Why war on drugs fires up our soft political underbelly

The drug trafficking issue has made it to the news cycle yet again. This time it is driven by the extradition of Akasha sons to the US to face drug trafficking charges.

In the absence of solid data, anecdotal evidence ranging from the increase in arrests of traffickers to the magnitude of heists, indicates an increase in the volumes of drugs being transited through Kenya. Undoubtedly, this is a serious issue.

As a country, it seems that we speak and attempt to deal with the issue regularly, but often with little success. In my view, this status of events can be explained by the politicisation of the issue.

Gernot Klantschnig, an expert on social policy and international crimes, examined the ‘War on drugs’ in Nigeria and showed how the efforts to deal with drug trafficking had been politicised. He examined the narrative on the government’s efforts to deal with drugs and established that it was characterised by three core elements: crisis, correction and success. This seems to be the same case here in Kenya.

First, characterised as a worsening crisis, the drug issue is always presented in a highly sensationalised manner taking two broad dimensions. For one, the country is presented as inevitably heading down to become a narco-state, falling from its current respectable status. The most significant concern in this respect is that drug money is being used to attain positions of influence, particularly in politics.

This view appears to be somewhat validated by the regular connection of powerful individuals to the drug trade. Naturally this leads people to worry whether our law-enforcement agencies can adequately address the issue. The other dimension is the fear that drugs will wipe out an entire generation of youth and hence rob Kenya of her promising future. Senior leaders, including the President, have previously expressed concern that drugs, by ruining young lives, will deny our country a bright future.

These views are based on alarmist speculations of interested parties. Instead, the government approach to such an issue should be based on a solid base of evidence and analysis that helps shape the strategy of intervention.

The second part of the drug narrative is correction; communicating the idea that the government is doing something about it. In this respect, the government has on various occasions put drug dealers and traffickers on notice. The most recent of these statements was issued by the Inspector General of the Police, Joseph Boinnet, who said the State is determined to uproot the tree, the roots, the stem and the leaves.

This is often accompanied by threats, such as the one issued by the President recently that the State machinery would be used to cut off their operations and arrest key individuals involved in drug trafficking. On other occasions, the game is to name and shame as demonstrated by when the late Prof George Saitoti named suspected drug barons in Parliament when he was Minister for Internal Security.

Threatening people or naming and shaming them without arresting them and parading them in court opens the State up for criticism of politicising the issue. And often, the accused individuals respond to the claims, following a fairly standard script. Often, they start with denying the accusations and the proceed to indicate that they are good and responsible citizens – even good Christians or Muslims - who are being targeted by their political and business rivals. As in the case of Joho last week, some of them dare the government to arrest them if they have evidence. The arrests are usually not forthcoming.

The final part of the narrative is success; often an indication that we are winning this war. Even in the absence of evidence, the government tries to demonstrate some form of success in their efforts.

However, whether it is destruction of drugs or extradition of suspects, or regular arrests of drugs and arrest of dealers and traffickers, these indications of success punctuate long durations of outright failure. To be fair though, such instance signals commitment on the part of government and demonstrate the competence of our law enforcement agencies that is often ignored.

Our limited success in these areas is demonstrated by the politicisation of efforts to deal with this vice ranging from over-emphasizing the importance of the issue, naming and shaming people without the evidence to charge them in court and celebrating small successes, without a view of how big victories would look like.