Political intolerance has no place at all in our democracy

Rachel Wandeto Njoki [Courtesy, Meta]

A few weeks ago, many Kenyans were shocked by an attack on a senator that pointed to the dangerous precedent we are setting of responding to political disagreement with violence.

This week, a young woman, Rachel Wandeto Njoki, lost her life while receiving treatment after she was allegedly attacked for bearing a tattoo associated with a politician. Whether the details of this incident are eventually confirmed or not, this tragedy points to a frightening state of political intolerance.

We are increasingly defining people by the leaders they support, the ideals they subscribe to, and the slogans they chant or even the tattoos they bear, while forgetting they are human beings and Kenyans, first. Politics, which ideally should be a contest of ideas, is slowly turning into a battlefield of emotions. And that should worry all of us.

I recently came across an interesting conversation in one of the forums I belong to. A boda boda rider who regularly delivers items to residents of a gated community arrived at a client’s doorstep wearing attire associated with one of the political factions.

The recipient of the package was offended and suggested that the rider be removed from the group's list of service providers unless he wore neutral clothing while on duty. Some members felt the reaction was excessive, while others believed the rider had acted irresponsibly.

Initially, I was in the rider’s corner. Political expression, after all, is a right. But my views shifted when I read his explanation for wearing the branded gear in the first place.

He admitted that he did not particularly care about the political movement and only wore it simply because someone paid him and his colleagues Sh500 to wear the attire for the day.

What had initially appeared to be a matter of political affiliation and free expression, something most of us were ready to defend, took on a different meaning. For Sh500, he risked alienating clients with different political beliefs who, on an ordinary day, would collectively earn him far more than that amount.

An impulsive decision ended up costing him a network he had built over time. And that is the irrational nature of highly emotive social issues, especially politics.

Even as we condemn violence and intolerance, we must also have an honest conversation about personal responsibility and emotional intelligence. Rights and freedoms exist, yes, but so does the duty of care we owe ourselves and those around us. Safety is not just the State’s responsibility. It starts with each one of us.

There are situations where being ‘bold’ is simply reckless. It is unwise, for instance, for someone to attend a political rally of a group they fundamentally oppose and begin shouting rival slogans in the middle of an already charged crowd.

It is equally dangerous to walk into an already volatile situation, such as a protest, and deliberately provoke protesters, then expect reason to prevail in the mob environment. Courage doesn't necessarily mean needless provocation.

This is not to excuse violence. Absolutely nothing justifies assault, destruction, or even worse, murder. We will always blame those who choose violence. Still, even as we do so, we should not stop encouraging people to exercise caution, situation awareness, and emotional intelligence in highly charged environments.

This conversation, however, is not complete until we address the disturbing trend of weaponising tragedies for political gain. It is irresponsible for leaders and their handlers to turn every incident into an opportunity for political camps to weave narratives that further deepen divisions even before facts are established.

When lives are lost or properties damaged, leaders, security agencies, and those in authority must handle all incidents fairly and expeditiously. Nothing fuels resentment more than the perception that justice is only assured depending on political affiliation. That is what breeds mistrust and allows animosity to fester.

We all have political opinions. We all support different leaders for whatever reasons, and that is acceptable in a democracy. What is not acceptable, what is retrogressive, is thinking we can impose our views on those who think differently.

We are a democracy only when we respect freedoms we may not personally agree with.

Ms Wekesa is a development communication consultant