It is not possible to craft modern security system if we safeguard old approaches

While Americans were grieving over the tragic deaths and injuries that occurred following the bombing in Boston by the two Chechnya brothers, a fertiliser plant in Texas blew up killing even more people and causing extensive damage to homes and property in a very big area. But it was the Boston tragedy that caught more attention of the media and the people because it involved a planned, willful and human action aimed at destroying life. It involved the security apparatus failing or succeeding in doing its job of protecting the lives and properties of the citizens.

We have, in Kenya, seen such heinous crimes committed recently, particularly in the period just before our recent elections. While the US security agencies apprehended the culprits within a matter of hours, we tend to take much longer coming to grips with our criminals, and even when we do the criminal justice system seems to be rather sluggish.

The people are rarely informed regarding what happens after such criminals are apprehended. In US plenty of information is given to the people, discussions are held on how and why such crimes occur and technology to track such crimes is improved every time a new type of crime hits the public. On the voting day on March 4, criminals attacked a police station in Mombasa and killed police officers. The security forces have been mean with information regarding this incident since then, so have they with similar such incidents at the Coast and in Tana River.

One begins to wonder why there were such intense killings and disturbances in these two areas before the elections. Obviously these were well orchestrated acts of violence which should not have been repeated in such a short period of time if the security intelligence had its antennas screwed in the right direction like the US. Otherwise people are bound to conclude, as they surely have, that somehow the security establishment was part of the orchestration of the violence so as to gain political mileage in certain quotas. Unpalatable as this may seem to the mandarins who run security, it has to be said in public because it is being murmured in private. Since the elections were over we have seen these acts of violence subside substantially. This could be a pointer to a job well done by the security in bringing back normalcy or it could simply be a sign that the mission is over and done with.

The Constitution lays premium on security of person, property and society as the fundamental reasons, or raison d’être, for the existence of constitutional government. In other words, a Government that cannot guarantee its people and its society security has absolutely no reason to exist.

It is ironical that individuals, businesses and institutions should spend so much money hiring and paying for private security as we do in Kenya today. This simply shows that we have governments, which now and in the past have failed to do their work. What we need is not to privatise security, but to entrust this security to the body most suitable to provide it: the Government. With the use of modern technology it is easy for the Government to provide full security to its citizens without having to leave this domain to private security firms. In fact private security firms would be sub-contracted by Government to provide security in specific neighbourhoods as part of the network coordinating all security. A good lesson we should learn from this is the work that has been done in the Central Business District in Nairobi. The use of CCTV by the City Council to monitor security day and night has improved security substantially. This is a clear demonstration that good security cannot be left to individual enterprises or institutions: it must be coordinated by a Government at the local level.

I want to propose that one of the reasons why the Boston bombers were caught quickly is that there was good coordination between national security forces and the local ones. In fact, since every household does not need to have a security person at the gate, citizens expect the policeman on the street to be vigilant about neighbourhood security. This is not our experience in Kenya. If you doubt me, please try to report an attempted robbery to a policeman on the streets. He will tell you to go to the nearest police station.

I think it makes sense to have the chief of police in a local neighbourhood elected by the people. In certain US states, the sheriff (chief of police), state Attorney General and Judge are elected. But they work under prescribed laws.

I know we have just come from enacting a new Constitution, and we are still in the process of implementing it. But I want us to rethink our security issues for now and in the future. A police force divorced from direct accountability to the people it serves does not seem a very satisfactory arrangement. A situation where security at the household and neighbourhood levels is left entirely to the individuals to sort out until a heinous crime is committed is obviously a disaster security wise.

Right from county level we need to have some fresh debate on public security and not leave this subject as the preserve of mandarins from the President’s office. In certain Kenyan towns and neighbourhoods security forces act as if they are forces of occupation whenever they deem it fit to have a “crackdown on security”.

When they take such actions they do not even feel it necessary to consult elected officials at the local level. The Mayor of Boston and his security team were fully involved in the tracking of the bombers.

The police at the MIT were on full alert, but one of them lost his life in the process.

It is not possible to craft a modern, responsive and people-based security system if we keep on safeguarding old and worn out approaches and models, which obviously don’t serve us well. With a little bit of social imagination and learning from best practices we shall make some progress.