Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER TWO: ANALYTICAL CONTEXT
Introduction
This chapter presents the analytical context for exploring the contribution of the Ushahidi platform to peace processes. This chapter intends to establish the following: first, to justify why it is necessary to fill the gap in the literature on the nascent 21st century technology and the roles of the new non-state actors, especially the citizen journalists and bloggers who are influencing peace and conflict through dialogue and innovation. Second, to integrate and extend prior studies on the importance of people- centred approaches to peace processes with the use of the new media technology (NMT) or new media in the hands of citizen journalists and bloggers.
To achieve the two goals of this chapter, the study provides critical analysis of existing literature on peace mechanisms and the reasons why top-down approaches, especially by the international organisations like the United Nations (UN), fail to work in many instances. The failure of the peace mechanisms is explained through the work of eminent peace and conflict scholars such as Galtung, Lederach and Olonisakin on people-centred approaches to peace processes. This chapter argues that the entry of the citizen journalism platform in peace initiatives has broadened the participation of the general public in peace processes through conflict transformation lenses.
By engaging the multifaceted aspects of peace processes, which include peacekeeping, peacemaking, peacebuilding, conflict resolution, conflict management and conflict transformation, this study relies on the field data to shed light on which of the mechanisms is relevant to the research puzzle. Peace processes can be seen as the broader umbrella under which several organisations and governmental institutions are addressing the multiplicity of socio-political, cultural, economic and religious conflicts. Within this array of complex peace approaches and mechanisms that have been broadly studied by several scholars and implemented by governments and peace practitioners, the contribution of the Ushahidi platform in responding to Kenya’s 2008 PEV is situated. As the field data uncovered, using inductive reasoning, the Ushahidi platform and several other netizens’ platforms in Kenya are contributing to peace processes under the umbrella of conflict transformation.
This study rests on two broader bodies of literature, namely literature on peace and conflict on the one hand and on citizen journalism on the other hand. Both bodies of literature address the central commonality of people’s inclusion and participation in public affairs and the importance of such positions. The broader literature on peace and conflict focuses extensively on people’s participation and inclusion as panaceas for long-term peace. This chapter will contextualise concepts such as human security, civil society and political society and explain why members of the society have become part of the political order in addressing human suffering and relentless intractable conflicts, especially in Africa. It will describe how citizen journalism provides a new avenue for exploring how the virtual community’s engagement is impacting peace and conflict discourses and decisions in Africa. Thus, this chapter establishes the importance of the study in addressing the dearth of information on the emerging involvements of citizen journalists and bloggers in peace initiatives, especially in Africa. This is achieved by exploring the role of the Ushahidi platform and Kenyan bloggers in responding to Kenya’s 2008 post-election violence.
The Dynamics of Peace Processes in the 21st Century
Multifaceted post-Cold War challenges have continued to affect 21st century peace and development. Since the Cold War ended with irreparable damages and the death of over 50 million people in total (Åkerlund 2005, Acharya 2008), the actualisation of global peace has remained elusive. Various endemic diseases, climate change, poverty, environmental degradation, terrorism, and intrastate violent conflicts have continued to plague the world. Thus, peace and economic scholars promulgate an unorthodox security (human security) approach as a way forward. With human security, as opposed to the exclusive focus on state/national security, the peoples’ personal, health, food, and political securities, to mention a few, are considered the topmost priorities of the state. The human security agenda is yet to be widely achieved by many countries, as national security is still prioritised over human security by many governments across the world. Also in the same light is the yet to be attained idea of people’s holistic participation and inclusion in public/political affairs, particularly in peace processes. The inclusion of people’s participation in achieving lasting peace, especially in war-ridden countries, which cannot be overemphasised, has continued to be under-implemented.
According to Bock (2012), the paradox inherent in the field of peace and conflict studies, and in peace processes, have long been without a solution. No one-size-fit-it-all approach has worked, given the failure of most international peacebuilding mechanisms in several countries that have only scratched the surface of the issues, partly due to highly bureaucratic systems or a technocratic rush-through approach. The argument of extant literature focusing on a people-centred approach to peace processes has uncovered one significant failure of most interventions, namely that people’s participation in their own affairs matter (Lederach 2003, Galtung 2007, Olonisakin 2010, Banda 2010, Bock 2012). Thus, heavy-handed peacekeeping, surface-scratching technocratic peacebuilding initiatives and state-centric peacemaking processes have left one to wonder if human nature is inherently catastrophic.
The above-mentioned scholars have however realised that the solution lies in holistic engagement with the people; not merely making decisions for them but constructively including them in every major decision. This is the significant paradigm shift in the work of eminent scholars such as Funmi Olonisakin (2010), John Paul Lederach (2003) and Juan Galtung (1996; 2007). Consequently, the aforesaid scholars have continued to promulgate the importance of a people-centred ideology/approach in peace processes, especially within international, regional and national peace mechanisms. Thus, 21st century technology has increased the number of peace actors among the people who are willing to play significant roles in the people-led idea of peace work. Bock (2012) has discovered these roles to include using technology for nonviolence conflict intervention and prevention.
For instance, in the age of the new media, where chaos sometimes reigns on the Internet, members of the general public have devised a nonviolent techno-response to and engagement with violence (Bock 2012). In light of this, this study is taking a critical step to explore how a particular category of netizens is using the new media for human-centred initiatives for peace processes. Interestingly, citizen journalism considered or defined by the school of journalism, as online “amateur” reporting, appears to have become a platform that influences peace and conflict. This is because the practice of citizen journalism has gone beyond reportage to include solution- generated projects designed to bring about change and transformation (Banda 2010). These sought-after transformations include socio-political justice, economic freedom, democratisation of political institutions and end-war-build-peace initiatives. In war-torn and disaster-ridden countries, citizen journalism is an online platform in which bloggers, activists, artists, musicians, students, writers and many more are reporting and coordinating for action. Often considered amateurs with little or no training in journalism, many netizens playing the role of citizen journalists have respectable jobs, while some – even while marginalised – are intelligent and concerned beings behind the keyboards. Therefore, the peace and conflict arena is receiving new types of “unexpected” actors due to the ubiquitous presence of the new media.
Empirically, peace processes devoid of people’s autonomy (i.e. inclusion and participation) often collapse in the long run, save for a few short-term ceasefires and artificial peace gained through electoral processes in some cases (Picciotto, Olonisakin & Clarke 2010, Jacobson 2012). The dominant positions of peace and conflict scholars, analysts and practitioners have been on all-inclusive post-conflict reconstruction mechanisms, whereby the affected community is included in peace processes. Therefore, they underscore a people-centred approach as opposed to a state-centred approach to peace, given the fact that the UN/AU technocratic and top-down conflict- handling mechanisms, in many instances, have not been significantly successful (Lederach 2003, Picciotto, Olonisakin & Clarke 2010, Bock 2012). Illustrating these egregious failures and the complicated stories of the UN/AU conflict-handling mechanisms are the 2000 Israeli-Lebanon Border Murders, the 1995 Bosnia massacre, the 1994 Rwanda genocide, the 1993 Somalia tragedy and the existing DRC “rape capital of the world” disaster (Jacobson 2012: 3-4, Bock 2012, Warah 2014).
Addressing Peace and Conflict in Africa
The shift in paradigm in relation to people’s inclusion, participation and significance in peace processes cannot be appreciated without discussing the evolution of the consciousness that birthed it. The radical change around security thinking gained prominence at the end of the Cold War, due to the scourge of post-Cold War intrastate conflicts, particularly in Africa and Asia (Reed & Tehranian 1999; Acharya 2008; Picciotto, Olonisakin & Clarke 2010). As indicated by these authors, the state-centric approach to security that is about the absolute territorial control and autonomy of nation-states against external military attacks became insufficient to tackle the perturbing post-Cold War realities of human suffering and neglect. Thus, in 1994, the UNDP Human Development Report established what was called a human security approach, whereby humans as opposed to the state become the central focus of security (Leaning & Arie 2000; Åkerlund 2005; Acharya 2008; Abass 2010). According to the aforementioned authors, human security establishes an all-inclusive protective mechanism where freedom from fear (protection from aggressive attacks and violation of human rights) and freedom from want (the rights to adequate standards of living) are made governments’ paramount focus.
Development economists such as Mahbub ul-Haq (1999) and Amartya Sen (2000), wellknown for their human development propositions, argue for human security as the appropriate roadmap for the attainment of lasting peace and development. Development here refers to building of human capacities and attending to basic human needs while preserving the environment and preventing violent conflicts (Galtung 1996). Although this study does not delve into development dynamic, it is important to mention it as a key concept in the human security paradigm.
Economists have argued that the wants and fears of people cannot be eradicated no matter how hard a government tries because human needs are insatiable. It has also been argued that the human security objective is too broad and cumbrous. Nonetheless, Amartya Sen (2000) states that human satisfaction lies in the freedom to enhance capacities and access basic standards of living. Johan Galtung (1996) in Peace by Peaceful Means argues that the attainment of positive peace lies in the absence of tensions and violence and the presence of justice for all. Reiterating positive peace, Brewer (2010:7) elucidates ‘the achievement of fairness, justice and social redistribution’ that follows the end of war and the absence of violence (negative peace) as helpful in creating a state of wellbeing that aids a nation-state in flourishing.
According to Åkerlund (2005) and Acharya (2008), human security becomes a crucial approach as a result of the massive loss of lives during the Cold War era, where over 50 million people died. This fatal loss was instantly followed by post-Cold War global risks and threats, among which were ethno-religious strife, intrastate-armed conflicts, environmental degradation, and proliferation of dangerous arms, incessant displacement of people, poverty, diseases and gross human rights abuses. Thus, human security offers an antidote to address these colossal problems. By focusing on human security, the states not only build the human capacities of their citizens, but also offer protections and effective service deliveries that synchronise with the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Reed & Tehranian 1999; Acharya 2008). These goals encapsulate socio-political, cultural, economic, social, physical, psychological and environmental advancement. It is apt to note that the UN has morphed the MDGs into a wider spectrum of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a proposal containing 17 goals and 69 targets to be achieved by the year 2030. This is a post-development move as a successor agenda to continue addressing endemic issues bordering on poverty, hunger, education, health and climate change. SDGs moves expose the underachievement of human security objectives, which remain bleak, especially in many African countries where intractable and protracted violent conflict persists. The prevalent cases of the strife in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan, Somalia, Burundi, Nigeria, and South Sudan illustrate the point.
Conversely, collective security, a post-Cold War mechanism of the United Nations (UN) that is about mutual protection and defence of any state under security threat or attack, has enabled the UN to deploy peacekeeping operations into many countries with the primary aim of stopping an on-going war and restoring peace (Boutros-Ghali 1992). Peacekeeping is an international tool of conflict management that strives to prevent, contain or terminate interstate or intrastate hostilities with the use of multinational forces to restore and maintain peace (Hill and Malik 1996: xi). Conflict management, in the same light, attempts to reduce violence and destruction associated with a conflict through negotiations and collaborations (Picciotto, Olonisakin & Clarke 2010: 204). The UN has not always succeeded in its peace operations, which are often fraught with top-down technocracy and over-militarised responses (Mahbub ul-Haq 1999; Picciotto, Olonisakin & Clarke 2010). Thus in 1992, Boutros Boutros-Ghali recast the UN peace initiatives in the document An Agenda for Peace to ensure that the UN addresses and responds efficiently to its peacebuilding, peacemaking and peacekeeping challenges for the effective realisation of world peace (Boutros-Ghali 1992).
Similarly, peacebuilding involves the prevention of conflict before it happens or intervention when conflict does occur to rebuild a war-torn community once the conflict is over (Lederach 2010:21). Peacebuilding comprises of addressing the root causes of a conflict, and attempts to manage, mitigate, resolve and transform central aspects of the conflict through official diplomacy and civil society involvements, while peacemaking focuses on forging a settlement between the disputing parties. It is a practical conflict transformation approach that seeks to establish impartial power relationships strong enough to forestall future conflict (Khan 1998: vii). This often includes a third-party negotiator or mediator that works with the disputing parties and stakeholders to achieve reconciliation and mutual understanding.
Furthermore, conflict transformation signifies a holistic peace process that seeks to reduce structural and cultural violence by addressing their root causes through bottom- up durable construction of long-term advocacy and strategic planning (Lederach 2003:14). It is pertinent to state that, aside for the short-term cease-fire mechanism that is often undertaken by the UN or the AU to quench raging violence, peace processes are often cumbersome and they are long-term activities. This is one of the reasons why peace and conflict scholars and practitioners are concerned about unproductive, expensive and technocratic approaches to peace processes that most often placate the symptoms, but that are not designed to address the root causes of these protracted and intractable armed conflicts.
