(Un)necessary Violence: A Deviant Case Analysis from Kenya

• In Event: Context, Interpretation, and Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

Why do communities that have lived in peace suddenly experience intergroup violence? Based on the general model, a higher likelihood of intergroup violence is expected to occur during competitive elections, when there is a history of intergroup violence, a group is displaced for land (greed), there is competitiveness for limited resources (grievances), low social cohesion persists, different groups have different social avenues of interactions (such as separate churches), there is a low rate of intermarriage (illiberal community), and an immediate threat of violence from the other group, among other factors. How does one explain violence when none of these factors exist? How does one explain why a group decides to attack another without any immediate signs of threats?

I argue that even a small minority in a given area can be perceived as a threat when the larger context of intergroup relations is not conducive to peace. In contrast to theories of social cohesion, I argue that intergroup trust is fragile and subject to the larger context, needing a macro explanation of violence “elsewhere” for a micro problem of violence “here”.

I use the post-election violence in Kenya of 2007-08 to study why intergroup violence between Kikuyus and Kalenjins occurred in the rural area of Murunyu-Engushura. One group destroyed the houses of the other, resulting in (a single) death and the displacement of all non-coethnics. I employ a paired-group analysis of both perpetrators and victims using in-depth narrative and semi-structured interviews. This qualitative technique aims to assess the narrative agreement, careful process tracing, and divergent interpretations of events to uncover causal processes and mechanisms in play on how both groups interpreted exogenous tensions and shocks.

Although limited in generalizability from a deviant case, the depth from this case gives us reasonable confidence in deriving implications from a single case where it was least likely to experience violence, giving us key insights into conflict processes. The findings from this case imply that social cohesion is fundamentally situational, and that we should not assume that peacetime interethnic trust may persist during wartime. Instead, the case suggests the importance of preventing nationwide shocks to society, such as the one from allegations of rigged elections in Kenya.

Author

• Gaurav Toor