Inept Journalism Gone Loose

A Response to the Commentary Entitled “Kenya Can’t, Won’t be Ethiopia”

Desta B. Sbhatu

13.04.2015

The Kenya-based STANDARD Digital came up with a comically wacky Commentary entitled Kenya Can’t, Won’t Be Ethiopia on its 10 April 2015 online edition, written by Mr Mwaura Samora. I came across the Commentary through www.aigaforum.com; and I could not keep silent. Thus, I am on the go to reflect on the key argument of the Commentary. 

 

First, I would like to pass my condolences to the families of the fallen victims of the recent terrorist attacks at Garissa University College. I pray the Almighty extends His powers to help the families of the victims endure the sufferings they are subjected to; and to help the MPs and other officials of the Kenyan Government realize their own utter failure and/or incompetence in placing security and intelligence apparatuses capable of deterring al-Shabaab’s attacks for so long. Kenya has been the playground of al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups for quite a while. Kenyans need to figure out why that is happening and take decisive measures – leaving aside the ham-fisted reasons put by the writer I am trying to deal with.

 

The writer, evidently loaded with a lot of confusion, has attempted to make sense of why the two brotherly countries, Ethiopia and Kenya, differ in their successes of curbing terrorist attacks by al-Shabaab – and has attributed history, system of government, and internal dynamics to Ethiopia’s better standing in that regard compared to Kenya. As little has been said about history and internal dynamics of the two nations in relation to the issue at hand, i.e. curbing terrorist attacks coming from and through al-Shabaab, I will reflect on how the writer is mistaken in looking into the systems of governments.

 

The writer’s knowledge of the nature of the current Ethiopian sociopolitical system – thus the system of the government of Ethiopia – is based on the distorted and cooked narratives written by neoliberal mouthpieces and self-centered, power-hungry local political elements. He describes Ethiopia’s system of government as “strict brand of socialism that places the state above everything else” and that “controls all spheres of life”; and depicts the ruling party as intolerant to the opposition political parties. These descriptions are music to the ears of the duplicitous anti-Ethiopian neoliberal mouthpieces and spineless Ethiopian opposition elements!  

 

Ethiopia’s recent sociopolitical history can provide anybody and everybody near and far with ample opportunities to learn enormous lessons; and help anybody and everybody clearly see how all sorts of narratives by the so many multi-tentacle neoliberal agents and local cry-babies are nonsensical. How would a repressive socialist-style regime manage to register a double digit economic growth for over a decade straight? How would a repressive regime put a fourth of its nearly 100 million citizens in schools? How would a repressive regime secure the support of citizens in all corners of the land in resolutely curtailing all anti-peace and anti-security elements? How would a repressive regime build hundreds of thousands of residential units – benefiting millions of citizens – in just few years? How would a socialist-style repressive regime build tens of thousands of miles of road networks interconnecting communities with one another and with economic centers? More importantly, how could a repressive regime managed to rally all citizens along its side in ensuring peace and security while a supposedly democratic regime and ‘free society’ of Kenya could not?!    

 

The writer’s understanding of the sociopolitical realities of Kenya is equally miserable. He appears to be comfortable by the Kenyan politics – dominated by two self-serving political coalitions; and tend to suggest that Kenyan political system is better than the Ethiopian multi-party system where a popular populist ruling party evolving into dominant one. [In fact, Mr Samora and other conscious and unconscious neoliberal mouthpieces do not accept the Ethiopian ruling party’s evolution to dominant one to be purely on its revolutionary and populist records!].

 

Anyway, if one delves to suggest that Kenya’s political system is better than that of Ethiopia, s/he would have the burden of answering some important questions, and answers them right. How could Kenya – and any other country for that matter – with two competitive political coalitions fail to have strong system of check-and-balance, and could not have a strong government of the people? How could Kenya’s political system – and that of any other country for that matter – with competitive political coalitions be better than the alleged Ethiopia’s dominant-party system and yet its defense and security personnel and apparatuses end up to be corrupt and incompetent as Mr Samora further alleged? How could the Kenyan sociopolitical system become good enough (and better than the alleged strict brand of Ethiopian socialism) and paradoxically significant part of the Kenyan peoples and communities are left to deal with all sorts of challenges by the Almighty, Mother Nature, and cruelty of neoliberalism by their own? I would not be surprised if I am told that these problems are tradeoffs of democracy.