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATED TERMS
MAP OF KENYA
1 INTRODUCTION – THE RESEARCH CONTEXT
1.1 Conflict Transformation and Constructive Change Processes .
1.2 Situating the Research in a Conceptual Context
1.2.1 Peace Processes: The Missing Link
1.2.2 The 21st Century Participatory Media
1.3 Research Methods and Designs
1.4 Research Structure
1.5 Limitations and Opportunities for Further Research
CHAPTER TWO: ANALYTICAL CONTEXT
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Dynamics of Peace Processes in the 21st Century
2.3 Addressing Peace and Conflict in Africa
2.4 Conflict Transformation: The Theoretical Lens of the Study
2.5 Peace Actors in the 21st Century: Citizen Journalists and Ushahidi
2.6 Citizen Journalism
2.7 The Evolution of Citizen Journalism
2.8 Citizen Journalism versus Professional Journalism: Debates and Relevance
2.9 Citizen Journalism Platforms in Africa
2.9.1 #IfAfricawasabar Botswana
2.9.2 The Gagged Ethiopian Zone9 Bloggers
2.9.3 Sahara Reporters Nigeria
2.9.4 Zimbabwe Elections with Kubatana.net
2.10 Beyond News Coverage: Citizen Journalism – Global Perspectives
2.10.1 The Baghdad Blogger
2.10.2 OhMyNews South Korea
2.10.3 Occupy Wall Street Protest in New York City
2.10.4 Wikileaks, the Whistle-blower of Iceland
2.10.5 Global Voices Online @ globalvoices.org
2.11 Conclusion: Citizen Journalism and Human-Centred Engagement
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND CRITICAL FIELD REFLECTIONS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Methodology
3.3 Research Design, Case Study Approach and Interview Process
3.3.1 Case Study approach in Qualitative Research
3.3.2 Unstructured/Semi-structured open-ended interviews
3.3.3 Sampling Techniques
3.3.4 Sample Selection
3.3.5 The Interview Process
3.4 Ethics and Recording of Interviews
3.5 Field Reflections and Challenges
3.5.1 Shortage of Women Interviewees
3.5.2 Changes Made to Research Focus in the Field
3.5.3 Facilitating a Session on Conflict Sensitive Reporting
3.6 Data Analysis
3.6.1 Useful Supplementary Data
3.6.2 Data Reliability, Validity and Objectivity
3.7 Limitation of the Research Methods
3.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER FOUR: OVERVIEW OF KENYA’S POLITICAL CONFLICTS AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERVENTIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Triggers of Kenya’s Political Strife: Overview of Kenya’s 2008 Post- Election Violence (PEV)
4.3 Kenya’s Colonial Legacy and Presidential ‘Ivy League’
4.4 Details of Kenya’s Power Play and Political Tumult
4.5 The Kenya’s 2008 Post-Election Violence Imbroglio
4.6 Kenyan Civil Society and the Media
4.7 Women in the Kenyan Political Struggle
4.8 The Youth and the 21st Century Media
4.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE: CITIZEN JOURNALISM IN THE KENYAN DIGITALISED SPACE: WHAT IS THE STORY?
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Politics of Incitement: Kenya Mass Media in the 2008 PEV
5.3 Hating the Hate Speech and Netizens’ Aversion to Censorship
5.4 Kenya Civil Society Organisations and Ushahidi during the 2008 PEV
5.5 Watchers of the Watchdogs: Here Comes Citizen Journalism
5.6 The Dynamic of New Media in the Context of Kenya’s 2008 PEV
5.7 New Media in Africa: Godsend or Double-Edged Sword?
5.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER SIX: USHAHIDI IN THE KENYAN DIGITALISED SPACE: WHAT IS THE CONTRIBUTION?
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Third Party Perceptions of Ushahidi’s Contribution during the 2008 PEV
6.3 Ushahidi’s Self-Evaluation of Impact during the 2008 PEV
6.4 Ushahidi Platform and Organisation
6.5 Beyond Ushahidi: Other Influencing Platforms
6.6 Kenyan Netizens Contributions to Conflict Transformation
6.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND FINAL REFLECTIONS
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Ushahidi platform in Kenya’s 2008 PEV
7.3. The Contribution of New Media Technology in Conflict Transformation
7.4 Conclusion
APPENDIX I: In-depth Interview Guide
APPENDIX II: List of Research Participants for In-depth Interviews
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
