A Few Things You Should Know about Kenya’s Cyber Policy Landscape

The term policy very likely puts off a lot of folks. It probably evokes images of old men in suits and spectacles droning on about something or other. I, on the other hand, am fascinated by (public) policy. The most basic definition of policy is “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.” Policies help in shaping laws and regulations that govern various actors in a jurisdiction.

In an increasingly interconnected world, there is an emerging realm of cyber policy that is exciting as it is challenging. Safety, security, privacy, autonomy, freedom of expression are some of the aspects that now need to be rethought in the context of the cyber space. If you currently conduct any activity online, it definitely matters how the space is regulated, and what plans are in place to uphold your fundamental rights, as well as technological innovations that you leverage for work or leisure.

So what is the government of Kenya envisioning as protections and measures to underpin fundamental rights and freedoms online for its citizens? Which actors are involved? What laws are in place, and which ones are needed?

Equally, which non-state actors are in the forefront of these deliberations? Who is articulating citizens’ concerns in shaping our cyber policies?

A few things you should know:

i)  laws, regulations and policies pertaining to cybersecurity in Kenya largely approach it from the perspective of curbing cybercrime, and to a much lesser extent safeguarding the rights of citizens as they translate to an increasingly interconnected and inescapable digital realm.

Some of the laws in place include the Kenya Information Communications Act (KICA), Chapter 411A and the the Computer and Cybercrimes Bill (2016).

ii)  there exists a Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre (KE-CIRT/CC), whose role is to facilitate coordination and collaboration in response to cybersecurity incidents. This is to whom you can report a vulnerability or cyber-related incident that harms you or others.

iii) Our constitution, in Article 31, guarantees the right to privacy, including the right to not have information relating to one’s family or private affairs unnecessarily revealed, and to not have the privacy of one’s communications infringed.

BUT

a crucial piece of legislation to enforce is yet to be adopted. The Data Protection Bill, 2013 was formulated to give effect to this constitutional provision. It articulates requirements for electronic personal information collection, storage, protection/security, access, disclosure, and misuse.

iv)  Cyber policy needs thinkers, lawyers, geeks…(trying very hard not to use the hackneyed term ‘capacity’, but there you have it). Unchartered territories, where issues like sovereignty, Internet jurisdiction, protection of freedoms online and offline, national security all make for very interesting questions with no easy answers. Kenya is a lighthouse country in the region, and her people are sharp thinkers and doers who should explore this space a bit more!

For other insights, check out the report here.

Alternatively, you can listen to this podcast summary of the report.

This report was commissioned by Global Partners Digital, in a series designed to help civil society actors navigate the cyber policy landscape in four countries: Chile, India, Indonesia, and Kenya. It was co-authored by Tyrus Kamau and Juliet Maina

Hundreds of Fabulous Kenyan Women signed up to #SayNoToManelsKE

Back in May 2016, I wrote for the Daily Nation on this nefarious issue of all male panels, otherwise known as manels. They are pervasive. They are normalised.  They are problematic. The reactions to the piece have been interesting to follow, primarily via the #SayNoToManelsKE and #SayNoToManels hashtags.  (Other hashtags highlighting this issue globally include #AllMalePanels).

I am very pleased to see, and be part of many conversations around this. It is encouraging to note  increased awareness on how frequently we are treated to all male panels – in the media, in conferences and events. In turn, these shape perceptions, in many ways, and perpetrate the vicious circle of gendered norms. Some of the popular media shows are notorious for these manels.

Since the fallacious arguments that there aren’t women qualified or willing to show up are often used to perpetuate and justify manels, Ory Okolloh and I decided to put together a database of women in various sectors and industries across the country. 376 women and counting have signed up, and most importantly, THEY ARE WILLING to show up.

The publicly viewable and searchable database can be found here: http://bit.ly/SayNoToManelsKE 

You can search by industry of interest eg tech, health, oil etc.

If interested in specific contacts and for any queries, you can write to saynotomanelske@gmail.com. 