 

Mr Samora and many other writers, who would jump in to write stories after stories about the political ideology of the Ethiopian ruling party, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), rarely fail to fail in grasping and/or representing it correctly – due to ignorance and insincerity. It is, thus, helpful to describe the ideology succinctly but clearly for the benefit of those who are interested to learn a lesson or two. The ideology can be referred to as revolutionary democracy, developmental democracy or democratic developmental state. It has two salient features – it is revolutionary and populist. It is revolutionary in that it endeavors and puts all available resources and instruments to realize the growth and socioeconomic transformation of all Ethiopians – thus the transformation of Ethiopia into vibrant market economy – effectively and quickly. It is a populist ideology in that it prescribes for the participation and engagement of the Ethiopian polity in national development and political decision-making in regard to all aspects of society; and works to ensure that all citizens are equitable beneficiaries of local and/or national development. Brothers and sisters in Kenya should understand that a democracy that does not guarantee the participation and engagement of all citizens in development activities (for private and common good) and political decision-making and that does not enable all citizens to become equitable beneficiaries of the national development is farcical – to say the least.    

 

Apparently, the degrees of participation and engagement of citizens in development and political decision-making as well as the amounts of economic benefits they garner from the pie of national development depend on their capabilities – quite disparate among Ethiopians for cultural and historical reasons. EPRDF – a democratic developmental party – works hard to narrow down and/or remove such gaps and disparities through implementing extensive capacity building and safety net programs in such a way that citizens and communities build the capabilities that can put them in better footing to become equitable beneficiaries of the ruling party’s revolutionary and populist development programs.

 

Now, it is helpful to raise five critical questions about the Kenyan ruling party/coalition and contending party/coalition. How are they committed and prepared to bring about radical (i.e. effective and quick) socio-economic and political transformations of all the Kenyan citizens and communities? How are they committed and prepared to put a system of government where participations and engagements of all the citizens in development activities and political decision-making are ensured? How are they committed and prepared in crafting, implementing, and/or promoting developmental economic policies and strategies as opposed to rent-seeking economic policies and strategies? How are they committed and prepared to implement economic development programs that can equitably benefit all the Kenyan citizens and communities? How are they committed and prepared to implement capacity building and safety net programs to narrow down or remove gaps and disparities and build required capabilities among citizens and communities to enable them to become equitable beneficiaries of any development?

 

The differences between Ethiopia and Kenya’s capacities and capabilities in deterring attacks coming from al-Shabaab and other terrorists; in defying and withstanding assaults coming from neoliberals and their mouthpieces; and in neutralizing nuisances coming from power-mongering local political entities lie in the differences of their governments’/ruling parties’ preparedness and commitment, or lack thereof, in addressing the above critical questions in revolutionary and populist fashions. The reasons for differences are, therefore, not what Mr Samora has tried to naively allege. Ethiopia’s democratic developmental state has carefully designed revolutionary and populist ways and means of preventing and defeating terrorist attacks and neoliberal assaults – primarily through practicing genuine democracy and implementing all-inclusive development that are drying troubled waters where terrorists and neoliberals would fish in. Kenya’s rent-seeking, night watchman regime and the farcical democracy it adopted, on the other hand, made Kenya to be what was expected to be – by default. A democracy that could not help Kenya ward off repeated terrorist attacks by al-Shabaab; and that could not help Kenya stop the massacres of its citizens repeatedly in broad day light cannot be described in any better way but farcical.

 

Kenyans – succumbed to neoliberal prescriptions of political economic system long ago without even knowing it – are growing in two ways: in terms of economic prosperity and in terms of abject poverty. While many Kenyans are prospering and Kenya is growing as per the yardstick of neoliberalism, many more are being pushed to extreme poverty. The rule of thumb of neoliberal political economy goes like this – wealth accumulation by dispossession! Under the neoliberal orthodoxy, no citizen of a country can prosper and accumulate wealth without many compatriots getting poorer and poorer simultaneously. That is the reason why, despite of the fact that Kenya’s economic performance according to the bizarre neoliberal parameters is quite good, it has so many marginalized rural communities and urban slums overcrowded with destitute dwellers – that serve as safe haven for al-Shabaab to recruit and radicalize Kenyans and citizens of other nations to achieve its ominous agenda. This is because economically and politically marginalized citizens and communities lack the capacity and interest to stand in defense of their communities and governments. By the same token, it is because rent-seeking, night watchman regimes lack the necessary resources to put required ways and means of effectively deterring such attacks – including the drying of the safe havens by transforming them.

