The ICC ruling on January 23rd was met with much anticipation, and frankly with a bit of nervousness on the potential explosive effect the ruling may have on security as well as the upcoming 2012 election. My friend Helen & Dan did a wonderful synopsis where you can get a cliff notes version of what happened during the 2007 post-election violence and the ICC hearings.
Kenyan politics and tribal conflict is a topic of massive intrigue for me. Pretty much throughout Africa, people identify first and foremost with their tribe, then maybe with their country. While this may be hard to comprehend for some, but it won't be too difficult to understand when they all speak different tribal languages and have different tribal practices. For example, some tribes perform circumcision, others don't. And while everyone speaks Swahili, one can always pick out the tribal "accent"...Swahili isn't really a national language like French is for France...it act more like English in the international community. Both Englishman and French speak English, but at the end of the day, the language is a tool for two very different "tribes" to communicate, and when they go home, they are still British and French, and they live very different lives.
How does this translate into politics? When it comes to President, Kenyan most likely will vote for someone from their tribe, even if they don't like the person or believe the other candidate from a different tribe has better intention for the nation. But it doesn't matter, one must support one's own tribe...kind of similar to the psychology behind who supports whom during the World Cup. If your tribe is not represented during the election, then people will vote for someone from a tribe that has more of an "alliance" with their own based on common enemy or similar cultural practices...etc. So, this begs the question, what's the point of an election? because you can almost predict the outcome based on how the demography of the population, and one can win by manipulating voter turnout. Is it democracy when the majority of the population (based purely on race vs. personal interests) can almost certainly dominate the minority and tilt the government policy further to their interest? The Western society place such high importance on the act of voting as the ultimate expression of democracy, but I am skeptical. Can you truly have democracy through the means of election when most of the population is not educated enough to critically think about each candidate's "ability" to run the country and vote based on emotion and irrational tribal alliance? Is that truly what's best for a country? Take Rwanda as an example, Paul Kagame can be borderline characterized as a benign dictator, and because of that, he is able to take Rwanda in unbelievable speed from the wreckage from the 1994 genocide to the example it is setting for the African continent today (no corruption, no litter, strong economic progress...almost "Singapore-like"). In fact, Rwanda actually cut its poverty rate by 12% in 6 years! I am almost certain that without his leadership and iron fist, Rwanda will not be able to achieve what it has achieved today. Same case can be made for the more obviously example of China, who does not embrace democracy, but has made tremendous economic progress through a totalitarian government.
I'm not arguing against democracy, but I strongly believe that democracy is only suitable when a nation has reached a certain level of literacy and maturity so the act of voting can actually serve its original purpose rather than becoming a tool for politicians to use for personal political gains. Just as economic progress will take time, political progress will also take time. Just looking back at history, how many times has it actually work when American troops goes into a country, "liberate" them from a dictator, set up a voting booth, and then expect a country who has been under dictatorship for decades to turn into a working democracy overnight? It's always exciting to see people raising their purple thumb on TV, proud to have been given the power to vote and get their "voice" heard, makes great TV...however, what doesn't show on TV much is what happens afterwards? Giving a power to someone who does not know how to use it wisely can be more dangerous than not giving them the power at all. It's like giving a 5 year old a sharp knife, one can do great things with the knife, but because he doesn't know how to use it, he could end up hurting himself in ways that he couldn't imagine, despite of feeling great about having the power to handle a knife when you gave it to him.
To me, Kenya is going through the growing pain of democracy, perhaps all the corruption and violence are just the necessary evil to put a jolt into the system and get people to critically think about how they claim and exercise their power as citizens. Hopefully with a new, more educated generations, I will see a day this country becomes a true, functioning democracy.
Even though my Chinese culture is one that's largely collectivist where one's behavior is largely influenced by how it will impact the society (or how the society will react to it) vs. the Western individualistic culture whereby the focus is more on the individual pursuit of happiness, I think African tribal collectivists takes it even one step further...I am not sure if this is something that's cultural to begin with, or it has been reinforced by the lack of trustworthy authority, thus the community (and sometimes mob justice) come to play a more important rule in people's lives, and in a way, it is almost instinctual for someone to give absolute loyalty and support to another person from his community, simply for the fact that they are from the same community, irregardless of the person has the merits to warrant the support.
How does this translate into politics? When it comes to President, Kenyan most likely will vote for someone from their tribe, even if they don't like the person or believe the other candidate from a different tribe has better intention for the nation. But it doesn't matter, one must support one's own tribe...kind of similar to the psychology behind who supports whom during the World Cup. If your tribe is not represented during the election, then people will vote for someone from a tribe that has more of an "alliance" with their own based on common enemy or similar cultural practices...etc. So, this begs the question, what's the point of an election? because you can almost predict the outcome based on how the demography of the population, and one can win by manipulating voter turnout. Is it democracy when the majority of the population (based purely on race vs. personal interests) can almost certainly dominate the minority and tilt the government policy further to their interest? The Western society place such high importance on the act of voting as the ultimate expression of democracy, but I am skeptical. Can you truly have democracy through the means of election when most of the population is not educated enough to critically think about each candidate's "ability" to run the country and vote based on emotion and irrational tribal alliance? Is that truly what's best for a country? Take Rwanda as an example, Paul Kagame can be borderline characterized as a benign dictator, and because of that, he is able to take Rwanda in unbelievable speed from the wreckage from the 1994 genocide to the example it is setting for the African continent today (no corruption, no litter, strong economic progress...almost "Singapore-like"). In fact, Rwanda actually cut its poverty rate by 12% in 6 years! I am almost certain that without his leadership and iron fist, Rwanda will not be able to achieve what it has achieved today. Same case can be made for the more obviously example of China, who does not embrace democracy, but has made tremendous economic progress through a totalitarian government.
I'm not arguing against democracy, but I strongly believe that democracy is only suitable when a nation has reached a certain level of literacy and maturity so the act of voting can actually serve its original purpose rather than becoming a tool for politicians to use for personal political gains. Just as economic progress will take time, political progress will also take time. Just looking back at history, how many times has it actually work when American troops goes into a country, "liberate" them from a dictator, set up a voting booth, and then expect a country who has been under dictatorship for decades to turn into a working democracy overnight? It's always exciting to see people raising their purple thumb on TV, proud to have been given the power to vote and get their "voice" heard, makes great TV...however, what doesn't show on TV much is what happens afterwards? Giving a power to someone who does not know how to use it wisely can be more dangerous than not giving them the power at all. It's like giving a 5 year old a sharp knife, one can do great things with the knife, but because he doesn't know how to use it, he could end up hurting himself in ways that he couldn't imagine, despite of feeling great about having the power to handle a knife when you gave it to him.
To me, Kenya is going through the growing pain of democracy, perhaps all the corruption and violence are just the necessary evil to put a jolt into the system and get people to critically think about how they claim and exercise their power as citizens. Hopefully with a new, more educated generations, I will see a day this country becomes a true, functioning democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment