As politicians create the post-election violence tribunal, it is important not to lose sight of the moral high ground factor at the heart of the troubles earlier this year.
Above all, from the very outset, all persons of goodwill must avoid the trap of moral equivalence. This will be the first and last resort of the real aggressors and would-be ‘genocidaires’ of the post-poll explosion.
The term ‘moral equivalence’ was bequeathed to the world by American philosopher William James 98 years ago, in his very last essay, ‘The Moral Equivalent of War’.
Put simply, moral equivalence is a truly dangerous fallacy that seeks to equate two sides in a conflict. It seeks to construe no distinction between killers and their victims. In political debate and philosophy, the doctrine of moral equivalence is the most cynical equivocation or double-speak.
It claims that the actions of both sides are equally reprehensible — equating a killer’s aggressive violence, complete with murder aforethought and vicious use of weapons, with a victim’s screams, fright, attempted flight and any defensive measure, including holding up of arms to stave off lethal blows. As we enter the tribunal process under the shadow of possible proceedings at The Hague, we need to keep a clear distinction between aggressive and self-defensive, life-preserving violence.
Self-defence can be defined as the ultimate right of every sentient creature. It is beyond the shadow of doubt, as well as beyond denial, that central Kenya communities were the targets of violence early this year. It is also beyond debate that the violence was massive, unprecedented and constituted an existential threat to the peoples of the Mt Kenya region.
WRETCHED LIE
The scale of the violence in some regions was such that it cannot possibly have been unplanned. To argue that the violence that tore through Kenya beginning on the early evening of December 30 last year and lasting for much of January was merely an episode of spontaneous mass madness is to tell a wretched lie.
When was the last time a mere loss of temper resulted in the displacement of 350,000 persons in a matter of 72 hours? Didn’t 2,000 youth kill about 30 women and children at the Kiambaa church two days after the presidential result was annouced?
Williams made this observation about the roots of war in the human psyche: “The earlier men were hunters and to hunt a neighbouring tribe, kill the males, loot the village and possess the females was the most profitable, as well as the most exciting, way of living. Thus, were the more martial tribes selected and in chiefs and peoples a pure pugnacity and love of glory came to mingle with the more fundamental appetite for plunder.”
This is the kind of violence loosed upon Mt Kenya communities in Rift Valley province, without any warning, mercy or sense of proportion. The aggressive violence unleashed on mostly Kikuyu peasants, on the pretext President Kibaki had “stolen” the election, did not take place in a pre-colonial setting but in one of Africa’s most modern states. This atavistic violence almost spiralled into civil war when reprisals began in Naivasha and Nakuru in the third week of January.
Again, Williams, in his 1910 essay, had very instructive words, this time on the intersection between the violence of earlier men and modern violence: “Modern war is so expensive we feel trade to be a better avenue to plunder. But modern man inherits all the innate pugnacity and love of glory of his ancestors.
“Showing war’s irrationality and horror is of no effect on him. The horrors make the fascination. War is the strong life; it is life in extremis; war taxes are the only ones men never hesitate to pay, as the budgets of all nations show us.”
In keeping with the nature of modern conflicts, post-election violence was brought to an end through international mediation, with the warring parties being urged to call a ceasefire and negotiate. As has been seen from time immemorial, both sides have sought the moral high ground, believing that their cause is superior.
At that juncture, even the doctrine of moral equivalence can be unwelcome to both sides. In the case of Kenya, we need to move beyond this would-be moral deadlock.
By Aristotle Omondi, A social science researcher at the University of Botswana.
