Refined minds detest political violence

A student (centre) is ferried on a motorcycle as it passes next to a bonfire in Kibera, Nairobi

A student (centre) is ferried on a motorcycle as it passes next to a bonfire in Kibera, Nairobi on March 27, 2023, during protests against the high cost of living that was called by Azimio leaders.

Photo credit: Evans Habil | Nation Media Group

The Bible records two women who appeared before King Solomon tussling over a child. DNA technology had not evolved hence Solomon had to use logic and reasoning to make a determination on who the child belonged to between the two. 

Each of the women strongly believed in their respective positions. A wise but rhetorical suggestion was made. What if the child is split for sharing among the two? One woman agreed. The true mother refused and proposed it is far much better she surrenders the baby. Solomon identified her as the true mother and gave her the child. 

Her selflessness clearly showed her motherly instincts. Her attitude against violence on a small baby and her instinct towards retaining the whole as opposed to splitting it into useless parts illustrated her moral instincts. 

Extrapolate this story into a political context. Those leaders who abhor violence and prefer ceding ground for the larger cause of maintaining a society ought to be recognised as the genuine ones.

What profits a politician to gain the whole of Kenya and lose the Kenyan soul? Blessed must be the peacemakers who must be called the children of God.

Violent political scenes

This lesson has become important as Kenyans watched violent political scenes on TV in the past couple of weeks. 

It is a distressing sight, particularly when parents see their little children fail to go to school for fear of political violence. But Kenyan politicians need to understand violence as a political tool belongs to a bygone past.

When one watches TV, one gets the impression violence globally is on the increase. Violence is in Ukraine, Syria, Somalia, Israel, Congo, Myanmar, Libya, Chad, and Mali among other places.

There are frequent shootings in the US and terrorist attacks in parts of Europe plus violent demonstrations in Kenya, Europe and Asia (Hong Kong and Pakistan). The list is endless. This confirms the world is more violent today, right? The answer is no. Humankind is living peacefully now more than at any other time in world history. 

In his 2011 book The better angel of our nature: why violence has declined, Stephen Picker illustrates humans are living more peacefully than ever using facts and data. When people were organised as tribes, they were more violent. They became more peaceful as they organised themselves into larger entities of states.

There are two forms of political violence: state versus state violence and intrastate violence (groups fighting among themselves within one state).

State versus state violence tends to be more devastating since it entails more people fighting who are better resourced. Since 1953 after the Korean war, major world powers have not fought, albeit directly. Less powerful states have fought directly but for a very limited time — for example, the Israel/Arab states conflict of the 1970s. Compare this with the 17th or 18th centuries and in previous decades when major powers were defined by constant conflicts.

Intrastate violence has declined. In the 1980s there was a peak as humans endeavoured to fell autocratic governments. The democratic wave of the 1990s ushered in more responsive governments. 

There are five historical drivers of a decline in violence. First, the rise of centralised democratic governments with a monopoly of violence. A powerful government that can make and enforce laws using violence creates incentives for its citizens to refrain from taking laws into their hands, as long as the state criminal law processes are deemed fair and just. 

Second, the expansion of commerce. It has become illogical to kill your customer. When it is cheaper to buy something than to steal and when our neighbour is more worthy to us when he is alive than dead, societies become less violent. 

Social stigmatisation

When we steal or kill, we risk two factors: an arrest and social stigmatisation. 

Commerce is based on exchanges. If you steal something from me, you gain but I lose. Hence the net wealth of both of us remains the same. But if you have something, and I have something, we exchange and the net gain is twice since the gain is a total of the two items that we have exchanged. We both have a vested interest to preserve the status quo.

Exchange leads to specialisation as individuals (and states) concentrate in fields where they are the best. Specialisation then creates dependability on your neighbour hence your desire for his or her well-being. 

Third, there has been an increase in women in positions of power. Women are less endowed in masculinity hence societies pivot towards peace as opposed to brawn. 

Fourth is the expansion of logical thinking where reliance is on evidence in decision-making instead of tradition. Finally, the expansion of mass media has made us see humanity as one as opposed to "outsiders". Incidentally, whereas media is behind the creation of the false notion the world is more violent, that focus on "bad news" incentivises humans to remedy the few violent incidents. 

But delegitimisation of violence can also be noted by reminding ourselves of mundane facts. Do you know how our forefathers used to marry? They would ambush their intended brides by the river and hijack them. These days young males use complex seduction tricks to win women.

Kings of yesteryears used autocratic means to stay in power. These days politicians employ complex peaceful tactics to convince people and get power. Our parents and teachers used to impact discipline using violent means.

These days it is forbidden by law to spank a child. Years back capital punishment was provided and exercised by the state. Currently, capital punishment exists only in the books but has no practical effect. Years back robbers used violence to break into banks. Banks now fear sophisticated youngsters in laptops than gun-wielding thugs in hoods.

In a nutshell, we are in the age of non-violent seduction. You get your way, not through a show of violent force. Rather, you employ a variety of peaceful tactics to convince whomever you wish to. However, this article does not suggest violence will completely end soon. Neither does it ignore the plight of current victims of violence including refugees. 

It only asserts violence is a form of backwardness. Those still exercising violence are on the wrong side of history. Whatever one's political grievance (and they are many genuine grievances), a political figure needs to think deeply and adopt peaceful means to achieve the desired outcome.

Mahatma Gandhi employed sophisticated peaceful tactics to fight the British in India successfully. Martin Luther did so in the US and achieved great political civil rights for his people. Therefore Kenyan political actors need sophisticated minds to conjure non-violent political action tips.

The scenes on our television screens exhibit the inability of our actors to think deeply and obtain peaceful tactics. 

Irungu Kang’ata is the Murang’a Governor