 

Below, I would like to add some more points in regard to how the thriving grounds or safe havens of terrorism are created – be it in Afghanistan, England, France, Iraq, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Somalia, or Yemen. Triggered by the recent Garissa University College bloodbath, some Kenyan writers allege that poverty has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Some writers even believe that the association between poverty and terrorism to be myth – and further argue that many notable terrorists are rich and literate. How can any literate Kenyan be such ignorant to expect that terrorism – a complex tool of political agenda – is led and orchestrated by poor and illiterate people to begin with? Whether we like it or not – though unacceptable by standards of all civilized societies and it is incomprehensible by sane men and women – terrorism is a tool of political agenda. What else can it be!?

 

The history of terrorism shows us that, often times, it exploits the limitations and failures of regimes. Failures of regimes: in genuinely bringing about equitable economic prosperity among all their citizens and economic development to all their communities; in meaningfully engaging their citizens in economic activities and political decision-making; in providing their youths with good general education and vocational training; in putting all-inclusive economic development policies and strategies that ensure equitable growth and prosperity of their citizens and communities; and in adopting instruments of peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and tolerance among peoples of diversity of cultures and religions all create enabling grounds for terrorist organizations. Problems and limitations of regimes in the aforementioned aspects of societies – all of which being manifestations of the lack of genuine democracy and all-inclusive development – create troubled waters wherein terrorist organizations would fish through recruiting terrorists and suicide bombers, raising funds and other logistics, establishing headquarters and training camps, and propagating their ominous propagandas.

 

In this regard, what matters the most is not who create terrorist organizations – be it self-serving opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, members culturally frustrated citizens, elites of economically marginalized communities, residents of politically alienated regions, western secret agents, religious fanatics, non-government organizations, or leaders of street gangs. Neither does matter where they are created – be it in campuses of western colleges, under shades of acacia trees in the outskirts of Kismayo, in some caves in Tora Bora, in the ruined cities of Aleppo, in mosques in the Middle East, or in palaces of some rogue regimes. What matters the most is where do terrorist organizations thrive! They thrive in: failed states (e.g. Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen), marginalized communities and regions (e.g. Afghanistan, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sudan), and discordant communities and nations (e.g. Iraq, Kenya, Middle East, Nigeria, and Western Europe). Thus terrorist attacks in Kenya, namely that of the Garissa University College massacre, the Koromey mine site and the Mandera bus ambushes, the Nairobi Westgate Shopping Mall tragedy, and other small-scale attacks are – simply – the logical consequences of far-reaching problems related to lack of genuine democracy and absence of all-inclusive socio-economic development.

 

Before I wind up my reflections, I challenge the writer of the commentary entitled “Kenya can’t, won’t be Ethiopia” by asking one question. How is he different from any radical member of al-Shabaab? Though I cannot be certain about that, it is highly unlikely that he is even close to the group by any stretch of measures. Unfortunately, his action of misrepresenting the Ethiopian government in his Commentary puts him in the domain of radicalism. It would be a waste of time to respond to all the reckless blackmailing, sweeping misrepresentations, and twisted arguments Mr Samora has put in the Commentary about the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian peoples. But, it is quite helpful to remind him that the reason why sane men and women abhor and reject terrorism and radicalism is that because of the fact that terrorists and radicals drag innocent and feebleminded men and women into flames to achieve their agenda mainly by means of blackmailing, fabrications, and misrepresentations.

 

Hence, the writer may not have any evil agendas to be honest. But, the blackmailing, fabrications, and misrepresentations he has put about the Ethiopian government surely deceive naive and feebleminded readers. A radical functionary of al-Shabaab would not depict Ethiopia differently when s/he prepares suicide bombers and assassins. Neither would a hypocritical neoliberal mouthpiece when calling for street mob to realize post-election color revolution! May be it is inept journalism gone loose.