The author proceeds on the basis that peace is more than the absence of war. The philosophy of non-violence as a way to achieve vital social change is evaluated.The application of non-violence in addressing Kenya’s constitutional conflicts over the last two decades is then considered in the context of key debates in conflict theory. The eventual triumph of the non-violence movement in Kenya in contributing to the adoption of a new constitution in 2010 also strengthens the case for the use of non-violence in achieving social transformation. The author concludes by briefly considering some case studies from other African countries, so as to provide an assessment of non-violence as a means of achieving needed social change

Mudida, Robert

SU+ Digital Repository

See	discussions,	stats,	and	author	profiles	for	this	publication	at:	https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274139090The	Philosophy	of	Non-Violence	and	ItsApplication	in	the	Management	of	Kenya'sConstitutional	ConflictsChapter	·	January	2014CITATIONS0READS101	author:Some	of	the	authors	of	this	publication	are	also	working	on	these	related	projects:Constructions	of	Public	Office	View	projectThe	Economic	Impact	of	Malaria	with	an	emphasis	on	eight	malaria	endemic	counties	in	Kenya	ViewprojectRobert	MudidaStrathmore	University23	PUBLICATIONS			20	CITATIONS			SEE	PROFILEAll	content	following	this	page	was	uploaded	by	Robert	Mudida	on	07	June	2017.The	user	has	requested	enhancement	of	the	downloaded	file.View publication stats

The Philosophy of non-violence and its application in the management of Kenya's constitutional conflicts

