The Adaptability of the Catholic Church’s Amani Mashinani Model in Kenya’s North Rift Conflicts

Peace from below: Contextual and theoretical background

The place of ethnic politics in Kenya has been well documented. ³ Since 1992, with the advent of multiparty politics, political leaders have used ethnic blocks to pit communities against each other. ⁴ The worst so far has been the violence after the elections of 2007. Displacements, killings, and family divisions took place. ⁵ The 2013 elections were also characterized by ethnic grievances, albeit with a lower level of physical violence. ⁶ Ethnic politics involves the fight for control and access to resources. It is from this background, where the state seems to fail, that we argue that institutions such as the church have a role to play in uniting communities to work toward peaceful coexistence. While research has sufficiently focused on peacebuilding that reconciles people at the level of the state, ⁷ little attention, as Abdalla observes, ⁸ has been paid to peacebuilding processes that encourage forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing within and among the affected communities at the grassroots level.

Studies exist on the role of the National Council of Churches of Kenya as an umbrella body that unites churches for service to the needs of humanity as they arise. ⁹ However, such efforts have been faulted as lacking a grassroots understanding of local disputes. Some of the efforts have also been viewed as reactionary and lacking sustainability. ¹⁰ For instance, how do the local communities strive to become less vulnerable, and what are the successful narratives of peace from below? In Kenya, the Catholic Church spearheads some of the grassroots initiatives that speak to the role of the church in ethnic politics. ¹¹ The Catholic Church’s role in conflicts at the grassroots level has the potential to inform states and other actors on the good practices that can lead to peaceful coexistence among warring ethnic groups. ¹² The processes associated with reconciliation—including confession, repentance, forgiveness, mercy, and conversion, all based on self-reflection and acceptance of personal responsibility—have emerged from religious and not secular backgrounds. ¹³ Our study examines the reconciliatory approaches of the AM model by the Catholic Church in two specific local conflicts.

Context of the study

The Catholic Church’s Eldoret Diocese covers the counties of Nandi, Uasin Gishu, and Elgeyo-Marakwet. While wider empirical research has been done in three zones of conflict, which included Nandi-Kisumu, Uasin Gishu, and Pokot-Marakwet, this article centers on the conflicts at (1) the border between Elgeyo-Marakwet and West Pokot and (2) Uasin Gishu. In these two areas, two case studies suffice: one on the Kerio Valley conflict in the corridor shared by the Pokots and the Marakwets, and the other on the Burnt Forest region in Uasin Gishu shared by the Kalenjin and the Kikuyu. These cases will help us explore ethnic conflicts and the role that the church plays through the AM model. Besides explaining the nature and causes of ethnic conflicts, we compare the applicability of the structure of the AM model in conflict transformation in the two sites.

Methodology

Qualitative data were obtained through ethnographic case studies that employed key informant interviews, observation, and focus-group discussions. The questions asked through these methods took account of the forms of conflicts and causes, the involvement of the church and the communities in conflict resolution, and the theology, as well as the philosophy, behind the AM model. The research participants included youth leaders, community elders, peace caucus secretaries, chiefs, church leaders, and members of the church and the community. Four focus-group discussions were held with the caucus committee members in selected areas where there were AM-initiated development projects.

Conflicts in Burnt Forest and Kerio Valley

Located in Uasin Gishu County, Burnt Forest is largely dominated by two tribes: Kikuyu and Kalenjin. Animosity and suspicion between the two tribes have a history, going back to the 1970s, when the white settlers that occupied the land left. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, so the narrative goes, the government of Jomo Kenyatta ¹⁴ opened up the former white settlements to the public for purchase. Interested individuals came forward to purchase land, which was allotted depending on the amount paid. The Kalenjins, however, considered this land to be theirs and were unhappy with the government’s decision. In fact, this narrative was later changed to suggest that the Kikuyu had been brought in from Kiambu and parts of the Rift Valley and were given “Kalenjin land.” It is alleged that they even changed the name of pieces of land they were allocated. renaming them after places they had come from in Kikuyuland. Names such as Kiambaa, Kondoo, and Yamumbi were cited. This political narrative seems to have been largely used in 1992, 1997, and 2002, and heightened in 2007, to ethnically cleanse the Kikuyus from “Kalenjin land,” perpetuating a long history of animosity, hatred, and a sense of loss.