 The database is populated through this form: http://bit.ly/WomenSpeakersKESignUp

Efforts to tackle valid reservations to participating are also being pursued. For instance, public speaking workshops are being organised for those who have indicated interest.

 

We encourage more women to sign up, and help in tackling misrepresentation in our public spaces! If you cannot make it to an event/conference/panel you’ve been invited to, you can use this list to recommend other women, and encourage others in your industry to sign up.

Dear men, once again, a reminder, you can (and should) take a pledge not to take part in manels. We welcome a movement of bold men who will create and take such a pledge.

We need  champion organisations to also pledge to not organising manels!  In the meantime, we keep calling out manels as witnessed; it’s a critical first step in breaking the norm!

By the way, an all male panel with a female moderator is still a manel!

A special shout out to Sophie Mukhwana and Nanjala Nyabola for helping with organising the list, and public speaking workshops respectively. Mashujaa ni nyinyi! 💪🏾

 

 

 

Cyber Security and Cyber Resilience in East Africa

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of co-authoring a so-titled paper with Dr. Iginio Gagliardone, for the The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). It was a useful exercise in analysing the efforts to enhance cybersecurity in the region, with an initial focus on Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Below is the paper’s executive summary, and the paper can be read or downloaded here.

 

This study analyses continuities and discontinuities of collective efforts toward enhanced cyber security in Eastern Africa, with a particular focus on Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Focusing on the challenges that have followed the contours of East Africa’s distinctive digital cultures, it challenges the view that cyber-security and cyber-resilience are simply technical problems that can be solved by reducing the gap with more technically advanced nations. On the contrary it shows how cyber-security is a inherently political challenge and that, in the absence of adequate checks and balances, the increasing securitization of domestic and international politics may require costly trade-offs with individual and collective freedoms.

Three concepts are suggested – emulation, extraversion, and enculturation – that can serve to better capture how Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia have respectively answered emerging cyber-threats. These concepts, rather than adding to the already abundant jargon in this area, are simply meant to encourage analysts to pay greater attention to how in each national context the technical, social and political interact in unique ways and produce distinctive outcomes. In Kenya public and private actors have sought to live up to international standards, keeping up with the country’s reputation as a regional ICT powerhouse, but it is unclear how such an ambitious agenda will find concrete applications. Ethiopia displays higher risks that the need to guarantee better cyber-security can further legitimize repressive measures in the new media sector. Finally in Somalia, in the absence of a functioning state, hybrid solutions have been found that connect traditional practices and new technologies to offer some level of certainty to individuals using services that are vital for the life in the region, such as local and international payments over mobile phones.

Social Media and Journalism: A Changing Media Landscape in Kenya

In 2014, I had the pleasure of contributing to a fascinating production titled Exploring Kenya’s Media Policy Landscape: 1963-2013. Commissioned by the Media Policy Research Centre, I was tasked with exploring the impact of social media on journalism in Kenya. I assessed some conceptual frameworks on social media, social media’s effects on communication – the rise of citizen journalism, examples of social media users challenging traditional media (#someonetell…), as well as a critique of online citizen journalism. I also investigated social media adoption trends by mainstream (traditional) media, benchmarking the local against international media. The challenges and opportunities of social media for mainstream media, as well as social media’s implications for media policy (e.g. whether bloggers are journalists) round up the chapter contribution.

The working papers collection was officially launched on 27 February 2015.

Below is the executive summary of the working paper, and a link to the publication download (page 66- 90). I welcome feedback and additional thoughts on other factors to consider. (It was also very interesting and saddening to note the dearth of analysis on this subject matter during my literature review).

