When Media Become Lapdogs Rather Than Watchdogs

A little over a week has passed since police stormed the Musa Mosque in Mombasa, and killed up to 9 people whom they accused of participating in a "jihadist convention." Nearly 130 others, including children were arrested -58 have since been released- and the rest charged with offences under Kenya’s terrorism act. The police claim to have recovered terror training materials and information indicating plans to attack an "unspecified target."

I think there is a lot that is disconcerting about how this story is being told and the assumptions that have been made. There is little questioning of the government narrative. The media appears to have already made up its mind about what happened and has entirely ignored alternative versions of what happened.

Some things just don't seem to gel with the “official truth”. To begin with, this was no secret meeting. The media has reported that the convention was openly advertised on posters pasted across town and on social media postings and that the authorities were well aware of it. There is also considerable confusion over who called the meeting and what exactly was to be discussed.  The Standard reported there were lectures “on various topics justifying jihad, claiming conspiracies against Muslims and exhorting the faithful to prepare for ishtishhaad (life of sacrifice)”. However, Sheikh Abdallah Kheir, an imam and lecturer of sociology at Kenyatta University, told the press the meeting had been advertised merely as a religious lecture. Some of those who claimed to have been there also seemed unaware they were attending a "jihadist convention."

Further, it is unclear whether the meeting had been prohibited (which would raise fundamental issues surrounding the legality of any such a ban, and the impact on constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of assembly and speech -issues that the press has not bothered to address.) The press reported that "authorities in Mombasa" had said they "would not allow it to take place." But these "authorities" do not appear to have made any effort to inform the organizers that their meeting had been disallowed. Though in the aftermath of the raid, the Mombasa County Police Commander was quoted as saying: "'we' had issued a warning that we will not allow such a meeting because it was illegal," other reports indicated that the Mombasa County Security Committee made no attempt to stop it "anticipating that known hardcore jihadists would attend it." In fact, "attending an illegal meeting" does not appear to be one of the charges levelled in court in relation with the incident.

As I write this, the government has reportedly arrested three persons  in the capital, Nairobi, after police broke up a citizens' protest they had themselves cleared. The demonstration, led by the activist Boniface Mwangi and the widely respected Rev Timothy Njoya, was supposedly outlawed by the shadowy National Security Advisory Council which accused the US Agency for International Development of plotting to topple the government by financing demonstrations. Again, as the press has dutifully parroted the government's ridiculous allegations and ignored the constitutional issues, no one asks why it appears that the authorities once again appear to have made no effort to inform organizers that their event was “banned” or which law gave them the power to do so.

Going back to Mombasa, I am also greatly concerned at the terms employed in the coverage, much of which mirrors the distorted and lazy international reporting on seemingly all matters Muslim. The press has branded the meeting an "outlawed jihadist convention" and taken to calling those arrested (and, it would seem, pretty much any collection of young men at the coast) "militants" or "radicalized youth". We hear of "jihadist" flags and banners (apparently any black cloth with Arabic-looking script) and everyday household items, including scissors, a pair of pliers and a screwdriver, described as "weapons".  There's a disturbing vagueness about what is meant by radicalization. Who gets to decide who is a "radical preacher", which youngsters have been "radicalized", and what a nice "moderate" Muslim looks and sound like?

A few days after the Masjid Musa raid, a mob in Kisumu defaced and forced the removal of a monument put up to commemorate a century of Sikh presence in Kenya's third-largest city. In the days leading up to the destruction of the statue, Christian preachers were openly inciting their followers claiming the structure was "satanic" and attributing weather phenomena to its erection. Despite this, no one called for regulation of sermons in Kisumu, the shutting down of “radical preachers” in favor of “moderate Christians” or characterized the violent youths as “militant” or “radicalized”.

It is clear that the government has for a long time been uncomfortable with rising political consciousness at the coast and elsewhere. Its standard response however has been one of demonization while continuing to ignore the underlying grievances. Its dealings with civil society critiques or the Mombasa Republican Council, for example, demonstrate this clearly enough.

