Did development fail in Kenya?
Did development fail in Kenya?By Jean-Michel Severino
Tuesday February 05, 2008 [03:00]
A month ago, Kenya fell prey to a sudden burst of post-electoral violence that has left over 1000 dead and hundreds of thousands displaced. The intensity and scale of the violence have stunned the world. Of course, Kenya had lived through tense electoral periods before, and few people who know Africa were blind to the many difficulties the country continued to face. But things seemed to be going well recently.
This year’s campaign was exceptionally peaceful, and millions of citizens voted on December 27 – at times walking and queuing for hours to cast their ballot.
Perhaps more fundamentally, Kenya was unanimously seen as the “good student” of development, sometimes referred to as a symbol of an African renaissance. The “Kenya vision 2030 framework,” a set of ambitious macroeconomic, legal, and constitutional reforms, was being implemented in close partnership with the World Bank.
Cherished by the donor community, Kenya received almost $1 billion of official development assistance in 2006 – up by 250 per cent since 2002. Its booming horticulture and tourist industries were hailed as models for other African states in their efforts to integrate into world trade.
The country’s economic expansion, which averaged 5.5 per cent in the last four years and fuelled the progress of neighbouring economies, appeared to prove that vigorous growth is possible in Africa even without mineral or fossil resources. Today, this economic miracle is up in the air.
All is not lost, and there are strong reasons to believe that Kenyans will surmount the current political crisis and put the country back on its promising track. Nevertheless, as we sit on the brink of the abyss, it is worth re-examining our assumptions that since poverty breeds conflict, socio-economic development must foster political stability and reduce recourse to violence.
The first lesson we should draw from this month of civil strife is that development, however well-managed, cannot solve everything. Some tensions are deeply ingrained in societies, and peace requires more than any development agency can deliver.
Parallel to the growth agenda, there is a specific role for bilateral and multilateral diplomacy to play in support of improved governance.
In fact, development itself generates a number of strains on societies that lie at the very roots of conflict.
Fast-paced changes of identity caused by urbanisation, the empowerment of women or exposure to foreign media tend to weaken traditional norms and social networks. And, at least initially, economic growth tends to increase inequalities within a country, as some communities or individuals benefit from rising income and others don’t.
By displacing traditional centres of power, development can nurture collective resentment. Ethnic manipulation is a small step away, which many political leaders are disposed to take.
None of this, however, disproves the link between development and peace, or inverts the correlation. At both the micro and the macro levels, development projects and economic growth can do much to alleviate some of the structural causes of political violence. But development professionals, whose first duty is to “do no harm,” should be more conscious of the complex strains brought upon developing societies. In Kenya too, this sensitivity has not sufficiently infused our organisations and projects.
Ultimately, the enhanced economic activity that development generates is the only way to reduce inequalities, particularly in a context of rapid demographic growth: it is easier to work on a fairer distribution of a growing pie than of a shrinking one.
Moreover, fast-paced but ill-distributed economic growth can be accompanied by programmes that focus on those who are left behind, thereby mitigating grievances. It is no coincidence that much of Kenya’s ongoing violence is occurring in the slums of its large cities. Had more attention been given to the country’s most glaring inequalities in access to water, shelter, or jobs, this population might not have chosen violence as an instrument of change.
Let us draw the right lessons from Kenya: socio-economic progress remains our best tool to prevent conflict in the long run. But the relationship between growth and political stability is subtler and less linear than we like to believe.
Development is no miracle solution to violence, and may create its own set of grievances – particularly when done without regard to the abrupt changes it brings to societies. Kenya isn’t an illustration of development failing, but of development at work: complex, powerful, and yet fragile.
www.project-syndicate.org
Labels: DEVELOPMENT, KENYA
posted by MrK @ 8:44 PM
2 Comments:
MrK-
This is a very difficult matter- I hesitate to comment but this could happen in any multi-ethnic or multicultural country. All countries are basically social arrangements,accomodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, infact they all artificial and maybe temporary.
Yugoslavia recently disintegrated into six nations and we have seen post election violence in that region. Kosovo is about to declare independence. There are even fears to post electoral issues even here in the United States of America, with the Obama - Clinton contest reviving old divisions.
So I would not even bring in the issue of development, may social cohension or inclusion failure may be a good start.
It is indeed, sad to see neighbors, fellow African turn against each in the manner we have seen in Kenya. However such events underscore a failure of integration and inclusion that is endemic in most societies, a failure to rally and include the majority without regard to ethnicity, religion and culture, to a grander cause and purpose only achievable under the grand umbrella of nationhood ( national identity).
Kashikulu,
However such events underscore a failure of integration and inclusion that is endemic in most societies, a failure to rally and include the majority without regard to ethnicity, religion and culture, to a grander cause and purpose only achievable under the grand umbrella of nationhood ( national identity).
What I think, is that the alternative would be a greater emphasis on localness - local government to provide the people with services where they live; local markets to provide jobs, goods and services where people live; individual/family land ownership, to make land tenure as secure as it can be.
Please check out my Manifesto, with regards to local government. They're just a few ideas to get the conversation started.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home