The [social media and journalism] chapter explores the impact of social media on journalism, with examples and analysis anchored in the Kenyan context. It begins with an overview of social media, the tools and practices shaping it, and dives deeper into the social media landscape in Kenya. Social media structure and adoption is increasingly challenging ‘traditional’ channels and agents of information dissemination in the country. Journalists and mainstream media are no longer the sole or primary source of breaking news. Citizens are now more connected with each other through platforms that enable conversation, co-creation and in some instances organizing towards collective action. Through social media, and citizen journalism, there has been an amplification of voices, groups and communities that would not otherwise attract mainstream media attention. Several examples of how social media users have challenged both local and international traditional media’s reportage on national issues are highlighted. Social media use, however, is hinged on opting in, which is a factor of access and affordability of Internet and (mobile) devices. The limitations notwithstanding, social media continues to be adopted by Kenyan media, informing various practices such as setting up of blog sections on the media’s online portals, use of social media to stir conversation around news content, introduction of social media editors, and social media policy guidelines for journalists. The role of journalism remains significant, to sift through vast volumes of data and information generated, and make sense of it through application of journalistic skills. Though social media hasn’t yet completely disrupted journalism and traditional media in Kenya, its significance and ubiquity continues to rise and challenge the latter’s practices. How social media impact straditional media’s monetization streams as well as media policies is also discussed. The chapter concludes with the recommendation that more research and studies on social media in Kenya should be conducted in Kenya, to better inform policy practices. Journalism practitioners, trainers, researchers and policymakers should continue to assess and appreciate social media’s value in Kenya towards improving the media industry and creating a more democratic society.

What About the People?

Many democratic societies today are grappling with upholding and defending free speech, as well as drawing the lines on where it crosses over to hate, or even dangerous speech. Hate speech remains a term without a universal definition. In Kenya, recent history is littered with evidence of the impact (but not necessarily a direct correlation) of speech on violence, especially during election periods. In 2007/8, we saw the addition of SMS and social media platforms to the propagation of rumours, but also to the creation of innovations like Ushahidi to fill the media gap with crowdsourced and verified information. It was after that unfortunate time that we also saw the introduction of hate speech into law.

Article 13 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act, 2008 provides a framework of what constitutes hate speech and ethnic hatred. Article 33 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but points out that freedom does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech or advocacy of hatred – constituting ethnic hatred, vilification of others, incitement to cause harm- or based on any ground of discrimination as contemplated in article 27(4). For reference, article 27(4) highlights that the State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including  race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth. Further, article 91 of the katiba reads that political parties shall not (a) be founded on a religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, gender or regional basis or seek to engage in advocacy of hatred on any such basis; (b) engage in or encourage violence by, or intimidation of, its members, supporters, opponents or any other person.

However, as often is the case, the problem is not the absence of legal frameworks. It takes people and institutions to enforce the words in these documents.

Over the past week, YouTube clips of former Nairobi mayor, George Aladwa addressing an audience in Kibera during Mashujaa day have done the rounds, and stirred reactions, ranging from outrage at his utterances,to a spirited defence against his arrest. Nor is Aladwa the first political leader to be careless with his words. There have been comparisons to Moses Kuria’s words to energised youth in Gatundu a couple of months back. What dominates discourse now is the political party affiliations of each, and how the law has (not) been applied in each case.

Those defending Aladwa posit him as a victim. That he was arrested and grilled for hours while the same didn’t hold for Moses Kuria, for instance, does merit a spirited debate. What is worrying, however, is the notion that his words were taken out of context, an argument brought forth, by, among others, Raila Odinga. In so doing, the discussion is now along blurred lines, and the issues condensed into one false narrative: Aladwa, as a symbol of some injustice.

I would like to bring back to the fore the audiences who have been subjected to Aladwa’s, Kuria’s and other politicians’ charged speeches. One trend observed since the 2005 referendum about inflammatory political speech is that it moved from being overt to covert; more parables, proverbs, and nuanced. The coded language doesn’t outrightly call for action to be taken against a certain group, and the framing is in passive tense; ‘we must take action against group X’ has become ‘action must be taken against some people’. This is left to the audience to decipher who the people are, and what the action to be taken is. Whether by design or by default, this seemingly exonerates the speaker – often a politician wielding significant influence over the audience addressed – whose defence then becomes that they cannot be held accountable for the actions taken by his audience. We have also had hate speech and/or ethnic incitement cases taken to the courts, none of which have resulted in full prosecution or sentencing. The NCIC, in the meantime, has been employing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); which has basically entailed speakers (mostly politicians) being asked to apologise to the audience they offended. How effective that mechanism is, we can’t know for sure, but perhaps the symbolism of it does resonate.

