South Africa

Here is a quick roundup of some Africa-related news stories that have caught my eye in recent days:

Despite the fact that the media lives by the age-old credo “if it bleeds it leads” with regard to crime stories, which serves to warp people’s perspectives on the nature and frequency of crime, violent crime rates are actually dropping in Gauteng.

Does the recent peace agreement in Kenya signal better days ahead? Roger Cohen of The New York Times thinks as much.

Robert Mugabe might be starting what he believes to be his “march to victory,” but increasingly members of Zanu-PF are throwing their support behind Mugabe’s intrepid challenger, Simba Makoni. I still do not see Mugabe allowing Makoni to wrest his crown away, but if somehow it happens, I envision many of even Mugabe’s most ardent supporters responding to Mugabe’s defeat in the same way that the Wicked Witch’s praetorian guard responded after Dorothy liquidated their boss: “Hail Simba!”

One trend that I have noticed in American sports is the increasing presence of African athletes making their mark on the playing fields. Many of these athletes came to the United States when they were young children, many others were born in the United States to African parents, and still others found themselves face-to-face with American college coaches whose recruiting tentacles extend wider and deeper with each pasisng year. The usual push-pull factors are at play in these immigrant cases: On the run from war or privation or political chaos, drawn to the idea of America as the land of opportunity. The New York Times has the story of one such athlete, Hasheem Thabeet, a 7′ 3″ center for the University of Connecticut’s men’s basketball team who has become something of a folk hero in his native Tanzania.

Finally, what does it mean to be a citizen of a country? Is it sufficient to be born there? must one’s parents also be citizens of the country? Ireland is one of many nations dealing with these questions, and African immigrants represent the political football being kicked around.

The Economist this past week had a correspondent keeping a diary based on experiences in Kenya. The week’s entries are, by definition, episodic, but provide some context for daily life amidst the political and social chaos that has emerged. 

There is lots going on these days across the continent, so without further palaver, I’ll point you in the right directions to catch up.

Your first stop should probably be the latest Pambazuka News, which has useful articles on Chad, Zimbabwe, lots on Kenya, and other important issues. From there you can go to the latest AfricaFocus Bulletin, which casts its gaze on Chad and makes clear that the crisis in that country represents far more than merely a subsidiary crisis of the turmoil in Darfur.

Kenya will likely continue to dominate the news cycle from Africa. Kofi Annan has clarified — some might say backed down from — his “grand coalition” proposal to solve that country’s political crisis. At the Mail & Guardian Kwamboka Oyaro wonders whether the Grand Coalition, or whatever one chooses to call it, really is the viable solution to the problems that underlie Kenya’s fractured political culture. Meanwhile with an eye toward the future, some Kenyans are preparing for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the recent violence and other human rights violations. But the devil is in the details, and the question of amnesty will surely prove to be a serious sticking point.

At IOL Chris Chikana tries to figure out whether or not Simba Makoni poses a serious threat to Robert Mugabe’s leadership. He elides giving any real conclusions. I maintain that the challenge, whether fruitless or not, is necessary.

Finally, Richard Cornwell, a senior research associate at the Institute for Security Studies, reminds readers of The Mail & Guardian not to overlook Swaziland’s upcoming elections, which he believes run the risk of being as beset by violence and perfidy as those in Kenya and which we ought to worry about as we do what may come in Zimbabwe.

Kofi Annan seems optimistic that he can broker agreements in Kenya that will allow for that country to begin to heal. One of the key elements to any solution appears to be the establishment of a coalition government that will sit until the country can hold new elections, which would probably not take place until 2009. In the meantime an independent panel would investigate what went wrong in the recent polls that have led to the disputed reelection of President Mwai Kibaki and that fueled the political violence that has engulfed parts of Kenya and has resulted in at least 1000 deaths. In the end, Kenya’s is a political crisis, and thus requires political solutions.

Not all observers are thrilled with Annan’s intervention. Justice Minister Martha Karua, the head of the government team at Kenya’s crisis talks, has been critical of Annan for allegedly misrepresenting the state of the complex and fragile negotiations. Nonetheless, if Annan can help to broker peace and establish the parameters for future elections and maybe even political transformation in a country that until recently seemed a like a model for post-colonial, post-Big Man politics in Africa, he surely warrants a great deal of praise and respect. As one who had serious problems with the United Nations during Annan’s tenure there, I nonetheless admire his efforts today. It remains to be seen, however, if the efforts will translate into results. For the sake of the Kenyan people and their country’s future, let’s hope so.

Update: Today’s New York Times op-ed page has two pieces on Kenya, one from  Simiyu Barasa, a writer and filmmaker, the other by Maina Kiai, chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and  L. Muthoni Wanyeki, the executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, a nongovernmental organization.

Take your pick on Kenya: Grim pessimism or cautious optimism? By my nature I try to steer clear of Afro-pessimism, so I’ll side with the latter, well aware that the former always has a case to make in contemporary Africa.

Is there hope for an abatement of political violence in Kenya’s ongoing crisis? Despite more deaths in clashes between protesters and police, allegations of banditry, and fears of ethnic cleansing, guarded optimism may be in order as international appeals coupled with Kofi Annan’a active intervention appears to have led to an agreement between President Mwai Kibaki, whose dubious victory in a highly contested election fueled the current nightmare, and the opposition and its leader Raila Odinga. (The Council on Foreign Relations has a useful background primer on Kenyan politics.)

But the emphasis should be on “guarded.” Leaders who allow violence to be unleashed oftentimes find that their ability to marshal that violence becomes limited if nonexistent. Anarchy as a method of control, so popular among Big Men, has a way of spiralling out of control. Once convinced that one group of people is an enemy and violence is the only course of redress, even the most ardent followers will be tough to convince that violence should cease if the alleged enemy is still among them. Demogoguery, cult of personality, the unleashing of terror (and not the hackneyed “tribalism” that some are so quick to attribute when things go awry in Africa) — these things tend to get away from those who choose to use them as means and methods.

For a couple of weeks it looked as if Kenyans has stepped back from the brink and that the worst was over. But such an assessment appears premature. Violence has escalated in recent days. On Tuesday a mob dragged Melitus Mugabe Were from his car and shot him dead. Were was a new member of Kenya’s parliament and many believed that he held out the promising of helping to bridge some of the country’s divides. Instead, mediation appears to have butted up against hard political and social realities, and some observers  see a country on the brink of collapse. Jendayi Frazer, the United States’ top envoy to Africa, believes that ethnic cleansing may be underway in Kenya, and worries about the consequences of the Kenya crisis for regional stability.

Meanwhile at The New Republic, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, who is not a specialist in African issues, argues that colonialism is not to blame for events in Kenya, under the apparent dual misconceptions  that anyone is positing such a reductionist monocausal explanation or that colonialism is not a factor among many in understanding Kenya’s, indeed Africa’s, contemporary straits. I’d simply refer Llosa (and everyone else) again to  Caroline Elkins’ fine recent piece on the historical antecedents to Kenya’s current crises and remind Llosa and all other observers that it is probably not all that useful to create straw persons for the sole purpose of heroically destroying them.

Sasha Chanoff, cofounder and executive director of the humanitarian organization Mapendo International, recently wrote an essential op-ed piece for The Boston Globe debunking the myth of “tribal violence” in Kenya (and elsewhere). Here is the money excerpt:

FROM READING recent headlines about Kenya, one would think that the post-election violence is the result of tribal hatreds. But this assessment is wrong.

“Tribal violence spirals in Kenya,” “tribal war,” “tribal bloodletting” announced headlines around the world. A recent New York Times article said the mayhem in Kenya is a result of the “atavistic vein of tribal tension that . . . until now had not provoked widespread mayhem.”

This is a facile explanation of Kenya’s post-election violence. Yes, some people from different tribes are attacking one another. It’s ugly and scary. But it’s not inevitable; it’s not part of the genetic makeup of the president’s tribe, the Kikuyu, and the runner-up’s tribe, the Luo or of any other tribes to both hate and kill one another.

Why the violence then? It’s about politics and poverty. For their own gain, politicians exploit tribal differences and manipulate the poor and the destitute. It’s no surprise that the perpetrators of “tribal violence” are usually idle young men who also loot and thieve while rampaging. Politicians often covertly hire or encourage them.

Would that more journalists skipped the facile and simplistic reductionism in their coverage of Africa. But it seems that expecting complexity is to expect too much.  Nonetheless, Chanoff and others have tried recently to counter some of the more noxious and vacuous coverage emanating from even the most respected newspapers and other media.

It appears that some observers are finally beginning to counteract the shallow, facile narrative that overtook the analysis of the events in Kenya over the last couple of weeks. Caroline Elkins’ piece in The Washington Post this past weekend provided a model of how a historical analysis of the current events in Kenya ought to be framed. If Elkins rightly sees the colonial past as a major contributor to Kenya’s current political woes, IRIN shows how the economy equally plays a role. In their report for Bloomberg Paul Richardson and Antony Sguazzin explain the ways inwhich a multiplicity of factors contribute to Kenya’s destabilization, of which ethnicity is only one. Stephanie Hanson has also provided a useful asessment for the Council on Foreign Relations.

Kenyans went to the polls yesterday to vote in an election in which the battle is both metaphorical – the election has and is going to continue to be closely fought – and literal, as fears of violence pervaded the day yesterday and will hover over the country until and maybe even after the results are known.  Exit polls conflict over who leads the presidential tally, incumbent Mwai Kibaki or his challenger Raila Odinga. What appears clear, however, is that a number of incumbents, including Vice President Hon Moody Awori and several ministers, are likely to lose their seats in parliament.  If Odinga does win, and if peace and stability hold, the Kenyan elections will mark a crucial moment in contemporary African history and democracy.