Dispersing anti-femicide protest suggests that State backs GBV

The State’s claim to exclusive legitimacy over violence is often justified on the grounds of maintaining order and protecting citizens. In Weberian terms, the State’s monopoly on violence is foundational to its sovereignty, allowing it to enforce laws and safeguard the social contract. Proponents of this view argue that the centralisation of violence within State institutions prevents chaos and ensures that force is applied within legal and ethical parameters.

In Kenya, where gender-based violence (GBV) remains endemic, the State’s responsibility to protect women from harm is enshrined in both constitutional and international commitments. These constitutionally mandated, inalienable rights, as well as the ongoing scourge of murder of women, were the reason behind women and their allies taking to the streets last week to protest femicide and GBV.

It goes without saying, of course, that women’s right to protest is also enshrined in the Constitution, which makes the reaction of the State to this protest not only odd in its violence, but also ironic in view of what the women were protesting against.

When the State uses its purported monopoly on violence to suppress dissent rather than address systemic injustice, its legitimacy is called into question. This has been the case early year’s nationwide protests. And so, for the State to view an End Femicide protest as one that expresses dissent raises rather curious questions about the root of femicide itself. Perhaps it is more than a domestic question, if the reaction of the State was anything to go by.

That the State will violently target a demographic that is already under threat widens the scope of femicide from the personal to the structural. In this context, the violent dispersal of the protestors was not a neutral act of law enforcement but a reinforcement of patriarchal power structures that perpetuate the very femicide the women were protesting against.

In ‘The wretched of the earth’, Frantz Fanon argues that violence is not solely the State’s prerogative but is a necessary tool for the oppressed to dismantle systems of domination. For Fanon, colonial states maintained their control through systemic and institutionalised violence, leaving the colonised with no choice but to respond in kind. Fanon’s insights resonate with the lived experiences of Kenyan women who face both direct and structural violence in a patriarchal society.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  100 women killed in four months in Kenya
• 
  A woman a day: War against gender violence 'epidemic' needs all hands on deck
• 
  Out in the cold: The quiet lives of sacked Cabinet Secretaries
• 
  ODM reads malice in IEBC stalemate

The violence of femicide— the murder of women because of their gender—is not random but systemic, rooted in historical and cultural norms that devalue women’s lives. When protestors raise their voices against such violence, they challenge the status quo, exposing the complicity of State institutions in perpetuating these injustices.

From Fanon’s perspective, the teargassing of the End Femicide protestors can be seen as part of a broader pattern of State violence that seeks to silence resistance. In this context, grassroots movements may justifiably turn to alternative forms of resistance, including acts that challenge the State’s claim to a monopoly on violence. This does not necessarily mean physical violence; resistance can take many forms, from civil disobedience to disruptive protest tactics that destabilise oppressive systems.
Fanon’s work reminds us that violence is never neutral; it is always embedded in systems of power and resistance.

The women who marched in Kenya were not merely protesting against femicide but were challenging a broader system of oppression that devalues their lives. Their struggle is a powerful reminder that the fight for justice often requires confronting uncomfortable truths about the role of the State and the limits of its legitimacy.

As Kenya and the global community grapple with the enduring scourge of GBV, the events of December 10 offer a stark reminder: The path to justice is fraught with conflict, but it is a conflict worth engaging in. Whether violence belongs solely to the State or can also be wielded by those seeking liberation, one thing is clear:

The status quo is untenable, and change is non-negotiable. Femicide must end and end soon if we are to move forward as a functioning country. That responsibility begins with ending violence at the hands of the State.

- Ms Gitahi is an international lawyer