Why is there so little violence in Africa?

"It is sad to see Kenyans die in the name of democracy". So said a recent post from a Kenyan man on the BBC website. Over the past couple of weeks in this East African nation, held by many to be a prime example of economic and political success and stability, the world has seen a side of Africa (and arguably mankind itself) that many had hoped had been seen for the last time in the killing fields of Rwanda. The hundreds of deaths in this "peaceful" part of the continent necessitate the observer to ask why violence is not more widespread. Why don't people kill/maim/burn/smash in areas of greater poverty and oppression?

Violence is not new to Africa as I have already mentioned. But I would argue, the scale of the violence is far larger than conflict in the pre-colonial era. Colonisation brought with it the rapacious desire to accumulate and exploit (as well as a habit of drawing box-shaped nations on the map), pitching once peaceful neighbours against one another in a battle for favour and favours from the European powers. The Mau Mau and Algerian independence movements began a wave of violence legitimised by the need to end a colonial policy of exploitation. Yet, independence in the Cold War period merely cast African states as new pieces in the great diplomatic game between the USA and USSR. Proxy wars were fought in Angola and Mozambique; the superpowers and their African pawns destabilising any developing sense of freedom and prosperity.

Punishment of the silent civilian population exacted a massive toll on the continent, with armament spending vastly outgrowing that on education and healthcare. The tragic legacy of the Cold War is the emergence of self-financed civil wars; undefeated factions continuing to settle old scores, financed through the control of economic wealth. A very disturbing aspect of these contemporary civil wars is the level of violence against civilian populations, and also the fact that this violence is often carried out by child soldiers. During the fall of Kampala in 1986, the front-line troops that spearheaded the final assault were predominantly children. They are the individuals that man the many barricades seen in urban conflict zones; armed gangs of youths car-jacking and mercenaries in private armies collecting revenue for their wealthy pay-masters.

Harsh economic conditions created by the debt, debt servicing, IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), and the withdrawal of state subsidies for health account for millions of additional deaths even in countries where peace prevails. Where is the research to establish the levels of debt- and SAP-related deaths? It's conclusions would only be too close to home (ironically, as are the very factories that pump-out those bullets found in the victims of "African" violence). And finally, in the post-cold war democratisation process violence has been precipitated by the politicisation of ethnicity. Afraid to face free and fair elections, incumbents have promoted politically-motivated "ethnic" clashes. For example, in the run-up to Kenya’s 1992 general elections when multi-partyism became inevitable, ethnic groups which for years lived peacefully alongside each other suddenly began to fight. There is a lot of talk about conflict resolution by groups inside and outside Africa but this type of social intervention has minimal impact. Dealing with all the different emerging facets of violence in Africa requires a deeper understanding of the problems than hurriedly-formed NGOs are capable of.

The sheer level of violence is rather shocking I think you'll agree. But let me ask you this: where are the riots in one-party Chad? Or against the absolute monarchy of Swaziland? Against large-scale corruption in Niger? I'd argue that the population of Africa should be admired rather than condemned by the international community. With so much hardship to contend with, you wonder how ordinary Africans can survive at all. The levels of pain and suffering that are present in certain parts of the continent would not be permitted in the West, yet despite this they cling on to the hope that change can be brought about through non-violent means. Africa is largely excluded from global trade because of globalisation, and the nation state is extremely weak. But the people are surviving. Africans are not naturally violent as some accounts would have us believe, indeed they show a greater resilience than many of us in the West.

However, we need to make sure that this silence is not interpreted as satisfaction with the process. "Silence" in Kenya appeared to conceal conflict and high levels of poverty behind a veneer of progress and success. Support should be given to that great silent majority of Africans who desire peace and a right to have a say in their country and their future. Let's not wait until there is more conflict and death before we act. Democracy for all of its supposed failings seems like the best choice here. There is a line of thought that says African ethnicity is bound to make government difficult. But only representative governments can represent a people. In favouring strong-men who rule from one powerful tribe, we return to the politics of the past. Let us hope and pray that violence remains low in Africa. The people should find their voice, but it should be on the platform and in the ballot box, rather than the streets and the battlefield.

Blygt.