In the recent case with Aladwa, CORD, in speaking out, had a chance to be the bigger party, to condemn the clear incitement that was, and then address whatever context they insist was misinterpreted. Jubilee politicians, in their reactions, did not have to resort to the set of adjectives they did, to describe Mr Aladwa’s actions. In all this, it is the audience susceptible to incitement that is all but forgotten in the discussion; the people of Kibera who were present that day, and those who were at the rally in Gatundu. What did they take away? How are those words sitting in their minds and hearts, and are they contemplating acting on them? What is being done to counter the impact of the charged words meted out on them? What about all the other cases that are unrecorded or brought to (social) media attention?
History has a way of repeating itself, if we fail to draw lessons from it.  As the swahili proverb goes, fahali wawili wakipigana, nyasi huumia.

This article also appeared on the Daily Nation on October 26, 2015. 

The Future of Cyberspace in Kenya

(As first posted on Medium).

The Global Conference on Cyberspace, hosted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 16th and 17th April, 2015, was a very interesting one to have attended. The convening drew attendance from governments and private sector players; civil society were invited to the table, with a one and a half day pre-event that served as a capacity-building program, and an ‘unconference’ event where they could set the agenda, discuss further on issues that were brought up at the conference, or those not tackled altogether.

The themes under which the future of cyberspace was discussed, were freedom, security and growth. The three are interesting departure points to assess cyberspace considerations in each country. For instance, in Kenya, we continue to enjoy Internet freedom, something I contend is by default, not design, in that it hasn’t been a space that the government has attempted to regulate from the onset. That said, the freedom enjoyed as a result of minimal regulation also exposes individual users and institutions alike to any number of risks — data privacy violations, cyber fraud, to name a few. Kenya is currently awaiting two pieces of legislation: the Data Protection Bill and the Cybercrime and Computer Related Crimes Bill that will introduce measures to protect user privacy as well as provide legal options through which to address cybercrime grievances. Reviews of various versions of these bills have noted that there have been clauses that could undermine freedom of expression. It will be imperative for the Legislative processes to balance provisions on security, privacy and freedom on the Internet.

We will soon need to have a conversation on Net Neutrality in Kenya. India is currently engaging in a conversation on the issue, around the regulatory attempts that could undermine it. The Internet.org effort by Facebook and other tech companies, already on Kenya’s shores (in partnership with Airtel) has come under criticism, that it undermines the principle of network neutrality. The initiative, aimed at first time Internet users in the developing world, is already missing the mark, as the target group makes up for a very minimal percentage of its current users. (If you are an Internet.org user in Kenya, would love to hear your thoughts on the service!)

On security, insights from the 2014 Kenya Cyber Security Report indicate the growing risks that individuals and institutions are increasingly facing — ranging from malware, to fraud. User security in online banking systems locally has been found wanting (read from page 28 of the above report on this). Awareness of the risks posed in cyberspace is minimal, and measures to address and mitigate cyberspace risks, challenges and threats exist mostly on paper. For instance, Kenya has a national cybersecurity strategy penned by the ICT Ministry that outlines measures to be taken to secure the country’s cyberspace and ensure cyber resilience. Since 2012, Kenya has supposedly had a National Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre (KE-CIRT/CC), in accordance with ITU recommendations. The said centre is housed under the Communications Authority of Kenya. Its work and impact is unknown, though, you can supposedly report an incident or vulnerability. The importance of such a response mechanism has motivated individual efforts by IT security professionals to offer incident response, share information and raise awareness, in the glaring absence of institutional mechanisms within government. The Kenyan government was once again quick to sign up as a ‘founding member’ of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise that was unveiled at the close of the conference. Will be watching with unabated breath to see the government’s contribution to this new body. We all remember the repeated defacing of the Kenya government institutions’ websites, as well as hacking of social media accounts…makes one wonder what all these strategies and institutions in place are up to. The same government could violate our constitutional right to privacy in the name of national security. (Let’s not forget the scandal that was the Chinese nationals arrested in Runda in December last year, and who as yet, haven’t been prosecuted for the lack of legislature to this effect.)

