Humans are ethnic by nature, it therefore does not come as a surprise that politicians and media are able to manipulate this human trait with ease. Additionally, globalisation is leading to an enhanced human movement creating ethnic affiliations as a result of increased competition, reduced and diminished access to resources and leading to a rise in negative perceptions. The emerging tensions are a cause for worry especially where liberated media fails in its responsibility and portrays differences in societies such as cultures and history in the negative.

Governments and civil societies should and must take a leadership role in promoting ethnic diversity divorced from manipulative politics and co-opted media. Unprofessional media in immature democracies does not necessarily guarantee the delivery of democracy. This has been shown in many nations across the world, however, the role of positive media in opening democratic spaces and promoting positive ethnicity must be recognised and applauded.

The speakers at this seminar explored this very topical issue that transcends every discipline of humanity and development. The speakers showed that ethnicity does not live in Africa. Ethnicity is a global issue and should be considered as such. They also pointed out that ethnic tensions have the potential to shake the global peace and security if not recognised and appropriate mechanisms instituted to comprehensively diffuse them as part of political and democratic processes. The case examples ranged from Ethiopia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya and Zimbabwe and with a global outlook. According to Sabelo Ndlovu, the seminar was brilliant and it demonstrated beyond doubt the centrality of ethnicity in fueling instability and conflict in Africa. It also demonstrated that the African continent suffers from common issues. More importantly ethnicity is a global problem that requires a global strategy to manage it. He was also quick to point out that because African nations are young ethnicity is more pronounced within our continent where poverty and inequalities manifest themselves as ethnicity.

The question of ethnicity and conflict was interrogated from the perspective of media, history, religion, identity, belonging, politics, power and eventually the speakers defined how the question of ethnicity will manifest itself in the future. It is only by understanding these underlying dynamics, that it is possible to mitigate any potential ethnically inclined conflicts in the future. Based on this meeting, the team finally produced a declaration and recommendation- the Helsinki Ethnic Action Declaration (HEAD).

Get further details here!

Sustainable development does not happen in a vacuum. Like all events in human history, it happens as a result of human initiative. This human initiative cannot be merely abstract or imaginary. It must come to life in terms of concrete human actions, observable as human behavior. Furthermore, acts pursuant to sustainable development must be ethical, i.e., they entail distinguishing right from wrong regarding both means and ends. The goal of sustainable development is certainly a good goal: the common good of humanity and the “nuptial covenant” between humanity and the human habitat.

Merriam-Webster defined “ethics” as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”, and a “code of ethics” defines “the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.” The history of ethics goes back to the Greek philosophers (Aristotle) in particular, and has many ramifications for all conceivable situations (e.g., professional ethics, financial ethics, government ethics, etc.). Wikipedia provides a good summary: “Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is “the good life”, the life worth living or life that is simply not satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.”

Read More….

Works and analysis in humanities and social sciences literature have been for a long time focused on attempts to explain why ethno conflicts and other conflicts sometimes occur and sometime not; and why, when they occur, the results are sometimes atrocious, leading to genocide, some are not. However, those very questions and attempts, put under a terminological umbrella of ethno-religious-nationalist conflicts, seemingly tend to complicate problems rather than make the problems better understood.

Why genocides, mass killings, massacres, and mass rapes, tragedies with which we are concerned, should be seen through ethno-religious-nationalist conflicts frameworks? When our very concern is to understand these “dark” sides of human life, then ethno-religious-nationalist analysis could probably be a prejudice unconsciously constructing the “fact” in limited scholarly assumptions at the expense of an analysis open to explanations other than that triad of conflict. By so saying, I would not insist that there exists such a “neutral” point of view; rather, I argue that such predetermined frameworks would leave many explanations other than ethno-religious-nationalist ones unexplained.

Ethnicity, religion, and nationality, notwithstanding their frequent symbolic uses, are merely identities among other identities which individuals belong to. In the heart of a conflict, I would argue, identity is simply a tool to achieve something other than the identity itself. The conflicting groups would strive to find the most powerful tool available at the time being to increase their strength by which they would achieve their common cause. Identity which is providing sense of belonging is desirable to build up a group’s unity. Because no one really has one single identity, the interest groups have to find the most dominant identity that, in turn, provides most powerful support to achieve their goal. When religion is the most powerful identity available among people in a certain place and time, the interest groups will rely on the religion; and when religion is not powerful enough, they would shift to another identity — ethnicity, nationality, geography, shared-history, language, and so on. More……

——————————————————————————————–
Both President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga will be evading a historic responsibility if they fail to resolve issues that are pertinent to a peaceful transition and the very future of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Kenya. The coalition government was negotiated primarily because President Kibaki was regarded as deceptive and undemocratic.

