Ethnic (previously referred to as communal) and racial tensions have existed in Kenya prior to independence. After independence the process of ‘reconstruction’ also known as ‘Africanisation’ began. It meant transfer of political power and influence from the former colonial powers to Africans. Africans replaced many Asian and European civil servants. Qualified Kenyan Asians and Kenyan Europeans then and now find it difficult to get jobs in the civil service as the new administrative balance was adjusted to favor Africans to reflect the new changes. After independence, there was markedly more tension between the Asian and African communities than the European and African communities partly because they lived in closer proximity. A commentary from the East African Standard on Friday November 20th 1964 explained the situation this way ‘the criticism so frequently expressed by Africans has its origins in a feeling that they are and have been exploited while another community stands in the way of their advancement………’ Africans have daily contact with Asians in places of business and other jobs they themselves want to occupy’. However there were also ethnic tensions connected to the Africanisation with some African ethnic communities feeling that Africanisation favored some communities more than others. These tensions still exist.

Currently the communities least represented in the civil service are the:

• Kenya Europeans(2),
• the Dasnach Shangil(10)
• Boni- Sanye (44)
• Kenya Asians (74)
• Kenya Arabs (90)

NCIC is following up with the civil service on a criterion for representation, which takes cognizance of the need to urgently include the under represented groups with a recommendation that affirmative action should be adopted for groups that are missing out in the civil service while it is the duty and responsibility of the affected communities to promote self reliance by applying for advertised jobs. 

These tensions continue, much of them not finding expression within public space.One of the key messages that came out of the overwhelming support for the new Constitution was the need for economic development, institution building, and provision of basic services and inclusion of all communities.  In 2010 NCIC gave voice to these tensions, traveling around Kenya recording live TV shows on ethnicity and race. This was one of a range of strategies of strategies to promote self-reliance by beginning a national conversation on race and ethnicity to enhance inclusion and cohesion .

All the 9 Kenyan towns we visited raised issue with ethnic tensions. We noted though that race tensions occur only in towns and cities where races meet in a mixed society and that in most cases these tensions are cultural. Nyeri and Kisumu were specific on the tensions between the Kenyan African and Kenyan Asian communities. Both communities were represented and both voiced their thoughts on the tensions between them that are largely as a result of their difference in the social and cultural systems that keep them apart.

It is difficult to discuss these tensions without thinking of the implications of the elections coming up next year, particularly in the light of the ethnic and racial violence that occurred in the 2008 elections. NCIC has developed a broad set of capabilities to promote conflict prevention. This includes placing new emphasis on building civilian capacity to respond to a diverse range of threats that include in conflict prevention linking early warning to early response and mediating conflict for purposes of mediating conflict.

When Kofi Annan showed up on Kenya’s doorstep in January 2008 to mediate the political standoff manifested in widespread ethnic violence between the parties PNU and ODM quite a number of Kenyans were working to end the conflict. But no one could stand in the gap he stood in, as everyone was or seen to be tarnished by the bias brush for either of the political parties.

The specter of more race and ethnic related violence and numerous county election standoffs loom in the 2012 elections. The truth justice and reconciliation process has not touched the epicenter of Kenya’s post election violence, the Rift Valley or the land issue time bomb, the Coast.  As months roll towards the elections a new set of threats are rising in prominence; that of new ‘minorities’ created by the new county arrangement with minorities such as the Kuria in Migori, Kalenjin in Nakuru, Maasai in Transmara, Tharaka in Tharaka seemingly destined by the county’s ethnic voting patterns to political oblivion by the Luo Majorities in Migori, Kikuyu majorities in Nakuru and the Kipsigis majorities in Transmara and the Chuka majorities in Tharaka. 80 per cent of Kenya’s new county arrangements are facing this new threat and even among homogenous societies such as the Kisii and the Somali, clan issues have reared their heads with majorities threatening to out vote minorities. In this new political arrangement, potentially explosive issues such as ethnic and religious violence are elevated. As Justice Johann Kriegler famously remarked in his report on the investigation on the botched 2007 election results, compared to 2012, the violence in 2008 could be a Christmas party.

