I wish I could say that all is calm in Kenya. But from my point of view, there only seems to be a tenuous peace. According to the BBC, both President Kibaki and (opposition) Prime Minister Odinga are claiming that they both won the recent Presidential elections that sparked so much violence, but they are willing to cooperate in order to move the country forward.

At a minimum, I’m glad that they’re talking and not attacking one another. Honestly, I had always known that Kenya had had some serious tribal tension issues, but I was blown away by the violence that claimed about 1,500 lives. In this country that is seen as a leader in East Africa, I would not have expected so much government-sanctioned violence to occur; and I would not have expected the opposition to have been ready to retaliate. But it happened nonetheless.

I think the fact that it happened touches upon something that Kofi Annan won’t be able to fix simply with this round of negotiations between the two rivals. This was an extremely important presidential election for Kenyans. Many felt that they (and their fellow tribespeople) had been wronged for too long and this was the time for them to take their rightful positions of power. But status quo is hard to change in Africa. So the stakes were extremely high. But I don’t believe it was worth the thousands of lives lost and the millions of dollars in destroyed property and lost business. The tribal groups in Kenya need to ask themselves if they will continue to harbor sufficient ill will toward their fellow citizens, that they will lash out against their neighbors because of a presidential election.

Perhaps similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that often spring up after serious civil conflicts, Kenya may need to set up some Commission that will facilitate dialogue between the various groups. This Commission, of whatever format it may take form, should address a few points…

1) It should allow complaints to come out about the recent violence.
2) It should address long-standing grievances about unfair political and economic benefits granted based on tribal affiliations.
3) It should facilitate constructive dialogue between the groups.
4) It should educate people on the wrongs of ethnic-based violence in a united country, highlight the similarities between the groups, and demonstrate how cooperation is much better than anything else.
5) It should provide reparations for those who have been wronged, after some type of judicial investigation.

This is just a quickly drawn-up wishlist on my part and I doubt it’s feasible any time soon. What I’m trying to get at, is that African nations do not have the luxury of entertaining severe internal strife (nor can they afford transborder conflicts). Thus, they should try to foster engagement between rival groups in order to get people to march towards a common goal of strengthening their country as a whole. This is my idealism coming through, but I think that a sustained process can air out some grievances and de-escalate people’s rage.

Well, that’s all I’ve got to say. Long live Kenya. Long live Africa.