How the State manufactured consent to murder protestors

In these days of rapid movement building, we can fail to notice how language and propaganda might be used to derail a movement for progress. In Kenya’s case, the youth are bogged down with trying to survive, mourning their dead peers, keeping track of government activities and organising the next mass action. The government, on the other hand, is infinitely resourced, capable of clamping down on movement building from several directions. One effective way to ensure there is little to no progress in building a movement, is creating confusion.

Take, for instance, this year’s protests, which have come with the deployment of State-sponsored militias. As soon as this deployment happened the first time, prominent accounts online announced that “goons” had infiltrated the protests, stealing from protestors and destroying property. This word, goons, slightly inaccurate in description, nevertheless gained massive traction, and no conversation online on the protests could be had without the mention of goons, even as their actions became worse with each protest.

Before June 25, video clips of these “goons” being protected by the police and thanking Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja for the opportunity after a long day of beating and robbing the protestors. This confession of State summoning, also disconcerting for being so in-our-faces, was meant to anger the public, so that anyone who was branded a goon was instantly turned against, as the protestors continued to insist that their protests were peaceful, and that anyone who did not maintain peace was an enemy of the movement. The State’s tactic to segment the movement had begun to work.

Enter the anniversary protests of June 25. This time, the people were determined to show they were peaceful; the armed militia were also on an all-out rampage in several regions. But it was the actions of a middle few that raised eyebrows. A number of police stations and law courts were burnt down, and popular shops looted. Whenever news reports stated that protestors had looted shops and burned stations, responses were quick;that this could not be protestors but hired goons, as again, legitimate protestors were resoundingly peaceful.

And so, when, the Interior CS visited OTC and spoke of goons who had robbed Quickmart and conveniently left behind their IDs to be later tracked down by, and argued that anyone who took part in the looting would be harshly treated by the law – including being shot by the police – the propaganda of the disruptive goon was complete. The State had effectively manufactured the consent it needed to murder scores of protestors so long as it prefaced these murders as having been necessary because the victims were goons, not protestors.

How does one tell the difference between a goon and a legitimate protestor, and can there be something in between? When we use the thought-terminating language of “goonship”, it is certainly impossible, as one cannot easily describe what a goon looks like without being classist or ethnically motivated. However, when we utilise clear language, and time to understand the material conditions that we live in, the contradictions become easier to decipher.

For instance, when we consider the fact that the protests began from a place of economic unrest, rejecting the Finance Bill due to punitive taxes and the high cost of living, we begin to realise that the looting of a supermarket might be a natural consequence of several months of this ire as people struggle to put food on the table. In as much as there is the law abiding protestor and a law breaking militia member, there is also the angry, hungry Kenyan out to make a statement.

Summarily frowning upon these acts, James Baldwin reminds us, would be tantamount to “accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting”. Not only are the actions of the “looter” perfectly reasonable, non-peaceful protest remains a legitimate form of protest. As well, we should not allow the State to make us believe that the preservation of life and property are equal. Consequently, the destruction of property by irate protestors cannot possibly be met with State-sanctioned murder, but it would appear that the State has already convinced the people that this would be a reasonable action, in order to maintain law and order as well as to protect their interests.

Ms Gitahi is an international lawyer