On growth, it was rightfully noted that “the Internet is rapidly becoming the most critical infrastructure for economies around the globe”. In Kenya, business and economic growth facilitated by the Internet has massive opportunities as well as challenges. Our Internet-based annual economic outputs are currently valued at approximately Kshs. 100 billion, the second highest in Africa. Impressive indeed. However, further growth and diversification of Internet and cyberspace-related economic activity is limited by lack of regulatory frameworks such as the aforementioned Data Protection Bill. Kenya was once poised to set up a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector, greatly undermined as a result of a delayed process of enacting the Bill. Initiatives and investments such as Rockefeller’s Digital Jobs Africa bear massive potential, but challenges- including talent — need to be addressed carefully and strategically to ensure that the country can derive more economic growth and generate employment via cyberspace activities.

It’s not all up to government though. Training institutions (with their ever increasing ICT-oriented courses and curricula) need to churn out talent that can either be hired or that can be enterprising around the Internet economy. Civil society needs to align itself to the cyberspace, to keep government (and private sector) in check in their efforts, as many of them could undermine freedoms that have been hard-earned. Academia have their research and analytical work cut out for them. All have to work together to facilitate knowledge exchange and wholesomely contribute to a safe, free and secure cyberspace in Kenya.

A Side Note: other interesting observations from the conference.

From the onset, governments as represented by Ministers read out statements on their position and efforts on enhancing the cyberspace. It was particularly interesting to note the different angles from which various countries approached the discussion. MENA countries emphasized that countering terrorism in the cyberspace is their priority. China invited others to join them in their efforts, reiterating that they believe in the freedom, security and growth of the cyberspace (lots of eyes rolled). Sub-Saharan African countries — Uganda, Senegal and Ghana — read out their ministerial statements, in which they reiterated commitment to passing laws to address cyberspace related issues, with Senegal referring to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, recently adopted by the regional body as a guiding principle for their local efforts. There was the usual extending of a begging bowl; assistance from the Global North was sought.

It was noticeable that Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa weren’t as vocal/visible. The three countries are ‘leaders’ in Internet connectivity and have significantly large ICT sectors, one wonders where their ministers of ICT and/or Foreign Affairs were.

It was interesting how most discussions boiled down to matters of mass surveillance (many spirited attempts at justifying it from government types), privacy and security(whether one can exist without the other) in cyberspace.

On civil society participation, it was good to note involvement within the conference programme (e.g. Nnenna Nwakanma’s inclusion in the opening panel, where she fantastically represented civil society voice) and beaming their thoughts out loud via the Twittersphere. That said, I was rather disappointed by the low turnout at the unconference, given dissatisfaction expressed in the main conference discussions by civil society types in attendance. Some of the unconference sessions, however, were interesting, others altogether problematic. (In my view the framing around ‘the next (two) billion Internet users’ worries me…that’s for another day).

However, it was also notable that no civil society organisations were founding members of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise…so much for a multi-stakeholder approach!

Kenya Tech Community’s ‘Dalliance’ with the Goverment

It is no doubt that many Kenyan stakeholders have benefitted from the ‘Silicon Savannah’ and ‘East Africa ICT Hub’ monikers bestowed upon Kenya. It is also no doubt that ICTs are a player in virtually every aspect of society and industry today, and are here to stay. All stakeholders are clamouring to establish their significance and how their roles and responsibilities will be disrupted by digital technologies and the Internet.

