Security is political; no one should gag debate

President Kenyatta is escorted by Senate Speaker Ekwee Ethuro and National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi. PHOTO | BILLY MUTAI |  NATION MEDIA GROUP

In Summary

• It is political to attempt to deny Kenyans the reason or voice to ask the why question. When the why question is not asked, then the governing Jubilee Coalition can be shielded from the moral pinpricks that should remind its top brass it campaigned on a security platform.
• To tell Kenyans not to politicise insecurity is to give credence and legitimacy to the corruption that thrives under the blanket, wall and iron curtains of silence that are always thrown around issues of security to forbid public scrutiny and accountability of security services.
• This is telling Kenyans to be content with footing a huge security bill and living with insecurity every day – and that is political.

By KWENDO OPANGA
More by this Author

After the frightening events of December 18 in the National Assembly, I hope those politicians who had been asking Kenyans not to politicise insecurity, now know better.

Insecurity cannot be politicised because security is first and foremost political. Here is why: One, on the stumps in 2013, the governing Jubilee Coalition and opposition Coalition for Reforms and Democracy identified security as critical to Kenya’s economic development.

Two, these meanings of security reinforce my argument. At one level security is that condition where one is not threatened physically, psychologically, emotionally or financially.

At another, it is the enforcement of laws, rules, regulations and maintenance of law and order to ensure that people and their property are not threatened physically, psychologically, emotionally or financially.

Three, security comprises organisations for providing security by enforcing laws, rules and regulations and by maintaining law and order. Therefore, when Kenyans see a police station or military barracks, they should know that is security.

When they see the Inspector-General of Police they should know and feel they are looking at Mr Security. When they see and hear the Commander-in-Chief they should see, hear and feel security.

INVESTMENT

Now to argue that these things are not political is to suggest that they do not involve, revolve around, impact or concern even, the way Kenyans are governed and go about their daily lives.

To suggest so is to deny that security attracts investment and insecurity drives it away; it is to deny that insecurity causes fear and despondency and that Kenyans are losing lives, loved ones, property and confidence in the ability of their government to protect them.

Four, the process of law-making is political. Nothing is more political than the way the new security laws were passed in the National Assembly.

When you are asked not to politicise insecurity, you are being told not to ask your President why he blames you, the victim of insecurity, for the insecurity.

But, if security is legitimate political campaign fare so also is insecurity legit political agitation fodder. If security were not political, December 18 would not have produced new laws.

To ask that the insecurity prevailing in the land be depoliticised is a brazen attempt to deny Kenyans reason or voice to ask questions of those who are tasked with ensuring that they are safe and secure in their homes, neighbourhoods, streets, transport, schools, markets, offices, bars, weddings and funerals. It is a deliberate attempt to shield the security apparatus from scrutiny for their failure to ensure a safe and secure Kenya.

To argue that insecurity prevailing in the land is apolitical is itself political because it is meant to confuse the issues at play and forbid Kenyans from asking why insecurity is rampant.

WHY

It is political to attempt to deny Kenyans the reason or voice to ask the why question. When the why question is not asked, then the governing Jubilee Coalition can be shielded from the moral pinpricks that should remind its top brass it campaigned on a security platform.

To say that insecurity should be depoliticised is to ask Kenyans not to question whether their security forces are well trained and well equipped to protect us. To ask them not to politicise insecurity is to tell them not to demand to know why the Kenya Defence Forces are yet to create an impregnable buffer between our border with Somalia and the nearest Al-Shabaab enclave in Somalia.

That is to ask Kenyans not to question why neither KDF nor police intelligence picked up the Al-Shabaab militants who massacred 28 Kenyans in Mandera in November and 36 in December as they crossed into Kenya, chose targets and as they attacked them and as they retreated.

To tell Kenyans not to politicise insecurity is to give credence and legitimacy to the corruption that thrives under the blanket, wall and iron curtains of silence that are always thrown around issues of security to forbid public scrutiny and accountability of security services.

Under this blanket, enclosed by this wall and behind this curtain thrives mega corruption in recruitment and procurement.

To ask Kenyans not to politicise insecurity is to suggest that it was wrong to go to court demanding that the recent corrupt recruitment of police trainees be annulled. It is to suggest that they turn a blind eye to the failure of community policing and police reform.

This is telling Kenyans to be content with footing a huge security bill and living with insecurity every day – and that is political.

wkopanga@gmail.com