While there may be areas of legitimate security concerns, such as recruitment into terror outfits like Al Shabaab and possible terror plots, this does not give authorities carte blanche to ignore constitutional limits and to deny fundamental freedoms. The constitution exists primarily to constrain the power of government, not the rights of citizens. Thus we really should be worried when government sets itself up as the public censor, purports to ban speech and speakers it does not like and uses "national security" as an excuse to close down the space for political expression and protests.

Unfortunately, our press, more lapdog than watchdog, has largely failed to question the motives and (mis)deeds of the people in power. As we have seen before, it is ever happier cozying up to them and helping to delegitimize their opponents. Like the mob in Kisumu, it is quick to desecrate and deface, and slow to think and question.

12 Years A Symbol

As the saying goes, success has many fathers. The meteoric rise of actress Lupita Nyong'o from relative obscurity to global sensation has spurred a bitter exchange within Kenya as to what her success means.

Most have celebrated what they see as the triumph of a can-do Kenyan attitude in the face of massive odds, and proof that all is possible if only one stayed true to oneself and was prepared to do the hard work. Others, while acknowledging and celebrating her admirable effort and undeniable talent, however point to her privileged background as a scion of Kenya's elite and see in her story evidence of the massively skewed access to resources that denies many other "Lupitas" their chance to shine. Unfortunately, the latter take has been interpreted by some as an attack on the actress herself.

Interestingly, this debate did not attach to that other global start that Kenyans have laid claim to. When Barack Obama ran for and was elected President of the United States, there was near universal celebration of the achievement, despite the obvious fact that his association with Kenya is rather tenuous. There was also near complete unanimity that had his father brought him up in Kenya, his chances of rising to the highest office in the land would have been close to nil.

Just compare his fate to that of his younger step-brother, George. They share a biological father but have different mothers. Both were raised continents apart by their mothers and grandparents. While one went to ivy league schools and ended up in the White House, the other dropped out of school, joined a gang, went to prison and dwells in rather more humble surroundings on the outskirts of Nairobi. As would write: "If there was a leading light in the Obama clan, then [Barack] was it; and if there was a shadowed place that no one liked to talk about, then I guess that was me."

Of course, as Lupita demonstrates, living in Kenya is not necessarily a sentence to the hard labour of poverty (or a one-way ticket to criminality). However, for very many, and perhaps for the majority, it comes very close to that. Dr Alex Awiti, director of the East African Institute and assistant professor at Aga Khan University, describes Kenya's as "a tale of three countries: the obscenely rich country; the gasping middle-income country, teetering on the precipice; and, the miserably poor country." It is a country where two-thirds of the population survives on less than 3 dollars a day and the lowest ten per cent of households control just one per cent of national income. On Lupita's side of the fence though, the outlook is much brighter. Here, where the richest ten percent who control nearly half the national income live, opportunity abounds.

Needless to say, none of this is her fault and neither does it detract from the magnitude of her achievement. But having stated it anyway, one must also admit that she has benefited handsomely from this set of circumstances. Acknowledging this is important because it is necessarily because it allows us to understand that behind the beautiful Kenyan facade she presents to the world lies a "shadowed place that no one likes to talk about."

The existence of this dark place, where most Kenyans are condemned to eke out their existence, is a direct consequence of the existence of Lupita's world. The Kenyan elite's history of theft, oppression and marginalisation has produced this state of affairs. It is a terrible and a terribly unfair burden to place on her young shoulders, but it is nonetheless one she will have to bear along with the accolades. It is the unfortunate shadow of her success and cannot be divorced from it.

Given that, is there a connection between the Kenyan discomfort with acknowledging privilege and our reluctance to confront the elite who benefit from it? I think there is. The depredations of the elite have created an impoverished society where most operate on the brink of existence and must constantly court its largess and patronage. In this circumstance, the many are reduced to sycophancy not only to curry the favor of the wealthy few, but also to vicariously experience the material success that they are too often denied. The conspiracy of silence is abetted higher up the food chain with few wishing to rock the boat. As one of my tweeting friends put it, acknowledging the privilege "is facing it & for most of us, admitting we accrue some benefits from the system that we just don't wanna give up."