Undemocratic because the December 27 general election was characterized by violence and claims of malpractice; the state instruments were partisan; the government was intolerant to divergent opinions; and the government was insensitive to popular demands. However, since the power sharing government came to power, there have been undercurrents that the Kibaki administration is no different from its predecessor after all.

Firstly, though the coalition government is more tolerant to different opinions, recent events indicate that the government is growing sensitive by the day. Indeed, like its predecessor, the administration is eager to use the oppressive tools of the state, including the provincial administration, to muzzle opposing opinions. The recent attempt by the administration to bar members of a citizen’s lobby commonly know as the ‘the people’s parliament’ from holding public gatherings has been interpreted in this light.

Paradoxically, while the coalition leaders were in the opposition, they vigorously campaigned for the dismantling of the provincial administration. The then official opposition party, President Kibaki’s Democratic Party of Kenya, presented a memorandum to the constitution of Kenya Review Commission calling for the scrapping of the administration. However, on assuming power, they have not only defended the administration, but an assistant minister in the office of the president has been quoted as saying they will weed out those sympathetic to the previous government from the administration.

Secondly, the coalition leadership has increasingly been using the same old methods. In the recently held by-elections, ministers affiliate minister have been criss-crossing the affected constituencies using the trappings of power, state resources and promising largesse from the state. Yet, when they were in the opposition last year, they constantly accused former president Daniel Moi, who was in power then, of using state resources for partisan gains. Closely related to that, of course, is the old tactic of divide and rule and the mentality that only those who support the government will benefit from government resources. Week after week, coalition ministers are quoted exhorting the various ethnic communities to support the government if they hope to benefit from its largesse.

Not even yesteryears’ democracy and human rights crusaders are immune from this anachronistic thinking. Indeed, when the president visited his home turf two months ago, there were deliberate efforts to isolate and condemn a part of Central Province that voted for the opposition. Apparently, the right to an opinion and association has lost meaning now that a power- sharing government is in power.

Thirdly, the old issue of selective application of the law has reared its ugly head again. There are increasing concerns that the war against corruption is turning out to be selective and targeted at specific individuals and families. For many key players in the current administration were in fact stalwarts of the previous administration. It is therefore highly inconceivable that they were not involved in the corruption of that era. Indeed, their names appear in several public accounts and public investment committee reports.

While others were mentioned in the various human rights reports as players in various human rights abuses, including ethnic violence. Yet, they continue serving in the cabinet as ministers, assistant ministers and others as influential coalition MPs, while government officers continue making allegations against certain families and individuals. Again, the old adage that charity begins at home appears to have lost its meaning.

Fourthly is the question of the ruling coalition’s internal democracy. As it were, a political party cannot give a country what it lacks internally. Thus, the coalition cannot entrench democracy in the country if it cannot grant the same to its members. One measure of a party’s attitude towards democracy is its capacity to subject its leaders to popular mandate, which is through party elections. Yet, this is the most divisive issue in the coalition.

The established tradition worldwide is that parties, whose ideological persuasions are close, form coalitions after elections in order to constitute a government, where no single party wins a majority. For the coalition government, political parties and amorphous groups formed the coalition regardless of their political persuasions to win the December 2007 elections. Thus, the coalition lacks clear structures and leadership, has no quantifiable membership, lacks unifying ideology and, much worse, has not agreed whether to be one party or to retain its current amorphous state. The persistent war between factions of the coalitions means that the party will take sometime before it can guarantee its membership internal democracy. In addition, that undermines the capacity of the coalition to entrench democracy in the country.

On the human rights front, the coalition government has done better than the previous KANU regime of President Daniel Moi. On assuming power, Kibaki accorded human rights campaigners’ positions in its ranks, opened torture chambers - among them the famous Nyayo House - and cautioned the security organs against abusing suspects’ rights. However, there have been genuine concerns that the country may be sliding back into the days of torture. In recent weeks, there have been complaints that police officers are perpetrating arbitrary arrests; extra-judicial killings are still prevalent while security officers have been accused of torturing suspects, notably in Rift Valley and Nyanza districts.

