Politicians walk thin line between creating, countering narratives

President Kenyatta addresses MPs and senators during the official opening of the 12th Parliament on September 12, 2017. PHOTO | FILE | MATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • Politicians are clearly influential, with some enjoying more influence than others.
  • Many Jubilee supporters believe that President Kenyatta was re-elected in August and are unsure of what an opposition government would bring.
  • Majority of Nasa supporters believe that Odinga won in 2007, that the election should have gone to a second round in 2013, and that the election was stolen once again in 2017.
  • Many opposition supporters want to protest, to stand up to the State, to oust the establishment elite, and to force through radical reforms.

It is common for politicians across the political divide to be blamed, and sometimes lauded, for the decisions and behaviour of their supporters. According to this logic, voters are mobilised, demonstrations are organised and violence is incited. However, while such accounts highlight real issues, they are too simplistic.

Politicians are clearly influential, with some enjoying more influence than others. This was evident in October when Nasa called for a boycott of the ‘fresh’ election. It was clear that, if Nasa, or indeed Mr Raila Odinga, had called upon opposition supporters to go out and vote, then a majority would have heeded the call. 

At a more general level, politicians spend much energy trying to persuade Kenyans who to vote for, while they also call for public displays of support and occasionally incite and organise violence.

POLITICIANS

At the same time, politicians have to acquire and then sustain their influence over time. As a result, they have to be regarded as people who will assist their constituents. This can be directly, through the channelling of resources and development projects, or, if they want to acquire more avid support, by engaging in a public struggle against injustice and fighting to ensure people’s interests are met.

In this vein, it is generally accepted that Uhuru Kenyatta became more popular following the post-election violence of 2007/8 and in the face of the International Criminal Court’s intervention; whilst Odinga’s popularity stems, in large part, from his long-standing struggle against the centre and for constitutional reform.

In turn, politicians can find themselves politically isolated if they ignore, at least too blatantly, local fears, grievances, interests and divisions; while easy mileage can be gained from playing upon communal narratives of angst and injustice, and promising clear and effective action.

Such dynamics are perhaps most evident at political rallies when measured language is usually met with boredom or outright hostility, while passionate and fiery language is often met with roars of support.

ACADEMIC ANALYSIS

To ignore this reality is to fail to see how politicians both help to shape local fears and perceptions, and simultaneously have to respond to the same. This is a problem at the level of academic analysis, but it also has important practical implications.

If we simply blame (or laud) politicians for the actions of their supporters, then we ignore the sentiments and perceptions which politicians are in conversation with.

This dynamic is always important, but is particularly critical today. In short, the level of political polarisation, while it has been fostered by politicians and an associated game of brinkmanship, also reflects popular perceptions and emotions, and a strong sense of injustice, frustration and anger.

Thus, many Jubilee supporters believe that President Kenyatta was re-elected in August and are unsure of what an opposition government would bring. Anger then aroused by the opposition’s unwillingness to forget the elections and “move on”, and by the economic hardship and uncertainty that appears to result from such “endless politics”.

ECONOMIC HARDSHIP

At the same time, the majority of Nasa supporters believe that Odinga won in 2007, that the election should have gone to a second round in 2013, and that the election was stolen once again in 2017. In turn, many blame the government for economic hardship and, among other things, are angry about what they see as an elite capture of the State, ethnic bias and police brutality.

Indeed, many ordinary citizens are clearly more radical than their leaders. This is evident from some recent statements on social media about “what the government should do” about Nasa, as well as from the frustrations voiced when Mr Odinga’s public inauguration was cancelled earlier this week.

PROTEST

Many opposition supporters want to protest, to stand up to the State, to oust the establishment elite, and to force through radical reforms.

The implication is that, even if a political solution to the current stalemate is found, the more deep-rooted sense of division and competition will be much harder to address. Nevertheless, it is something that is incredibly dangerous to ignore as, otherwise, these divisions will provide narratives of injustice and fear that can encourage the further radicalisation of political debate and action at some point in the future. 

 Gabrielle Lynch is a Professor of Comparative Politics, University of Warwick ([email protected]; @GabrielleLynch6)