About thirty-five kilometers northeast of Burnt Forest is Kerio Valley, a semi-arid area that traverses parts of West Pokot County, Baringo County, the lower parts of Elgeyo-Marakwet County, and the southern part of Turkana County. It is an area of crossroads between the Pokots, Marakwet, Keiyo and Turkana people. The Pokot-Marakwet border is characterized by resource-based conflicts. The challenge in the region is lack of pasture and water, which has led to ethnic clashes between the Pokots and the Marakwets. Raids of cattle were common. These have escalated, however, into deadly attacks with the advent of guns, as a priest in Kapenguria Parish explained. ¹⁵ In this general area the Catholic Church started the work of AM back in 1990s.

The AM model

Amani Mashinani literally translates as “peace at grassroots.” We have taken this form of peace to refer to the ability of members of the church and the community to realize their potential in eliminating any form of conflict that divides communities. This approach to peacebuilding features initiative by a church and a community that contributes to holistic and sustainable development for diverse ethnic communities. The model has encouraged ethnic dialogue, which calls for repentance, forgiveness, restitution, and healing. ¹⁶ This initiative by the Catholic Church under the leadership of the late Bishop Cornelius Korir goes back to early 1990s, when Korir was appointed bishop of the Diocese of Eldoret. The AM initiative was intended to mobilize communities to think and act together through collaborative efforts, including specific connector projects that would lead to harmonious relations and sustainable peace, involving both formal and informal structures. This initiative is based on a contact theory of change. That is, if conflicting communities continuously interact, there is a strong likelihood of reaching harmony between them. According to Korir, resolving conflicts would happen from below only if the people committed themselves to the process—hence AM, peace from the grassroots. The model has twelve steps, which can be presented cyclically as shown in figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The twelve steps of the Amani Mashinani model of peacebuilding

The approach to conflict resolution and peacebuilding begins with an analysis of the conflict and the provision of humanitarian aid, as an intervention to help the victims of violence. However, the real work begins with one-on-one meetings with community opinion leaders from the warring sides as they start negotiations. After several meetings with the opinion leaders, the church leadership then requests the opinion leaders to increase the size of the group by inviting additional influential persons to the meetings. The two groups are then asked to share in a meal as a symbol of unity. The two groups from each side then act as ambassadors to their respective communities in preparation for larger intra-ethnic groups, where communities are asked to meet and list their grievances, which are then passed on to the church leadership. The grievances are aired in the subsequent meeting. An inter-ethnic meeting is held to group issues raised into a clear agenda, which is reported back to the caucus peace committees to agree on peace connector projects that will address the issues raised. Once communities start to work together, they may agree to sign a social contract that binds them not to return to war. They further monitor the peace connector projects to record the success and failures. This is the twelve-step model in brief, but as we shall see below, there is a lot that goes into the process.

Comparing the application of the AM model in Kerio Valley and in Burnt Forest

At Burnt Forest, the AM peace initiative began in 2007 at the height of postelection violence at St. Patrick Catholic Church, when the priest who was then in charge was approached by a Kikuyu woman, who was a local liquor brewer, to hold negotiations for peace with Kalenjin elders. With the help of a few others, they convened the first meeting with a group of ten elders, five from each camp. The first meeting was held at the Burnt Forest Market but was thwarted by Kalenjin warriors, who felt betrayed. The facilitators then held the second meeting at a nearby another St. Patrick Catholic Church, with a flag separating the two groups, a symbol of peace and a sign of cease fighting.

In Kerio Valley, the formal AM peace initiative began in earnest in 1999. A few elders met with Bishop Korir at the Catholic Church Cathedral in Eldoret to negotiate for peace. Later the number increased to thirteen chiefs and ten elders from each side. At the time the peace initiative began at Kerio Valley, the situation was not very volatile, and the humanitarian needs presented by the elders stirred the Catholic Church to get help from Catholic Relief Services (CRS). They donated money for food in various villages. Later, in gatherings at Kapsait village and Kamogorior, symbolic meals were shared.

Similarly, in Burnt Forest, displaced families that were temporarily hosted at St. Patrick Church received vouchers worth US$150. The vouchers were deposited in selected shops that belonged to the Kalenjin and Kikuyu in equal proportions. The owners were asked to bring their goods to sell during the conflict resolution meetings. This arrangement facilitated interactions and eased tensions. In the meetings, the two communities also shared meals as a peaceful way of beginning dialogue and reducing violence.