Kenya’s tech sector has been lauded, and recently even ‘validated’ by the government of President Kenyatta. From government investment into incubators, as is the case with Nailab, to the famed recent impromptu visit by His Excellency to iHub, Nailab and other tech companies housed at the Bishop Magua Centre (including a shout out in the State of the Nation address) and even funding commitments to establishing entities like Enterprise Kenya, to be co-facilitated with players from the tech sector.

Some have said the community is currently experiencing a ‘honeymoon phase’, with government. This isn’t a bad thing, as it has taken lots of hard work for the tech players to gain rightful recognition. However, players in this scene, and in particular, local tech folk with access to the highest office of the land, will do well to learn from the missteps and relationship dynamics that the Kenyan government has had, especially with the media and civil society. The Public Benefit Organisations (PBO) Act, The Media Council Bill and Kenya Information Communications (Amendment) Act come to mind. How media and civil society actors have found themselves battling against problematic clauses in these laws provides a cautionary tale for the nascent ICT sector.

As the tech space expands, government is also looking at regulating it, and this could be done in ways that undermine the emerging local scene, if caution is not heeded. Laws proposed and government thinking around data privacy and cyber security, for instance, do have implications that may complicate e-commerce and Internet freedom. The Security Laws Amendment Act had clauses that touched on ICT components, in particular Internet and social media use for communication. While wining, dining and basking in government/The Presidency’s attention, those representing the tech sector–from the non-government/non-profit hubs, to private sector tech companies and everyone in between — should keep a very watchful eye on what the Executive and Legislative arms of government are doing, boldly or stealthily, as far as investment commitments, regulations and laws go, even as they hope to further their agendas. It would be a tragedy to have been coopted into an agenda that undermines the future of the ICT sector.

The tech sector, however defined, does not exist in a vacuum. The battles between government and media and civil society also have an impact on how this cross-cutting sector pans out. Bloggers for instance, who fall within media and civil society, rely on ICTs for their work. Rules and regulation attempts, impact their work. The tech community also expands to the consumers of products and innovations. They should be kept in mind as well.

 

There is ongoing talk for players in the tech community (innovators, business operators and others) should have their own association, to serve as a voice of the technology sector in Kenya. How that shapes up will be interesting, as we also figure out what and who comprises the tech sector/community in Kenya. Recent history bears lessons for those at the forefront to heed, as we forge as ‘the home of the Silicon Savannah’.
This article also appeared on the Daily Nation, on April 23, 2015.

Dear Kenyans, Tweet On!

Social media are playing a critical role in lending and amplifying citizen voices in Kenya today, contributing to what has been termed a ‘networked fifth estate’. Citizens are finding and amplifying their own collective voice; we no longer have to wait for the media, the opposition, civil society, religious institutions,the government or any other ‘intermediary’ to ‘speak on our behalf’ or to represent our views while we passively watch/listen.

 

There is no shortage of issues and problems plaguing Kenya today, heck, it’s like a cruel game of whack-a-mole. Coupled with the politicization of virtually every discourse on any issue in any sector, to be a diligent Kenyan, practising one’s constitutional right to public participation is no small feat.  

 

Our country, for all its misfortunes and blunders has one interesting tool whose impact we are just realizing: the Internet. We have Internet Freedom(the efforts to curtail them,though, are a discussion for another day). Coupled with the proliferation of Internet-enabled mobile devices at increasingly affordable rates for an increasing percentage of the population, we are well on our way to writing an interesting chapter in world history on use of these devices and tools to shape our democracy.

 

Take the controversial Security Laws (Amendment) Bill discussion for instance. Public discourse  began with news pieces from our media that were shared online. The interaction and reactions that ensued largely entailed demanding access to the draft bill that only journalists initially seemed to have access to. Relentless efforts by vigilant citizens tweeting at journalists and legislators to avail the draft saw it uploaded online for wananchi to read and scrutinize for themselves. Problematic clauses in the draft have been highlighted and discussed at length on Twitter for instance, arguably with more depth and diversity of insight and contribution than on traditional media’s coverage. Pressure to allow for public input to the draft has largely come from the online community, when it was noted that this had not taken place.