ArticleOn August 5, 2010 Kenyans adopted a new constitution by the approval of almost 70% of voters. This was the culmination of almost two decades of mainly non-violent struggle for constitutional reform. Kenya’s previous constitution was anomalous from a structural violence perspective.  Johan Galtung defines structural violence as existing in those conditions in which human beings are influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations. Kenya is not currently in a state of war but it could also be argued that neither does peace prevail. A central theme of this essay is that peace is more than simply the absence of war. Kenya’s previous constitution had ceased to meet the needs and expectations of Kenyan society and therefore became a major source of structural conflict. A central theme throughout this essay is therefore that it is the constitutional conflicts that have given rise to the need to overhaul the current constitution, although whether such an overhaul is necessary is itself sometimes debated.Whereas constitutional issues have been widely analyzed from other perspectives, such as legal and political-science perspectives, there is a dearth of literature on constitutional reform issues that adopts a conflict-theory perspective.This essay applies the tools of conflict theory to shed light on the process of Kenyan constitutional conflicts.However, in the application of analyti-cal tools in conflict, fundamental epistemological issues are also raised.Constitutional reform is ultimately about a fundamental paradigm shift. A constitution can be viewed as a paradigm that defines the way relationships in society are organized. An existing constitutional paradigm is acceptable as long as it adequately reflects the aspirations and expectations of a given society.However, social dynamism implies that constitutions will over time begin to develop significant anomalies, thereby making an existing constitutional paradigm inadequate and obsolete.This essay is therefore to some extent concerned with the epistemology of constitutional conflicts.Other fundamental epistemological debates, such as whether conflict is subjective or objective, also inform this essay.
The rationale behind adopting a conflict perspective in this essay is that conflict is ultimately about incompatibilities of goals. The incompatibility of goals is fundamental to the existence of conflict situations, whether one is dealing with structural or behavioral conflict.The more valuable the objectives being sought, the more intense is the conflict.The central constitutional conflicts Kenya has experienced for the last two decades are fundamentally about incompatibilities of goals among different actors involved in the constitutional review process.These conflicts have often been particularly intense, albeit mainly at a structural level because of the value of the objectives involved.A fundamental objective of value, which for a long time intensified constitutional conflicts in Kenya, has been the distribution of power, particularly executive power, implied by alternative constitutional arrangements. The constitution has often been seen as a power map whereby the constitutional order became not an arbiter in the power process, but a fundamental element in political warfare.  These constitutional conflicts have continued even after the adoption in 2010 of a new constitution. Recent constitutional conflicts in Kenya have focused on the implementation of the new constitutional order. Advocates of deep-rooted change have resisted the implementation of the new constitutional order or have sought to dilute some of its provisions at the implementation stage to retain the status quo.
Conflict is an intrinsic and inevitable component of social change. Conflict is an expression of a diversity of interests, values and beliefs that emerge as new structures generated by social change come up against established constraints.This implies that Kenya’s constitutional conflicts are part of its social change process and indeed should be seen in this context.These conflicts on a very fundamental level represent the challenge posed by a new constitutional dispensation to the existing social structures whereby elites with vested interests seek to preserve the status quo. The reward structure in such societies is a built-in transfer of value from underdog to the topdog, where the latter inevitably gets more than his due through a process of accumulation.  When an existing structure is threatened, those who benefit from the accompanying structural violence particularly a country’s elite will try to preserve the status quo which serves their interests. The challenge to the status quo posed by deep-rooted constitutional reform and the attendant resistance to reform attempts by Kenya’s political elite is a fundamental theme of constitutional conflicts in Kenya, even after the adoption of a new constitutional order in 2010.
This essay proceeds by developing the philosophical basis for the notion that peace is more than the absence of war. This is a central theme of the paper, since Kenya is currently not in a state of war; but it is vital to consider whether this implies that Kenya is at peace. It then considers the subjective/objective debate, which analyzes whether a conflict needs to be perceived in order for it to exist. This debate is central to understanding the idea that peace is more than the absence of war. The fundamental theme of the paper, which is the philosophy of non-violence, is then analyzed. The application of non-violence in addressing Kenya’s constitutional conflicts over the last two decades is then considered. The vital linkages that occur between non-violence and direct violence are then critically appraised. The essay concludes by briefly considering some case studies from other African countries, so as to provide an assessment of non-violence as a means of achieving needed social change.On August 5, 2010 Kenyans adopted a new constitution by the approval of almost 70% of voters. This was the culmination of almost two decades of mainly non-violent struggle for constitutional reform. Kenya’s previous constitution was anomalous from a structural violence perspective. Johan Galtung defines structural violence as existing in those conditions in which human beings are influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations. Kenya is not currently in a state of war but it could also be argued that neither does peace prevail. A central theme of this essay is that peace is more than simply the absence of war. Kenya’s previous constitution had ceased to meet the needs and expectations of Kenyan society and therefore became a major source of structural conflict. A central theme throughout this essay is therefore that it is the constitutional conflicts that have given rise to the need to overhaul the current constitution, although whether such an overhaul is necessary is itself sometimes debated.Whereas constitutional issues have been widely analyzed from other perspectives, such as legal and political-science perspectives, there is a dearth of literature on constitutional reform issues that adopts a conflict-theory perspective.This essay applies the tools of conflict theory to shed light on the process of Kenyan constitutional conflicts.However, in the application of analyti-cal tools in conflict, fundamental epistemological issues are also raised.Constitutional reform is ultimately about a fundamental paradigm shift. A constitution can be viewed as a paradigm that defines the way relationships in society are organized. An existing constitutional paradigm is acceptable as long as it adequately reflects the aspirations and expectations of a given society.However, social dynamism implies that constitutions will over time begin to develop significant anomalies, thereby making an existing constitutional paradigm inadequate and obsolete.This essay is therefore to some extent concerned with the epistemology of constitutional conflicts.Other fundamental epistemological debates, such as whether conflict is subjective or objective, also inform this essay. The rationale behind adopting a conflict perspective in this essay is that conflict is ultimately about incompatibilities of goals. The incompatibility of goals is fundamental to the existence of conflict situations, whether one is dealing with structural or behavioral conflict.The more valuable the objectives being sought, the more intense is the conflict.The central constitutional conflicts Kenya has experienced for the last two decades are fundamentally about incompatibilities of goals among different actors involved in the constitutional review process.These conflicts have often been particularly intense, albeit mainly at a structural level because of the value of the objectives involved.A fundamental objective of value, which for a long time intensified constitutional conflicts in Kenya, has been the distribution of power, particularly executive power, implied by alternative constitutional arrangements. The constitution has often been seen as a power map whereby the constitutional order became not an arbiter in the power process, but a fundamental element in political warfare. These constitutional conflicts have continued even after the adoption in 2010 of a new constitution. Recent constitutional conflicts in Kenya have focused on the implementation of the new constitutional order. Advocates of deep-rooted change have resisted the implementation of the new constitutional order or have sought to dilute some of its provisions at the implementation stage to retain the status quo. Conflict is an intrinsic and inevitable component of social change. Conflict is an expression of a diversity of interests, values and beliefs that emerge as new structures generated by social change come up against established constraints.This implies that Kenya’s constitutional conflicts are part of its social change process and indeed should be seen in this context.These conflicts on a very fundamental level represent the challenge posed by a new constitutional dispensation to the existing social structures whereby elites with vested interests seek to preserve the status quo. The reward structure in such societies is a built-in transfer of value from underdog to the topdog, where the latter inevitably gets more than his due through a process of accumulation. When an existing structure is threatened, those who benefit from the accompanying structural violence particularly a country’s elite will try to preserve the status quo which serves their interests. The challenge to the status quo posed by deep-rooted constitutional reform and the attendant resistance to reform attempts by Kenya’s political elite is a fundamental theme of constitutional conflicts in Kenya, even after the adoption of a new constitutional order in 2010. This essay proceeds by developing the philosophical basis for the notion that peace is more than the absence of war. This is a central theme of the paper, since Kenya is currently not in a state of war; but it is vital to consider whether this implies that Kenya is at peace. It then considers the subjective/objective debate, which analyzes whether a conflict needs to be perceived in order for it to exist. This debate is central to understanding the idea that peace is more than the absence of war. The fundamental theme of the paper, which is the philosophy of non-violence, is then analyzed. The application of non-violence in addressing Kenya’s constitutional conflicts over the last two decades is then considered. The vital linkages that occur between non-violence and direct violence are then critically appraised. The essay concludes by briefly considering some case studies from other African countries, so as to provide an assessment of non-violence as a means of achieving needed social chang

English