Let attack break new ground on a national dialogue on security

The official response to the DusitD2 Hotel terrorist attack has been met with high levels of public satisfaction. This is a departure from how the public perceived responses to almost all the previous high-profile terrorist attacks that have taken place in Kenya in the recent past.

On those previous occasions, there was as much public anger because of the incompetent responses as that created by the attacks themselves. When, for example, the country experienced the Westgate Mall attack in September 2013, the first in the series of attacks, there was evident contestation as to whether the police or the military should lead in the rescue of people trapped in the afflicted mall, a rivalry that was a key factor in the very significant delays and discordant manner that characterised the response.

Also, while the circumstances required decisive political leadership, this failed to materialise in time with a clearly unrested President eventually making a late television address by which time the country had become very anxious. Throughout the long ordeal, the management of public communication was disastrous and lacked credibility as it contradicted what was independently observable. The final straw was appearance of footage of response teams looting the property of occupants of the mall, victims of the attack.

By contrast, the response to the DusitD2 attack has been prompt and there was a good level of public engagement from the political authorities. Because the media had access to the scene of attack early on in the incident, this lessened the burden of official communication. Further, as the attack did not yield a drawn out showdown with the terrorists, it never felt that the public was being denied information that should have been provided.

Following the withering criticism of the authorities because of their poor response to the Garissa University attack in April 2015, the then presidential spokesman, Manoah Esipisu, owned up that there had been shortcomings in the handling of the rescue. Esipisu then added that for the government, “it is always a learning curve.” On the evidence of how the DusitD2 attack was handled, it is safe to conclude that the government has learnt some lessons and that better disaster management can be expected in future.

All recent terrorist attacks have occurred in a context of significant political pressure against the government. Although the source of pressure was unrelated to the attacks, it would always compound the difficulties resulting from the attacks and vice versa. The Jubilee government was only six months in office when the first attack, at the Westgate Mall, occurred. At the time, the new leaders faced a major legitimacy crisis after a disputed election and a toxic relationship with the Opposition. There were also active cases before the International Criminal Court.

These factors aggravated the monumental errors that were evident in the response to the attack and left the government in a highly defensive posture in which anything other than the unilateral action that it displayed would have been improbable. Because relations with the Opposition never improved during Jubilee’s entire first term, this was always a constraining factor in the management of the many terrorist incidents that occurred. Over time, a unilateralist approach, in which security agencies monopolise all roles, now characterises how Kenya responds to terrorism.

The context of the DusitD2 hotel attack is different. Other than the improved confidence that should be the result of a more competent response that the government has managed, the relationship with the Opposition has also improved. After Westgate, President Uhuru Kenyatta had invited the leadership of Opposition to State House, a display of national solidarity in the face of a major calamity.

However, this gesture fell flat, failing to give the President the goodwill he craved and which could have strengthened his hand in responding to the attack. Fortuitously, Kenyatta’s on-going dalliance with Opposition leader Raila Odinga has given him space he did not have during any of the previous attacks. Coupled with the fact that the public is more approving of his actions last week, the President has the room for a more reflective assessment of the country’s security situation, beyond just defeating the attackers.

In this regard, it is suggested that the attack on DusitD2 should be viewed as the trigger for a more inclusive national dialogue on security. Although there has always been a need for such dialogue, the space for it has not existed until now. As a result, there has been little action in support of official rhetoric about the value of dialogue on security.

As argued, the government has shunned public involvement in dialogue on security by presenting it as a subject which only the security organs are competent to discuss. Because of the space than now exists, the Dusit attack should not go to waste, and should be seen as a major catalyst for breaking new ground towards a genuine national dialogue on security.

- The writer is the Executive Director at KHRC. [email protected]