Being ‘free’

On 14 May 2013, ‘Occupy Parliament: an uprising against collective greed of Kenyan members of parliament’ took place. The public demonstration was against the attempt by MPs to reverse the decision of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC)which brought their basic pay down to KES532,500 from the KES851,000 that members of the previous parliament had earned.

The SRC’s decision was known prior to the elections—meaning that when candidates for ran for office, they were aware what their remuneration would be. The SRC’s decision is also supported by the general public. According to Ipsos Synovate, no less than 86 per cent of Kenyans polled this past week support the SRC’s decision (given a margin of error of +/-2.14, at the confidence level of 95 per cent), which didn’t, however, stop the MPs from calling for the SRC’s disbandment.

MPIGS UNLEASHED

Thus Kenyans took to the streets. The demonstrators marched from Freedom Corner to parliament without incident. They then, in a move to symbolise the greed of the ‘MPigs,’ released pigs around parliament and drenched them with blood. Members of Parliament in Kenya are popularly known by the abbreviation ‘MPs,’ which activists have corrupted to 'Mpigs'. The General Service Unit (GSU) and the anti-riot police moved in. Tear-gas and water-cannons were unleashed. Several protestors, including women, were beaten, in full view of television cameras. Some protestors were arrested, charged the following day (oddly) with animal rights violations as well as affronting the freedoms and rights of the Muslim community.

The Police Spokesperson later said any GSU or anti-riot police member who’d participated in the beatings would face the music. Wisely not taking him at his word, the protestors have filed a complaint with the Independent Police Oversight Authority—which has yet to prove its mettle in bringing the behaviour of the security services under control.

So much for what happened. It is—or should be—a simple story. MPs behaved badly. Kenyans protested. Boniface Mwangi, ex-photojournalist of Picha Mtaani fame, together with governance, human rights and legal organisations under Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice (KPTJ), chose to do so through a public demonstration - as is their right.

IS IT NOT A ‘FREE COUNTRY?’

But it is, of course, not a simple story. This may be the first public demonstration following the controversial elections—during which public demonstrations were unconstitutionally and illegally suspended by the security services to supposedly maintain the ‘peace.’ This ‘peace’ narrative holds, as some reactions to the public demonstration show.

Commentators have been quick to ask why the protestors didn’t use ‘legal’ avenues instead, for example. First, another group of Kenyans is trying to use the ‘legal’ avenue. Second, KPTJ is, following the Supreme Court decision on the presidential petitions, more than a little sceptical about the ‘legal’ avenue. Third, public protest is a ‘legal’ avenue. But that is all beside the point. Any commentator who has an idea of how to protest better should feel free to exercise it—themselves. It is, ostensibly, a free country.

Which isn’t to imply there isn’t a debate amongst the protestors as to what worked and what didn’t. For example, about the use of the pigs—which many felt was effective and inspired (I laughed out loud when I saw them) but which many didn’t (some Muslims were offended and the use of real blood was, no doubt, over the top).

ARE PUBLIC PROTESTS REALLY A THREAT TO PEACE?

But it is to note just how much, in the public mind, public protest—rallies, demonstrations, sit-ins—are now effectively associated with a threat to the ‘peace’ and ‘violence.’ The question is why? Any public protest, however carefully planned, draws in members of the public who may not be as well briefed on expected behaviour and may also be opportunistic. Public protest is also anathema to both the Executive and the security services—meaning all public protests are inevitably infiltrated by both intelligence and plainclothes personnel. Which is fine—it is, after all, their job to know what’s going on. But what is not fine is when they themselves play the role of saboteurs to create chaos, thus providing the excuse for an unnecessarily violent break-up and eroding public sympathy for the protestors. Or deliberately allow paid saboteurs to do the same (think back to the whips of Jeshi la Mzee in the 1990s and do not naively imagine that that tired tactic has run its course).

THE SHADOW OF THE 2007/8 ELECTIONS

But today, in 2013, the main reason we’re so precious about the ‘peace’ is obviously the insidious narrative that prevailed during the general elections. But the violence of 2007/8 did not occur because people publicly protested. It occurred because public protest was, in fact, denied. It occurred because people organised it. It occurred because the security services participated in it—including through gang-raping women and shooting Kenyans in the back. With the majority of those dying doing so as a result of police bullets, according to the Commission of Inquiry into the post-elections violence.

PUBLIC PROTEST IS A RIGHT

So let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that public protest, in and of itself, is a threat to the ‘peace.’ It’s not. It’s our right. It’s our right to ‘occupy parliament’ and stop the ‘MPigs.’ Just as it’s the right of those who don’t want to ‘occupy parliament’ to do something else—if they’ve better ideas. They can write letters to the media or to their parliamentarians. They can go to court. They can also do whatever they want, as long as they do not disrupt the rights of others in doing so. That’s what being ‘free’ means.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is doing her graduate studies at L’Institut d’etudes politiques (Sciences Po) in Paris, France

Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.