Ethnicity and the 2017 post-election violence
It is well known that the media sets agendas (McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver 1997) and validates some voices over others, such as when journalists quote renowned public figures when reporting, to satisfy the interests of the public. It appeared as if, in the 2017 elections, the State was targeting and profiling members of the opposition based on their ethnicity. The State used their social media pages to spread propaganda, terming spontaneous demonstrations “Luo Mass Action”.4 Repeat presidential elections failed to take off in many counties in Kenya, due to opposition boycotts citing failure of the electoral body to meet conditions on minimum reforms. When this happened, the Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission seemed to read from the same “ethnic-profiling-script”, singling out predominantly Luo counties as the only counties deserving repeat presidential elections. This was despite the tact that many other polling stations in several other non-Luo counties had also boycotted.
The 2017 elections and the attendant chaos demonstrate clearly how elites in Kenya benefit from exploitation of identity politics through media propaganda to incite violence leading to human rights abuses. The 2017 media shutdown should have been a wake-up call for Kenya’s mainstream media regarding its watchdog role and a reality check for the State regarding the critical role of social media in cyberdemocracy. Social media technologies contributed towards civil society capacity for reporting and documenting electoral related violence through various ways such as online monitoring through crowdsourcing, SMS reporting and mapping violent incidences and sharing experiences through Facebook on electoral conflict at the grassroots level (Mutahi and Kimari 2017).
In addition, other sites allowed for the sharing of videos and information which enabled the mapping of violence and generated public attention towards preventive efforts by government and other stakeholders. However, it is important to point out that social media is not a silver bullet; this paper equally underscores the important role played by the other institutions such as the judiciary in democratic consolidation. Unfortunately, the media, social media included, failed to appreciate the importance of the 2017 electoral jurisprudence, and, as in 2007, it reduced the election to a two-man affair, that of Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga. The latter was framed as a perennial electoral loser while the former was presented as a “digital leader”. The Building Bridges Initiative or “the handshake”5 between these two leaders, now enjoying local and international support, came as a big relief for many Kenyans because it brought an opportunity for national dialogue for peace and reconciliation.