Traditional structures such as elders and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not yet optimized to address this new range of diverse range of threats particularly in intra ethnic conflicts. They also do not provide the full set of capabilities that ensures security operations and medical relief. Yet it is widely acknowledged that one of the reasons for the escalation of the conflict in the first place is the absence, bias or incapacity of the security sector to protect citizens. To see the criminal justice system as the sole mechanism for preventing conflict and delivering justice is loading it too much. Security sector and judiciary reforms will not happen soon enough to avert the conflicts that are being stoked on the basis of the elections next year. The traditional mechanisms can nip a conflict in the bud and prevent its de-escalation. And as we have found out in many instances, the traditional systems and elders are also responsible and involved in the violence. This makes it mandatory for them to be involved in the peace making.It is important to acknowledge this key fact; They own the war and they own the peace.

NCIC has been working to build a broad agreement at the grass roots ‘hot spots’ counties with especially political leadership, state and non-state security and justice providers and civil society. Many of our attempts at establishing a base for self reliance in mediation are successful as among the Kalenjin/Kikuyu in Nakuru, Gabra/Borana in Marsabit,Tharaka and Tigania with leaders, who are not running for political office, acceptable to both groups emerging and commanding respect as negotiators and mediators.These people are ‘insiders’who live in the county, as part of the context within which either the conflict is occurring or about to occur. They are partial in the sense that they may be more aligned to one or more ethnic communities than the other the knowledge and in some cases the resources they offer make them acceptable across the board. Bishop LawiImathiu as a mediator of the Tharaka / Tigania conflict is a good example of this. Much of the NCIC energy is spent in managing the tensions between intra and inter ethnic relations working on the predominant themes of conflict prevention, anticipation of threats, building of trust and linking early warnings on violence to early responses. We only intervene to help facilitate the resolution or transformation of conflict issues.  It has taken us quite a bit of time to accept that competing interests will inevitably remain despite our best efforts and intentions.  As in so many places where violent conflict exists, the relationship between peace and justice, between ensuring accountability and ending violent conflict is very complicated. Results in the self reliance model are determined largely by context; in Nakuru for example the self interests of both Kikuyu and Kalenjin business owners contribute to their efforts towards peace, as do the need by the Gabra and Borana to put behind them a history whose landmarks are shaped by conflict such as the Turbi massacre. Those regions that have experienced violence , displacement, poor governance and insecurity accept the self reliance model of mediation more easily than those who have not as they understand that the proactive cost of prevention is more affordable than the reactive cost of waging war.

More often than not, a partnership between Government agencies and civil society on aligned conflict prevention missions has been the best choice. This is itself is a hindrance towards self-reliance. The relationship between the peace and human rights NGO’s is reflected in the conundrum of whether we can have peace without justice. The human rights NGO’s stand is that to place peace at the expense of for example prosecutions is to subvert justice. Peace NGO’s are largely content with an informed analysis of where tensions exist and why, and how to stop conflict recurring.However many of Kenya’s human rights NGOs have traditionally leaned on a civil political background, grounded in years of resistance to Government heavy handedness. Peace NGO’s on the other hand feel that they are doing the ‘real’ work, promoting peace. NGOs working on conflict prevention are also very diverse in terms of size and focus and willingness to partner with the criminal justice agencies on conflict prevention. They want to maintain their independence and neutrality as well as ensure the security of their staff in conflict prone areas. This has resulted in a new challenge, that of the need to create interagency management and integrated conflict prevention plan from agencies and civil society organizations that have different operational models, expected outputs and philosophies of cooperation. Other challenges include the fact that as we draw nearer the 2012elections, the self-reliance model community mediators’ work will play out on a national stage in all counties.  There is a farther complication in that for NCIC the  plan must target the unique needs of the county as well as emphasize civilian participation and leadership of the self reliance model where the role of external actors is to design programs that fit within the county context.

Meanwhile we work county-by-county, ethnicity-by-ethnicity and race-by-race to ensure that there are enough people who see cohesion and peace as a priority over war. This will walk hand in hand with ensuring respect for Article 232 (1) (h) that ensures ‘representation of Kenya’s diverse communities’ as one of the values and principles of the public service.

By Alice Nderitu. She is a Commissioner with NCIC. In January 2010 she was among 21 women mediators selected worldwide to share experiences on mediating armed conflict with students at the John Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and with policy makers in Washington DC