Moreover, the government recently initiated a security operation in Mt. Elgon district, which was called off after human rights groups accused the military of gross human rights violations. While the number of the dead remains unknown, there are fears that the operation left behind trails of human rights abuses, which are not yet documented.

There are also expressions of genuine grievances arising from the recent efforts to form a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission. The concerns are that the proposed commission is a tactic to witch-hunt and humiliate certain individuals and communities, and not an effort to promote national reconciliation.

The old tactic of destroying people’s income basis in an effort to remove them from certain areas, which was perfected in the 1990s, has been brought back. In the last few weeks, the government, in conjunction with the Nairobi City Council, has been demolishing informal business structures in order to remove those businesses from supposedly road reserves. The problem is that this destruction, which has only been conducted in up market areas, leaves many people without an income and thus compromises their economic rights.

More importantly, the proposed suppression of terrorism bill has sent shock waves into the spines of many Kenyans and human rights activists. Indeed, the bill has met resistance from many quarters including members of parliament. The resistance has its roots in two areas. Firstly the government published the bill without consulting with stakeholders, and appeared to be bowing to pressure from both the American and the British governments. Indeed, despite protests against this bill, the government has indicated its resolve not to withdraw the bill. Secondly, and much worse, the bill is highly repressive, runs against the national spirit and militates against our national sovereignty in favor of American and British interests.

In their analysis, the Chambers of Justice, a legal civil society group, says the bill germinates out of the US Patriot Act 2001, whose official title is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. In the US, the group notes, the “application of the Patriot Act by the US government has resulted in some of the grossest violations of human rights ever revealed since the Nuremberg trials.” It cites the case of the al-Qaeda suspects who are still incarcerated incommunicado at the US military base in Guatanamo Bay in Cuba, two years after they were arrested in Afghanistan.

The bill contravenes Sections 72, 74(1), 77 (2a), 77(4), 77(8), 82 and the bill of rights; contravenes the penal code section 9; and lowers the standard of the burden of proof as required in all criminal cases. Needless to add that the bill lacks adequate provisions for compensation of victims of terrorism and gives sweeping powers to the police. These powers include powers to detain cash belonging to a suspect and forfeit the property of suspected persons to the state. And, ironically, the bill not only allows foreign security forces, notably American and British, to arrest and detain Kenyans, but it also sanctions torture and police brutality. Indeed, there are reports that a team of Kenyan CID officers and the American FBI agents tortured suspects arrested recently in Mombasa on suspicion of terrorism.

Lastly, there is the issue of ratification and adoption of the international human rights conventions in Kenya. Kenya is a signatory to such important treaties as the African Charter of Human Rights and People’s Rights (ACHPR) of 1981, the African Charter of the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and which are both acceptable by NEPAD’s human rights committee. However, the country still lags behind in legislating and affecting these conventions in order to promote and protect social justice.

About the Writer

Evans Wafula is a independent consultant in human rights and Media Development currently based in Nairobi.

Wafula has widely written on human rights and media providing a discourse on various areas.

The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) has completed a 4-day workshop in Windhoek Namibia where indigenous African leaders and technology intermediaries have shared experiences on how geo-spatial information technologies (GIT) are used by indigenous peoples to express their traditional ecological knowledge to decisions makers for the purposes of securing recognition and rights. Key case studies presented included participatory mapping by ToCADI and San groups in Botswana, Participatory 3 Dimensional Modelling (P3DM) by hunter-gatherer peoples in Kenya, GPS-based mapping experiences from Cameroon, DR Congo, Namibia and South Africa.

The workshop included also capacity building sessions on web 2.0 applications including Google Earth, Google Maps, blogging, online video sharing, and use of electronic discussion groups including [ppgis]).

Web 2.0 applications have been presented and applied as adds on to GIT to help networking, communication, alliance building and remote collaboration for advocacy.
The event has been co-hosted and presented by the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), ERMIS Africa, Cybertracker Conservation, Shalin Ry and the Rainforest Foundation UK.

IPACC’s mission: Help indigenous leaders be more effective in advocacy, using international laws and treaties in their home countries, building up alliances between indigenous peoples with similar challenges and needs. IPACC prioritizes making linkages between political leadership and traditional holders of culture and knowledge.