Political violence and its antidote

Pipe bombs in the US, politicians killed in South Africa, a candidate stabbed in Brazil. Democracies must find answers to political violence. One country, Kenya, is well down that path.

Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta (L) greets opposition leader Raila Odinga at the Harambee house office in Nairobi, Kenya March 9, 2018.

Democracy, writes British scholar David Runciman in a new book about the topic, is simply “civil war without the fighting.” But, he adds, when something is not working in a democracy – such as when there is an uptick in political violence – the people usually change it.

Lately, a few democracies have witnessed a rise in political violence. In the United States, 10 pipe bombs were sent to critics of President Trump this week, with no facts yet about the motive. In Brazil last month, the leading presidential candidate was stabbed. Mexico recently experienced an average of 14.5 political murders a month. In South Africa, an increase in feuding within the ruling African National Congress has led to about 90 politicians killed since 2016.

The test in such cases of “civil wars with the fighting” is how people respond.

Do they reflect on how their own verbal attacks on political rivals might give license to violence? Do they renew society’s unwritten rules about civility and the need for a peaceful contest of ideas? Do they remind themselves of what binds a country more than bifurcates it?

One democracy that has erupted in violence over several election cycles is Kenya. In postelection upheaval in 2007 and 2008, more than 1,000 people were killed. In last year’s election, violence erupted again. The worst example was the killing of the official responsible for developing the country’s new voting system.

Each time, civic leaders came together, sometimes with foreign help, in an attempt to alter course. A new constitution in 2010, for example, distributed governmental power and established basic rights. A network of peace activists was set up to track potential violence in ethnic hot spots.

“Kenyans have stepped up time and again to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure liberty, advance democracy, and win fundamental rights,” said Robert Godec, the US ambassador to Kenya, in a speech last month.

The most recent course correction was a historic handshake in March by the country’s two main political rivals. President Uhuru Kenyatta and a former prime minister, Raila Odinga, agreed to set up a 14-member task force called Building Bridges.

Made up of church leaders, civic activists, professionals, and others, it is charged with touring the country and coming up with proposals to reduce ethnic antagonism, curb corruption, and improve the national ethos. Sometime next year, Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga will travel together to popularize the task force’s ideas to create a “new Kenya.”

At the least, the task force’s work focuses attention on what can unite people in the African country. “We want Kenyans to have faith in the process we have started with President Kenyatta. People should not be jittery,” says Odinga.

The US and other democracies hit by political violence can learn from such attempts at political healing. Ambassador Godec says Kenya has the opportunity “to inspire and shape the future of Africa and the world.”

Kenya’s democracy is still a work in progress. But the response of Kenyans to political violence so far shows they welcome any progress.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Political violence and its antidote
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today