Like it or not, Lupita's success, and the dispute it has engendered, are therefore symbolic of the contradictions inherent in Kenyan society. She is both an inspiration to millions of young people who dream of joining the stars, and a reminder of the system that suffocates those very dreams.

Gay Bans in Africa Are About Control, Not Culture

In his famous 1996 speech delivered on the occasion of the passing of the new Constitution of South Africa in Cape Town, Thabo Mbeki, then the country’s vice-president declared: “I know that none dare challenge me when I say - I am an African!” If some on the continent had their way, however, then it appears that someone could take him up on that.

Last week, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan signed into law a bill that outlawed gay marriage, public displays of same-sex relationships, and belonging to gay groups. In doing so, he joined a wave of officially sanctioned homophobia that is sweeping the continent. From Angola to Zimbabwe, persecution of gays is on the rise fueled by fundamentalist preachers, intolerant governments and homophobic politicians.

The war on gay rights is waged on the battleground of culture and identity. Its most committed troops regularly declare that theirs is a fight to defend African values from the encroachment of Western attitudes. “It is un-African because it is inconsistent with African values,” declared Ugandan MP David Bahati, who in 2009 introduced legislation to make homosexuality a capital crime. As reported in the Washington Post, Nsaba Butoro, the country’s minister for ethics and integrity said: "You are talking about a clash of cultures. The question is: Which culture is superior, the African one or the Western one?"

But the rhetoric of a culture clash masks an effort to own and define what it means to be a human being in Africa. It posits the existence of a common African Culture, a mystical commonality that supposedly underlies the traditions and practices of the thousands of communities on the continent. This is, of course, fiction. What is supposedly being defended is little more than a figment of the Victorian imagination.

The idea of descent from childishly simple and primitive people, unsoiled by the complexities of modernity and living in harmony with nature on an Edenic paradise, a by-gone society of wizened sagely old men sitting under trees spewing maxims surrounded by overly-sexualized women shaking their well-endowed butts – this is not the creation of the people who inhabit the continent. In fact, the notions of common ancestry and common fates were forged far away from the continent’s shores, in the capitals and classrooms of Europe and America.

This invention has been employed by colonial and post-colonial tyrants across the continent to insist that their subjects are uninterested in concepts of knowledge, truth, justice and human rights, that they need to be protected from the horrors of the female brain and body, and the decadence of love, romance, sex, joy, imagination and fun. After all, the African was created to work, to obey, to conform, to donate his labour and resources for the benefit of his betters.

African Culture is an imposition created to define and therefore dehumanize and enslave the continent, to deny its inhabitants their history and their agency. Thus the historical fact that homosexuality was practiced and tolerated in many traditional African societies is wished away. Particularly revealing in this regard is the practice of justifying strictures against gays by appeals, not to traditional religion or practice, but to Christianity and Islam and the invented “cultures” of artificial nation-states. African Culture is articulated from the pulpits of foreign faiths. (Archbishop Desmond Tutu once joked: “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land.”)

According to Africa Report, the United Nations has warned that Nigeria’s legislation undermines, not just gays’ safety, but also their humanity. They, and others across the continent who refuse to conform to the dictates of African Culture –including human rights workers and pro-democracy activists- are marked as un-African, stripped of their humanity, beaten, jailed, tortured, exiled or murdered without too much fuss.

Their real crime is they dare to challenge the right of a small but powerful elite to define what an African is and in doing so pose a direct threat to the systems of control and privilege that have been built around that right. The refusal to be defined, to be silenced or hidden away, is terrifyingly subversive as it opens up new horizons and new avenues to self-knowledge and, ultimately, generates new centres of power.

As people, especially the youth, on the continent –buoyed by rising incomes and the revolution in communications technology- become increasingly impatient with the one-size-fits-all constriction of humanity, it will become more difficult for the governing elites to continue to exploit the trope of African culture to keep their populations in check. Already, on the internet and in other forums, one can see feminists and gay and governance activists challenging the conceptions that underlie it. Through these conversations, Africans are reimagining themselves in new, refreshing and empowering ways, and creating spaces for authentic cultural expression.