 

The turnout at the public forum earlier this week was low, despite the flurry of online engagement on the issue. This is where critics of social media’s impact come alive and scorn at the poor translation of online activity to offline action. However, it must be noted that different times call for different strategies. Traditional forms of turning up – physical rallies, street protests, town hall meetings- while significant, are no longer the only forms in which we can exercise civic engagement. We need to be open to the fact that they may no longer be relevant. Besides, don’t we have a  ‘digital government’, in the home of the ‘Silicon Savannah’? This, to me, says that it’s time to rethink public consultation forum models. The newspaper announcements for sessions that are held at impractical times during the week should not be simplified to indicate apathy. In this case, one afternoon session, in one location (Nairobi), on a law that would affect all Kenyans cannot be counted as representative by any stretch of the imagination.  Pressure must be mounted on government, at both county and national levels to rethink effective ways of facilitating citizens’ public participation in governance issues given the various contexts in which they operate. Online consultations have been leveraged before, and are flaunted as a success by the government. I refer to the famed crowdsourcing of contributions to the National Budget by President Kenyatta back in 2011 when he was Minister of Finance. Though we never got to know how citizens’ contributions contributed to the final budget, the approach taken heralded new thinking that shouldn’t be abandoned now.

 

Yes, social media use is not representative of the population. Yes, we have a long way to go before we can talk of all Kenyans being represented online. But this should not give cause to dismiss what is playing out in the online spaces that Kenyans occupy. I contend that these spaces are perhaps even more democratic than ‘offline’ barazas or whatever predated social media as a means for congregating citizens and having them engage in discussion. I contend that for the first time, more Kenyans are transcending physical boundaries and engaging with fellow Kenyans and the rest of the continent and the world, through these online social networks. We have, for a long time, been trying to figure out what national cohesion and integration in Kenya means. Some form of it is being practised on social media. Frictions abound, as they would offline. Insults are hurled, and every so often, dangerous speech (speech with a potential to catalyze violence) rears it ugly head. However, it doesn’t carry the day. Kenyans online must be applauded for the self-regulation mechanisms they engage in to minimize toxicity in their online space. Kenyans ‘cuff’ hate by naming and shaming such speakers, countering such messages, and even drowning them with more speech, something observed by the Umati Project that monitors online public conversations to better understand hate speech dynamics. What is interesting about this trend is that it primarily stems from the citizenry. Calls by media, civil society and even government to ‘stop hate speech’ cannot be said to be the most impactful in easing any online tensions that often arise. The ‘traditional authorities’ do not always hold sway in the online space.
It would be unwise to underestimate the significant role social media is playing in aggregating citizen voices on issues affecting them. So dear Kenyans, tweet on!

 

This post also appeared on the Daily Nation, on December 17, 2014. 

How To Help, Save or Develop Africa (Part 4): China’s 5-Point Agenda

Sensing an opportunity with the G-8 in disarray, China declared 2006 as the “Year for Africa” and convened an Africa Conference in Beijing in October. To feed the voracious appetite of its economic machine galloping at a dizzying 9 percent clip, China was trolling for resources in Africa. It wooed African leaders with euphonious verbiage and diplomatic platitudes about “equal terms” and lofty promises of foreign aid without conditions.

Miffed at the West’s insistence on conditionalities for its aid, 40 African heads of state trekked to the conference and threw themselves at the feet of China, signing a multiplicity of deals.China came up with a 3-Point Agenda for Africa that stressed peace, development, cooperation, and scholarships for African students, among others:(http://bit.ly/MBVqgQ) Continue reading “How To Help, Save or Develop Africa (Part 4): China’s 5-Point Agenda”

#SomeoneTellCNN That Kenya Is Watching How They Tell Our Stories

And we are proving that we sure can cause a stir about faux-reporting.

The genesis. A newscast painting this picture of an attack on one of Nairobi’s bus stops on Saturday evening.

(Image courtesy of Zosi) Continue reading “#SomeoneTellCNN That Kenya Is Watching How They Tell Our Stories”