The recently enacted Security Laws seem to have divided the country down the middle. The division is as a result of the careless and hurried manner in which these laws were mooted, debated and passed.
The government divisively and carelessly pushed a dichotomous thinking of 'you either support the Security Laws or you are a terrorist sympathiser'. A black and white worldview is often a reflection of underlying intolerance and intellectual laziness that result in flawed conclusions.
This kind of approach to legislating, decision-making and policy-making kills debate and the end result is not-thoroughly-thought-through products that are then forced on people.
Laws are products of good reasoning and should be based on sound, consistent logic, not emotions or political pressure.
The hurried enactment of draconian security laws exposed Uhuru and his henchmen’s lack of respect for reason, their intellectual arrogance, unwillingness to listen, intellectual laziness and lack of respect for analytical thinking.
What motivates terrorism? Could a government’s reactionary activities accomplish the terrorists’ mission?
We have not, as a nation, had or heard intelligent conversations on terrorism. It follows then that we do not have basic understanding of what motivates terrorists and their goals.
We have thus adopted an approach of fighting terrorism that breeds homegrown terrorists and emboldens them, divides the society, makes political opponents terrorists sympathisers, inadvertently makes enemies of allies and aids the terrorists’ mission.
While terrorism is a continuously a changing phenomenon, by and large terrorists commit acts of violence to spread fear, harass, weaken, or embarrass government security forces so that the state overreacts and appears repressive to its people; change people’s ways and values, and impose new ones; influence government decisions and legislation; get recognition by distracting nations from development agenda and exact vengeance.
A bad diagnosis of a problem leads to bad prescription for remedy.
While terrorist activities may be carried out for objectives other than those I have mentioned, in my opinion the above are largely representative of the goals of violence visited on us in the name of terrorism.
Our lack of critical analysis and understanding of the motivation and goals of terrorists has resulted in knee-jerk reactions from government and ill-thought-out laws that help terrorists to meet their objectives.
In essence, the terrorists’ goal is to deny people their rights and freedoms through terror activities. The government cannot therefore, in its effort to fight terrorism, take away our rights and freedoms.
It is for the same reason that the United States, when it commits actions (knowingly or unknowingly) that have ramifications similar to those of terrorists, they too are accused of being terrorists.
The new constitution ushered Kenya into the family of free societies. We are a free society founded on principles and values of rights and freedom. We are a democracy. We are a people that take pride in our freedom to live and pursue our own goals in the manner we see fit so long as in pursuit of our freedoms, we do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same.
Towards the end of ensuring a free society, the government has the limited role of securing our rights and freedoms. Consequently, those who take the oath of public office must always be alive to the fact that their oath to God and nation have one supreme mission of striving to keep us a free society.
On this front, I think President Uhuru Kenyatta is failing miserably. He is busy recreating Kenya into an unfree society with limited freedoms and rights. This makes his government’s actions, laws, policies and directives effective tools for terrorists to achieve their goals.
An unfree society is actually the dream state for terrorists. The argument for taking away our rights and freedoms in anunnegotiated manner in the name of keeping us safe and secure is hogwash.
Rights and freedoms on one hand and safety and security on the other are not mutually exclusive. They can exist side by side. We don’t have to choose one set.
Terrorists kill to instill fear. They use violence to disrupt a free society and deny people their rights and freedoms. Why should government (re)actions take away our rights and freedoms and in effect accomplish the mission and goal of terrorists? This questioning cannot and should not be a qualification for being a 'terrorist sympathiser'.
The so-called terrorist sympathisers are patriotic Kenyans who do not want their way of life altered by terrorists or government.
They do not want to lose their cherished democratic values to the hands of terrorists or the government. It is possible for Kenyans to have their rights and freedoms even as they enjoy safety and security from government.
George Nyongesa is a rights activist based in Busia county (grnyongesa@gmail.com).
Originally published by www.thestar.co.ke
www.doitadigital.com