Terrorism's unintended consequences to Kenyans

NAIROBI: The immediate impact of terrorism is anger, grief, shock, disbelief, and in Kenya, blame and counter blame.

We are even arguing that the deaths in Garissa were underestimated. The next Kenyan president should be a psychologist or a psychiatrist, someone who can understand the peculiar Kenyan mind.

So, what are the long-term consequences of terror? Can we look at the bigger picture?

INSTITUTIONALISED VIOLENCE

Terrorism, post-election violence, and its forerunner, tribal clashes, form a continuum in Kenya’s sad path to the institutionalisation of violence. We argued after the first land clashes in 1992 that we risked institutionalising violence — that prediction seems to be coming to pass.

We have spent enough time explaining the causes of this violence; it is not just politics, but hard reality: we are exhausting our resources.

Wangari Maathai shouted about that all her life, but we did not listen. Just take a trip through Nyandarua where land was once in plenty. Peasants are now farming on the slopes of the Aberdares.

Mau Forest is under threat, not because peasants are bad people, but the pressure of population growth is demanding they look for more land. When under threat, we behave like other organisms — we fight. We even stop reasoning.

Behind all the violence is the fight for resources, from land to business and employment opportunities.

We create jobs when people in the country or outside the country buy goods and services. But what do we sell to the world? Doubt? How does Apple Inc make the equivalent of Kenya’s current national Budget in just three months?

Unable to create jobs because we refuse to be innovative and we spend too much time talking (what I’m doing now!), we are forced to share the little we have violently. Elections are violent for the same reason — winners get access to resources, which are pooled through taxation. Devolution says they should be shared, but who generates the resources?

Enough digression. What are the long-term consequences of terrorism and its siblings, land clashes and election violence?

First, all these forms of violence cause Kenyans to seek security in unusual places. The first place will be their counties and tribes, where everyone is familiar or known to them.

It is no wonder the new national schools are finding it hard to get students from different parts of the country. Kenyans now feel more secure schooling in their locality, working in their locality and even marrying in their locality.

Such insular thinking goes against the spirit of globalisation and entrepreneurship. Most entrepreneurs left their place of birth and travelled. That is why the US has such dynamic entrepreneurs — they have travelled, mostly from other countries. If Russia were more welcoming to other races, it would probably be still a superpower.

By finding solace in their counties and tribes, the economic dynamism of Kenya will be subdued. And economic growth will slow down. Nairobi would be a less dynamic city if it were less diverse.

By sticking to their localities, young men and women will marry among themselves, leading to less diversity, which is a risk to the next generation. In-breeding has its perils, not just biologically, but also as regards innovation.

EXTRACTIVE ECONOMY

There is another serious economic consequence. Fear will lead to an extractive economy, where investors in any town or location will make as much money as soon as possible, and leave at any sign of trouble. Does that explain why corruption has increased alongside insecurity?

Previously, Kenyans would settle wherever they found economic opportunities. Today, they want to hit and run.

The other consequence is the growth of churches as people seek solace in a higher power. Even alcoholism among the young is driven by this insecurity. With nowhere to go, unlike in the past when they could leave their villages to try their luck elsewhere, young men are drowning their sorrows in alcohol and drugs. I found this in Mississippi, in the US.

Some have argued that making such people drunk or high on drugs reduces their political risk; they are less likely to vote or turn against the government. Or even procreate new voters.

An unstable country is easier to exploit economically, particularly by outsiders. Look at DR Congo. Could all this violence be an indicator that Kenya is richer and has more potential than we think?

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

From tribal clashes to terrorism, the intention has been the same: rid counties of unwanted people — read other tribes — seen as competitors to resources.

These ‘foreigners’, often entrepreneurs, are seen as a problem. We shout at the top of our voices that we want investors, but small traders are not seen as investors. A mzungu is seen as an investor and is welcome, not someone from a different tribe who may have more money than the mzungu.

But the balkanisation of the country will not be selective. Everyone will suffer in the long run. Creative and innovative people, the nation’s greatest resource, have lots of opportunities globally if they are not appreciated locally.

Without tribal clashes, post-election violence and now terrorism, we would easily have reached the 10 per cent growth rate envisioned in Vision 2030.

Let’s not see terrorism as just shock and awe. It has consequences that may be felt many years, even generations, later. Our leaders must see beyond the tears and grief.

The writer is senior lecturer, University of Nairobi, and global journalism fellow, University of Toronto.

[email protected]