|
Did Development Fail in Kenya?
The Namibian (Windhoek)
OPINION
8 February 2008
Jean-Michel Severino
Windhoek
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% 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%
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 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 level,
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.
|
