In an ideal world politicians who foment political violence in their countries should be brought to justice as swiftly as is feasible. But that last word, “feasible,” is a bit of a problem, at least in the real-life example of Kenya.
The violence that wracked the country after the December 2007 elections left in its wake a shaken and stunned country. Kenya seemed to bear so much promise and the chaos after the tightly contested election showed just how fragile progress was there.
It was clear from the outset that much of the tumult was the direct result of prominent individuals stoking the fires of violence for their own purposes. The International Criminal Court pursued the case and last week named the suspects that they want to hold responsible for the events of late 2007 and early 2008, with two of the named currently serving in the government.
This is fraught territory. Pursue the cases and there is a very real risk of still-fragile Kenya returning to the brink. Don’t pursue the cases and it sends the message that the powerful can do what they want and that all it takes when satisfaction over an election result (or act of government) is to have one’s thugs take to the streets.
Kenya’s official response is not reassuring. Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the treaty establishing the ICC. The withdrawal is a symbolic gesture more than anything. And it would be premature to say that Kenya’s political class has decided they are immune from the mandates of international law. The country is in the very early stages of implementing its new constitution, passed as a result of the post-election violence, and is still more than a year away from its next election. But as a symbolic gesture it also reminds Kenyans that the events of 2007 and 2008 are far from being in the past and will certainly play a role in the country’s political life in the future.
