In civilised countries, the period leading up to elections is characterised by intense articulation of policies by opposing sides.

On television, pundits dissect the messages of the campaigns and how the various demographics are receiving those messages.

It is like a game of chess, analysing the appeal of opposing campaigns to various groups, and the voting traditions of regions, trying to determine how they will vote.

In Kenya, the period leading up to elections is characterised by hate-speech and violence. Yes, we, too, have pundits on television, pretending to dissect various campaign messages and how different sectors will respond to them.

But even they, just like the rest of us, know that they are being intellectually dishonest. We knew, five years ago, how the different ethnic groups would vote.

That is why for Kenyan politicians, registration of voters is perhaps the most crucial phase leading up to an election.

Indeed, this year, the dead and the dying in the drought-stricken areas of the country were forgotten as government officials flew around in helicopters to urge their tribal strongholds to register as voters.

It took the church community to demand that the government declare the drought a national disaster in order to re-focus government attention on the calamity.
It is tragic that people have to die because government officials are otherwise engaged. But there is a bigger tragedy, similar to the one in 2008, being choreographed by the political class.

This is not alarmist propaganda. For some time now, we have been witnessing heckling and violence at rallies. Now, the same heckling and violence is being witnessed during primaries to choose the candidates who will represent their parties in the various contests.

In Migori a few weeks ago, a political rally ended in chaos. People were injured and shots were fired. One shudders to think of the scenario that would have unfolded had a senior political figure been killed.

We are bound to witness similar scenes of chaos and violence before the primaries season is over. The question bothering many is: If primaries, which involve people belonging to the same political party (and ethnic group), can precipitate such chaos and violence, what of the main elections involving people from different parties (and ethnic groups)?

It is incomprehensible that, despite the existential threat posed by this culture of violence, we have failed to make stopping it once and for all an urgent national priority. In 1992, hundreds of people were killed in government-instigated tribal clashes. It happened again in 1997. In 2008, the country came close to an outright civil war. Now, unless we put everything aside and confront this evil, all indications suggest a conflagration on a scale similar to 2008.

Violence is bred by a culture of intolerance. We have never learned as a nation to differ with people without seeing them as our enemies. This culture of intolerance and violence is replicated in all sections of our society.

So every now and then, we see church members fighting it out with chairs over who should be their pastor. We see heckling and violence at social welfare organisations. We see violence among family members over land disputes. Similar violence is witnessed over disputes over water or grazing areas. There are clashes over county or sub-county border disputes.

To stop this culture of violence will require a multifaceted approach involving legal penalties, social-cultural ostracism of perpetrators, and community mobilisation against warmongering.

Those inciting and those executing heckling and violence must face prompt legal action, involving heavy fines and jail time. At the same time, the inciters and their foot soldiers must be ostracised by their political parties, social welfare organisations and their communities.
Lastly, we must begin inculcating in community members the idea that inciting and violence are moral deficiencies. By these actions, we will begin to make violence a liability, not an asset.

But would the political class want an end to violence? After all, they are its biggest beneficiaries. Politicians only condemn it when it is perpetrated by an opposing political party, or at hypocritical prayer meetings. Political parties love their inciters.

If you doubt this, then why are known inciters of violence in both Jubilee and NASA still holding senior party positions?

Why are known tribal ideologues chosen to represent their parties at negotiations? The solutions to violence and other problems are known. However, the question in the case of violence, , as in other cases, is: Does the political class want these problems solved?

Tee Ngugi is a Nairobi-based political and social commentator. E-mail: [email protected]