I have been mulling over the current violence in Kenya since the New Year, trying to congeal my feelings into coherent thought. I had previously heard that the Kenyan electoral system was revered as being one of the best in Africa, and of course this violence is a tragedy. Three hundred people have died in rioting, many burned to death seeking sanctuary within a church. From what I understand, the violence was sparked by a close election, the confusion of the news media being shut down during the election, the unilateral declaration of victory by the incumbent and the statement from the election chairperson saying that he could not say who had actually won.
However I believe one of the biggest problems with this issue is its coverage in the news. I not a person who comments on the political correctness of words, however I do have a problem with inaccurate and misleading terminology. In particular, I am referring to the words tribal and tribalism. A quick scanning of headlines on Kenya include "Tribalism Isn't on the Ballot, But in Kenya It's Key Issue" (- Washington Post), "Tribalism's latest stalking ground" (- National Post) and "Old scores settled in Kenya's tribal war" (- Daily Telegraph).
So what's the problem here? The word "tribalism" incorrectly simplifies a complex situation, worse yet it is a slur. It conjures up images of nomads, of pre-industrial society, and of irresolvable blood rivalries. Thus the use of the word tribalism is at best inaccurate, and at worst bigoted. Is it too much to ask for accuracy and dare I say it a little nuance in our news? The spark was a close election and confusion, the fuel was political opportunists using existing racial mistrust as tool to get themselves more power in the chaos.
Additional Source:
Diane Rehm Show: January 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)
_________________________
Addendum:
I found this BBC article after writing my editorial. I thought I would add it because it comes to many of the same conclusions and goes into more depth on the details.
"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," screams the front page banner in the International Herald Tribune. "Kenya plunges into interethnic violence," says Le Monde.
But headlines can be misleading.
It is certainly true that the post-electoral violence in Kenya has taken on a tribal character.
Members of the incumbent (and controversially re-installed) President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe have been pitted against other smaller tribes.
But that is only part of the story.
A more complete headline might be: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population. ..." - BBC Africa News
2 comments:
Alright, so you're right the tribalism is quite possibly misrepresented by Western media outlets. Your annoyance at these outlets for overusing the term may be clouding the issue though. "Tribalism" is used so much by outlets because it is a critical part of their society that we have very little to compare it to in our own social system. For example, I live 1000 miles from my grandparents, 1500 miles from my parents, have family on both coasts, additional family in Alaska, and am about 2000 miles from you... Large close knit communities really not much my style.
I think this leads to basic, shall we call it "translation issues" between western populations and "trouble spots" such as Africa and the middle east. Tribal ties are so far removed from us, that we don't consider them to be acceptable motives. Groups like Hamas have no equivalent here, but that Gaza is a whole different disscussion.
In my opinion, the rioting in Kenya is a prefect example of reactionary violence. If we're at a bar and somebody hits you, regardless of the quality of their reasons, I will hit them. Reactionary violence. Now multiply it. The bar is filled with interconnected friends. This guy's brother hits me, my father hits him, his uncles jump my uncles, because they are going to jump in at any time. Janelle stabs the original guy for breaking your nose. It's a disaster, all caused by the fact that I have a personal tie to you.
In Africa, you are beholden to your tribe first, and your nation second. Because if you need help, your gov't might help you, but your tribe will help you, even at cost to themselves. Then you have political parties growing out of tribes, taking command of the national level, but people are beholden to the government because of the tribe that leaser belongs to, other leaders from other tribes cannot be trusted the way yours can. Add a large dose of poverty and corruption and you're in a bad spot.
So yes, media outlets may be using "tribalism" as an easy explanation, and ignoring the political issues at hand. That being said violence continued today a day after the faction leaders met to discuss political issues with the Sec Gen of the UN yesterday. This certainly implies a separate cause for the violence, and tribalism would be what I would be fighting because of there.
Today I attended a seminar on Kenya's political climate. It was "headlined" by one of the few female parliamentary candidates that ran in 07. She talked a lot about the post-election violence, as well as highlighting the problems facing women in the country's political arena.
She was, as you were, disgruntled by western media outlets labeling of the "tribal violence". Her stance on the issue was that it was, at it's core, political protests against corruption. Violence to this and other issues, such as land use, was encouraged, and even paid for by tribal elders. This lead to much of the violence being along tribal lines, but not for tribal differences, rather it was over land use issues that the government has failed to resolve.
There were numerous cases of "warring" tribes taking each other in from the violence.
Another speaker pointed out that half the deaths in Kenya were caused by police in response to the protests. Live rounds were regularly used by riot police the moment anti-government protests turned violent. I do not know the source of her numbers, but the scenario is quite believable.
Concerning technology in Africa, one of the main reasons the populace believed they were robbed of the election is the widespread use of texting. Landlines are fairly rare, but cell phones are apparently quite common. Local election results were posted at each polling place. This information was spread through texting, and it was widely held by the populace that the challenging candidate won by a large margin. When results were delayed and eventually announced in favor of the incumbent, the protests that eventually turned violent began.
Post a Comment