In Kenya, Meeting of Rivals Raises Hopes for Peace

MARGARET WARNER: And for more, we talk to Makau Mutua, dean of the law school at the State University of New York in Buffalo. He's also director of its Human Rights Center. He's a native of Kenya.

And Joel Barkan, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and professor emeritus at the University of Iowa, he served as an international observer in the Kenyan elections last month.

Welcome to you both.

Professor Mutua, after this nearly month of violence, this meeting took place today, and Kofi Annan pronounced it a "very encouraging development." Are you that encouraged?

MAKAU MUTUA, State University of New York: I think that the meeting today is a sign of hope that, after several weeks of violence, that there might be some closure at the end of this long, dark tunnel that Kenyans have been facing.

However, we must remember that this is just a first in a series of meetings that are supposed to bring resolution to this particular issue. I think that no one should expect Kofi Annan to wave a magic wand.

In fact, his body language today at the press conference suggested that he was cautiously optimistic. So it's a hopeful sign, but I think we have to be cautious.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Joel Barkan, not a magic wand here?

JOEL BARKAN, University of Iowa: It is not a magic wand at all. This was an initial meeting. You can't expect much when both sides are so polarized.

And it's my understanding that Raila Odinga, who gave an interview after the closing statements that was in your opening piece, expressed great reservations that President Kibaki had identified himself as the duly-elected president of Kenya.

So I'm sorry to say the two sides tonight are probably as polarized as they were as before the meetings.

MARGARET WARNER: Yes, that statement, Professor, didn't seem to leave much room for compromise.

But first tell me this. These two political leaders have refused to meet for nearly a month, since the violence broke out. Why was Kofi Annan able to at least bring them together, when other pretty high-level emissaries had not?

MAKAU MUTUA: I think there's a realization both in Kenya and within the international community that something had to be done to bring these two leaders together to find a resolution to this crisis.

There is enormous pressure from Kenya's middle class for Raila Odinga and for Mwai Kibaki to come together. I think that the choice of Kofi Annan as mediator is completely appropriate because of his enormous moral clout.

And I think, you know, both Mr. Kibaki and Mr. Odinga wanted to show Kenyans that each one of them wants peace. And that is why they responded to Mr. Annan.

JOEL BARKAN: Well, the violence erupted because you had an election that was split right down the middle, and there are questions about its legitimacy.

Some observers saw that train wreck possibly coming, but hoped that the election would come off very well. And, indeed, it did, in the run-up and through the count.

But then you had a count that was highly questionable, the supporters of Raila Odinga not accepting defeat from a legitimate process, which is really the test of an election: Will the losers regard the process as legitimate and accept defeat?

They did not. You had spontaneous violence on the part of ODM and Odinga's supporters.

And then you also, sadly to say, have had some state violence, the overreaction by the police, extrajudicial killings, violence out in the Western Rift Valley that appears to be organized against Kikuyu settlers there.

And so it's of several different types, and both sides have suffered greatly.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor Mutua, do you think the violence is mostly generated politically? Or is there a tribal and ethnic component to this, as well? And if so, why?

MAKAU MUTUA: Well, I think we have to be very careful not to fall into the trap which appears to afflict most Western media. Every time there's a conflict in Africa, immediately people reach to tribal sort of explanations to understand what's going on.

I think it's clear there's a tribal element to this, especially because what the Kikuyu, from which Mr. Kibaki comes, and the Luo, from which Mr. Odinga comes, have a history of tension between them.

But I think that we must also understand that in a country where about half the population lives on less than a dollar a day, where there's high unemployment, there's a lot of poverty, there are high degrees of marginalization, high degrees of landlessness, that all of these deficits, all of these social dysfunctions can be stoked by politicians who appeal to tribal ethnic loyalties to capture power.

And I think this is what happened. If you looked at the electoral campaigns, the way they were conducted, I think both parties, both the ODM and the PNU of Mr. Mwai Kibaki, appealed, nakedly sometimes, to tribal sentiments to whip up their supporters.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Joel Barkan, now that this genie is out of the bottle, what will it take? Is there a political compromise that could quell the passions? And do the two leaders have control over them at this point?

JOEL BARKAN: Well, that's a lot to answer in just a very short period of time.

The best prospect for a settlement in a stalemate like this is that the stalemate proceeds to what is a hurtful stalemate. And I think after three weeks in time, you're beginning to see that.

Professor Mutua referred to the pressure by the middle class on President Kibaki. You're beginning to see both sides perhaps becoming more willing to sit down and bargain.

As for what the settlement would be, it has to be some form of power-sharing. I don't think that the call by Raila Odinga for a rerun of the election within three months is viable because, first of all, there has to be some very clear modalities for the election itself; secondly, a devolution of power; and probably a diminution of the presidential powers before there's going to be a settlement in this case.

Is that image out of touch with reality? Or is this an aberration that can be turned around?

MAKAU MUTUA: Well, I think the image of Kenya as a beacon of hope and stability in Africa is partially true and partially untrue.

For a long time, Kenya was not a democracy. From 1964 to 1966, there was some political space after independence, but that political space was closed in the 1960s and really just opened up in 1991.

You know, so there has been long periods of repressive governments in Kenya, although the country has been stable. I think the fact that Kenya was a pro-Western country, which received a lot of tourists and a lot of capital from the West, accounts for this image of Kenya as a stable democracy, which, in fact, it was not.

You know, so I think there is that image that has been there. But I also think that it is because of that image that you are seeing all this interest by the Americans, by the British, and by others to bring pressure to bear on Kenya to resolve this crisis.