence around the 2013 election.

However, while the 2013 election was regarded by many Kenyans as successful largely because it was relatively peaceful, credible elections require more than that they be free of mass direct violence. Indeed, 2013, reminds us of how, an absence of violence can go hand in hand with an electoral process that is questioned by many, and which can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of key institutions.

CONFIDENCE LEVELS

In short, prior to the country’s last election, Kenyans had extremely high levels of confidence in the electoral commission and judiciary. However, a surprise first-round victory by the establishment alliance and failure of new technology introduced to protect the vote divided public opinion. As did the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the results following a petition brought by the political opposition and prominent civil society activists. In turn, many opposition supporters question the independence and neutrality of these bodies, and fear the possibility of further manipulation. As a result, 2013 was characterised by the absence of violence, but by high levels of inter-ethnic mistrust and a palpable sense of injustice amongst many Kenyans.

This links to another point, which is that, an idea of peace-at-all-costs can foster a repressive environment. For example, an idea articulated during last year’s elections in Uganda is that incumbents have helped to bring peace and stability, and that political change threatens the same. In turn, citizens were called upon to unite behind President Museveni’s government in the interests of stability and development. In this context, opposition was framed as not only anti-government, but also as dangerous and unpatriotic.

In turn, while a need to campaign and work for peace is critical given the costs of violence, it is also important to ensure that people feel free to voice their concerns and complaints.

Gabrielle Lynch is associate professor of comparative politics, University of Warwick, the United Kingdom.

Twitter: @GabrielleLynch6