Paying for Protests

Some of the most widely disseminated images of protesters from Kenya's post-election crisis were filmed along a road that runs down a hill and into Nairobi's Kibera slum. It was a convenient spot for lots of us reporters to go and get our daily dose of demonstrations. Some stoned-looking kid was sure to bring out a car tire and set it alight. Angry chants would begin. The police would then oblige us by firing tear gas (and sometimes, it was claimed, live bullets) and then charge the crowds with made-for-TV whoops.

After a while, the demonstrations began to feel a little bit canned, and some of us felt sheepish about watching. Sometimes it seemed that the protests would only reach a fevered pitch once a critical mass of television crews and photographers had arrived.

Yesterday, I came across a guy in Kibera named Yusuf who claimed that while some of the earliest protests in Kibera were spontaneous, it was little mor e than show from the very start. According to Yusuf, agents of both parties told people in Kibera to gather groups willing to protest for money. The names would be written down. On days when the party agents wanted protesters out on the streets, they would call the group leaders and pay them 300 shillings per demonstrator if everyone appeared at the appointed place and time. Yusuf said that he himself saw agents from opposition leader Raila Odinga's party drawing up these lists and paying out the cash.

Those claims seem reasonable, particularly amid evidence that Kenyans who killed and looted at the height of the violence were paid to do so. It seems to me that this is further evidence that poverty, not ethnicity or anything else, is at the root of Kenya's crisis, and there's nothing mysterious or (ugh) atavistic about it. Political leaders paid poor people to go out and light tires. They wouldn't have done it otherwise.

You have to wonder about the efficacy of such tactics. Take the day when the opposition pulled out of reconciliation talks. On cue, Raila Odinga's supporters appeared on the streets chanting "No Cabinet, no peace" (who chants "No Cabinet, no peace?"... Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue) and lots of reporters made it look like Kenya, having just managed to scramble out of the Great Chasm of Chaos, was about to plunge back in.

The threat of new violence added some gravity to the situation, but it didn't get the opposition very far. If anything, the proetsts hurt Raila even more. International leaders came in and pushed even harder for a resolution, and both sides seemed to be under increased urgency to reach a deal. The government, operating from a stronger position to begin with, held its ground, and the opposition was forced to buckle, losing its claim on several key Cabinet posts.

Was the threat of imminent collapse into tribal war _ a threat almost certainly manufactured by Kenya's political leaders, cannily exploiting western stereotypes and misconceptions _ the only way that Odinga's party could force Kenya's autocratic president to concede anything at all? Would Raila Odinga now be prime minister if Kenya had stayed calm through the election crisis and President Kibaki had not been under nearly as much pressure? Certainly far fewer lives would have been lost.

Comments

[d]

Nick I love this article you posted!