I am writing from a hotel in the north Coast of Kenya. Security
has been beefed up. I passed by a police roadblock, and the police no
longer man it.
Instead, there were Navy officers in
full combat attire. The one who approached us was very polite. He asked
for our IDs and searched the whole car. During our conversation, I
discovered that he had studied a diploma course at Strathmore in the
late 90s.
As we spoke, he continued searching and said,
“Sorry, but it is our duty to check everything. Yesterday we caught a
lady carrying two grenades and she looked very innocent.”
After
a few minutes, it was over and he politely dismissed us, with warm
greetings for his former teachers, whom he was very proud of.
TERRORISM HAS CHANGED OUR LIVES
This
simple episode brought the question of how terrorism has changed us and
will continue changing us for years to come into our driving
conversation. Innocence is lost, and everyone suspects everyone else.
Gone
are the days when you could share a bite with an unknown neighbour on a
bus, or give a lift to a passer-by in need of transport or even greet a
child with an affectionate pat on the back.
Gone are
the days when the others were as good as we were, when only thieves
would suspect others. Perhaps it was the mirror effect, where each one
sees in others one’s own defects and virtues.
Security,
or the lack of it, is now at the top of the political agenda. Everyone
speaks about it, but we seem unable to do something about it.
Every
time there is an explosion or a massacre, we speak of bringing the
culprits to book, but the culprits either seem too many or we have too
few books for them.
EACH ON HIS OR HER OWN
This
has led us into security becoming a private affair. Each one is on his
or her own, and unless the trend is reversed, private security companies
may in future become more lucrative than tea, coffee, tourism or flower
exports.
Security guards and scanners have become the
most common feature at every entrance, be it shopping malls, hotels,
bars or churches. Everywhere.
Security has gone private
and each entity should, it seems, provide for itself and each person
fend for himself or herself. It is as if every building in town had
suddenly become an airport.
The women’s undressing
trend we spoke about last week has brought the security threat too close
to our own bodies. It is no longer about thieves or terrorists only,
but senseless, blind and cruel mob justice.
Sometimes I
wish Congestina were well and strong, to deal with a few of these
strippers. At this rate, every woman will literally need a bodyguard.
PRIVATISATION OF SECURITY
The
privatisation of security may be necessary when the State cannot
guarantee people’s safety. But privatisation of security also means
going back to a primitive concept of the State.
Privatising
security entails the reversal of our modern State concept into the
semi-private feudal systems, a system that curtailed development and the
enjoyment of certain essential rights, and from which democracy was
only lavished on us recently.
Modern states are
entities that bring together people with a sense of belonging or
identification, in a given territory. The modern State was founded on a
very practical idea. Certain rights are bestowed or given to the State,
for the State to look after them on behalf of the citizen.
They remain citizen’s rights, but the obligation to protect them is placed on the State.
KEY FUNCTION OF THE STATE
Security is a key function of the State. Instead of organizing their own Jeshi la Mzee
or private armies, citizens are required to pay taxes, which then
support the formation, maintenance and training of security forces. In
this way, the private possession and use of arms is restricted and
security is enhanced.
In the modern State model,
citizens do not give up their right to security; they simply give away
the exercise of the security function. They place their own security in
the safe hands of the State.
The survival instinct
creeps in when the State fails to deliver a safe environment. People
start searching for arms, first legally and then illegally. The usual
justification is the essential right to security and self-defence.
This
exodus from the organised security structures into the disorganised
private arrangements will in the long run escalate insecurity. The most
dangerous aspect is that the State and its citizens may not grasp the
seriousness of these private arrangements, where the State loses control
and we progressively move away from the modern State model, back to a
sort of feudal system, where each man or woman has to fend for himself
or herself.
PLAN ‘B’ IS NEEDED
The situation is serious. We are slowly walking into anarchy. Many important questions remain mysteriously obscured.
What
are the root causes of Al-Shabaab's infiltrations and attacks? How many
Al-Shabaab-type organisations are operating in Kenya? Why are wananchi
in the streets turning into criminals? What is the root cause of all
this?
As of now, terrorist cells are simply creating chaos in a very disorganized manner, haphazardly and randomly.
What
would happen if they gained access to critical information
infrastructure such as airport, police, defence and public revenue
databases and control settings?
The fight against
terrorism has traditionally followed the Israeli-American model of
brutal force with detailed intelligence. This model requires tons of
dollars and a healthy apparatus, with complicated checks and balances.
Kenya does not have this kind of money or apparatus.
It
is time to think of a plan B. What is behind national terror attacks
apart from revenge? What’s the agenda? Do the terrorists have one? Why
is the police response to attacks so slow and lukewarm?
These tough questions may help us redefine our response to terrorism and, if necessary, revise security and policy decisions
No comments:
Post a Comment