Professors Assess Politics of Kenyan Election Violence

In recent weeks, the competition between newspapers’ coverage of Kenyan post-election violence has been almost as fierce as the conflict itself. Pictures of people trapped in burning churches, stories of youth fleeing machete-brandishing mobs, and assembly lines of carnage have plastered front pages, while clumsy comparisons have been made between the current violence and the genocide that haunted Rwanda over a decade ago. The political reality of the conflict, however, still seems to be unclear.

The violence erupted after election results were announced on Dec. 30, when opposition leader Raila Odinga (of Luo ethnicity) refused to acknowledge Mwai Kibaki’s (a Kikuyu) victory in the recent election on the basis that the results had been rigged. The mass killings brought on by this dispute represent the culmination of years of tension and resentment created by an ethnically-divided country. On either side of this ethnic division are deep-seated, festering tensions that have existed since Kenya gained independence from the British government in 1963.

“In some regions, elections acted as a trigger to the violence that was about other issues,” Columbia political science professor Kimuli Kasara said. “There had been ethnic clashes around election time in previous years.” She added that many conflicts regarding land distribution and resource allocation happened to be divided along ethnic lines.

School of International and Public Affairs professor Jacqueline Klopp, who has done extensive research in Kenya and lost a friend to the recent violence, said that it is important to understand that the violence in Kenya stems from complex political situations. Klopp clarified that both Kibaki’s government and the opposition have committed violence against civilians—particularly significant because senior officials in the opposition party have been implicated for involvement in ethnic cleansing in the past.

“They [opposition members] used attacks against the Kikuyu to divert attention from their own misdeeds,” Klopp said. “They are orchestrating violence, paying youth to kill and burn houses.”

Such attacks have spurred more violence in retaliation, and displaced youth are taking up arms out of a lack of hope for other opportunities. The names of the gangs that the displaced young people of the Luo tribe have created, such as “Taliban” or “The Baghdad Youth,” testify to the appeal that terrorist groups hold for these disillusioned youths.

Many Kenyans have said that ethnic factionalism is bolstered by competition for the government’s economic and commercial resources. Kenya’s GDP per capita is estimated at $1,600, and about 50 percent of its population lives below the poverty line.

Both professors expressed hope that a resolution can be reached and felt that the best way to achieve this goal would be if Kibaki and Odinga could sit down together and resolve the issues. At the same time, both were concerned that the violence could escalate in the near future.

Kasara outlined the biggest challenges to resolving the conflicts. “Both sides firmly believe they have a mandate to win,” she said. “Even if Kibaki’s supporters admit that the election was flawed, they argue that both sides were trying to rig the election.”
Klopp said that there is a great probability that a full-on civil war is looming, as the army may factionalize along ethnic lines. She also called for peacekeepers, emphasizing the importance of an investigation into the root causes of the violence.