Kenya has been rocked by a wave of violent protests in recent weeks, sparked by the opposition leader Raila Odinga’s call for mass action against the government’s tax hikes and economic policies. The protesters have faced brutal repression from the police, who have used tear gas, live bullets and excessive force to disperse them. At least seven people have been killed and hundreds arrested in the clashes, while properties and infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed.
But who stands to gain from this chaos and bloodshed? Is it the opposition, who hope to pressure the government into conceding to their demands and addressing the grievances of ordinary Kenyans? Or is it the state that uses violence as a pretext to crack down on dissent and justify its authoritarian rule?
Odinga, who lost the presidential election in August last year to William Ruto, has accused the government of rigging the vote and violating the constitution. He has also challenged the legitimacy of the Finance Act 2023, which introduced a raft of unpopular tax measures that have increased the cost of living for millions of Kenyans. He has vowed to continue mobilizing his supporters for peaceful and non-violent demonstrations until the government reverses its policies and opens dialogue with the opposition.
The opposition argues that they have a constitutional right to protest and express their dissatisfaction with the government. They claim that they are not responsible for the violence that has erupted during the protests, but rather that it is provoked by rogue elements within the police and pro-government militias who infiltrate the crowds and incite chaos. They also allege that the state is using excessive force and violating human rights in its response to the protests, targeting innocent civilians, journalists and activists.
The opposition hopes that by sustaining the pressure on the streets, they can expose the government’s failures and illegitimacy, rally more public support for their cause, and force the state to negotiate and make concessions. They also hope to galvanize their base and prepare for the next elections in 2022, where they hope to oust Ruto from power.
Benefits of Violent Protests from the Perspective of the Opposition
Publicly the opposition led by Raila Odinga may be condemning the violence, but are the public pronouncements to be believed? That is, without violence, would the opposition deem the protests successful? Maybe not, and here are two reasons why:
- Chaotic protests attract more media attention, both locally and internationally. By drawing international attention, the opposition appears to remain relevant in Kenya’s politics, especially under a constitutional arrangement where the loser is very likely to die off politically if the government is not pressured to succumb to the demands of the opposition. The opposition could therefore be funding the violence, hoping that like in Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Belarus, Myanmar and other places, the violence may ultimately result in a positive outcome in their favour. It is possible that without violence, the protests would easily be overlooked or dismissed as having no impact at all.
- Ultimately, it is the desire of Raila Odinga and the rest of the opposition to remain relevant in Kenya’s politics. They have two ways of achieving this objective; by either being part of the government through a handshake-like deal or by making it impossible for the current government to govern. Violent protests make it easier for them to remain relevant. This is because violent protests disrupt the normal functioning of the economy thereby inflicting economic pain and damage on the government and its allies. By affecting the livelihoods and interests of the business community, they can force negotiations aimed at ending the protests. Similar economic sabotage appears to have worked in countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Iran.
It seems clear that the opposition in Kenya has a clear rationale for preferring violent protests against the government. Violence, from their perspective, could be a necessary evil that can help them achieve their goals and overcome their challenges.
The State’s Perspective
The government has strongly condemned the protests as illegal, unlawful and anarchic. It has accused Odinga of being a sore loser who is trying to destabilize the country and undermine its development. It has defended its tax reforms as necessary to boost revenue collection and fund public services and infrastructure projects. It has also dismissed Odinga’s claims of electoral fraud and constitutional violations as baseless and frivolous. The government argues that it has a duty to maintain law and order and protect public property and lives from vandalism and violence. It claims that it is acting within its mandate and in accordance with international standards of policing. It blames the opposition for instigating and financing the violence, saying that they are using innocent Kenyans as pawns in their selfish political agenda. It also accuses some foreign actors of meddling in Kenya’s internal affairs and supporting Odinga’s subversive activities.
Would the government be in a position to issue these condemnations if the protests were not violent in the first place? That is, aren’t the violent protests aiding the government in portraying Raila Odinga and the opposition in a bad light? If so, is it not therefore very likely that it is the government behind the violent protests? In summary, here are the three reasons why the government is the more likely financier of the violent protests:
- The government is more likely behind the violent protests in order to create a pretext and a justification for using excessive force and repression against the protesters. By provoking or instigating violence, the government can portray the protesters as criminals, terrorists, or enemies of the state, who pose a threat to public order and security. This way, the government can legitimize its use of tear gas, live bullets, arrests, torture, or even killings, as necessary measures to protect the country and its citizens. The government could also use violence as a deterrent and a warning to other potential protesters, who may be discouraged or intimidated from joining or supporting the oppositionās cause. By creating a climate of fear and insecurity, the government can weaken and demoralize the oppositionās base and morale.
- The violence is helping the government to discredit and delegitimize the opposition and its demands. By causing or facilitating violence, the government can tarnish the image and reputation of Odinga and his allies, who can be accused of being irresponsible, reckless, or violent leaders, who do not care about the welfare or interests of ordinary Kenyans. This way, the government can undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the oppositionās claims and grievances, which can be dismissed as selfish, unrealistic, or unpatriotic.
- The government could also use violence as a propaganda tool to sway public opinion and support in its favour. By highlighting or exaggerating the violence and its consequences, the government can appeal to the emotions and sentiments of Kenyans, who may be outraged or disgusted by the destruction and suffering caused by the protests. This way, the government can gain more sympathy and solidarity from various segments of society, including the media, civil society, religious groups, and ethnic groups who may condemn or distance themselves from the oppositionās cause.
The verdict
It is clear that both sides have their own motives and interests in engaging in or responding to the protests. However, it is also clear that the government has more reasons to desire violent protests compared to the opposition (unless you disagree). I therefore strongly believe that violent protests are created by the government in order to discredit the opposition and make it undesirable for thousands of Kenyans to join in the protests.
Read: How Meta Avatars are Changing Video Calls on Instagram and Messenger