At Burnt Forest, the now larger group was asked to express their grievances by writing down what they held against each other and to seal the written grievances in two different envelopes. The committee later opened these envelopes. Similarly, in Kerio Valley, at the time when the church visited the people at the village level, grievances were sought through a similar approach. At Burnt Forest, the grievances raised consisted of sixty complaints against each other, which aggravated the tensions. The grievances ranged from the use of ethnic village names to land ownership issues. A participant in a focus-group discussion held in Burnt Forest expressed the concern that the use of labels was dangerous. She said, “We named these places as a way of keeping our identity, since we all came from central Kenya, but now we see how much damage this has caused over the years. Our Kalenjin brothers and sisters do not realize that identity is important. Instead, they have used these names to delineate, marginalize, and target the Kikuyu, especially during the electioneering period.”

All sixty grievances were agreeably consolidated into seven main issues, which formed the guiding agenda for projects of connection. The seven were the following: historical injustices regarding land, politics used for triggering violence, culture differences, unemployment, ethnicity expressed in tribalism, unequal distribution of government resources, and mass media used to promote violence. A group of seventy elders and leaders from the different villages in Burnt Forest was organized to continue with peace negotiations and to agree on the appropriate connector projects that would mitigate the root causes of violence and, importantly, unite the Kikuyu and the Kalenjin for peaceful coexistence.

In both sites, the conflicts rendered some of the victims homeless. Compensation through the building of new houses was done in a way that some of the perpetrators who lost their homes or who lived in temporary homes benefited from the construction. This is contextual justice that ensures equity and guards against suspicion. In Burnt Forest, while most Kikuyus lost their houses to arsonists from the Kalenjin community, some Kalenjins benefited through renovation and replacement of the temporary houses. This applied to the Pokots too. While the Marakwets are said to have lost most of their property, both communities benefited from the compensation, albeit unequally.

The members were encouraged to share their stories and walk toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Some of the victims confessed their hatred. One peace caucus coordinator at Burnt Forest reported: “A Kikuyu woman told the Peace Committee that she had been so enraged by the violence of the Kalenjin militias against her community that she had been planning to sell all her maize to pay some thugs to attack a man she felt was responsible. However, after attending some of the peace meetings, she regretted her plans and sought reconciliation, confessing to her enemy what she had planned to do and apologizing.”

The structure of AM encouraged perpetrators to return stolen property based on their own personal conviction. Most of the perpetrators in the end became remorseful and regretted their actions. A Kalenjin man in one of the focus-group discussions said, “I knew I was keeping my neighbor’s cows. As I benefited from the milk and as my neighbor suffered, I knew it was wrong. Guilt was killing me, and I had to do something. I finally gathered up courage to repent and ask for forgiveness and returned the cows.”

Some of these narratives showed that the historical injustices had not been addressed. However, the focus of the joint activities of the communities is on peaceful coexistence, as they hope for a lasting solution to the historical injustices. At Kerio Valley, though cattle theft and conflicts over resources still existed, the efforts of the Catholic Church continued to influence dialogue and promote justice. Primary and secondary schools were constructed at the border to serve children from both sides. This decision has promoted interaction of children and parents from the Pokot and Marakwet communities.

Cow-watering points at the borders had been put up at Kapsait, a border point of the Pokots and Marakwets. Elders monitor these points and identify stolen cattle. In the process, the elders also introduced branding of cows using hot metal rods for ease of identification. If a cow with a brand that belongs to another party is spotted in the wrong herd, the herders inform the chief, who in turn informs his fellow chief to follow up the matter. The old cattle dips have also been rehabilitated, as well as new ones constructed. The two communities dip their cattle on the same day under the management of two elders, one from each side of the divide.

In Kerio Valley the church, with help from CRS, facilitated the growing of pyrethrum nurseries for the farmers, and the Savings and Credit Cooperative Company (SACCO) was established to support this project. A common milk-processing plant, Lelan Highland Dairies Company, was established, managed by elders from the Pokots and the Marakwets. Furthermore, the SACCO leadership aimed to improve the breed of the indigenous cattle through cross-breeding with exotic breeds. This is one way of curbing cattle theft because the hybrid cattle are not stolen. The cattle rustlers target the local breeds, which, unlike the crossbreeds, can run fast and for a long distance. Besides, the elders have worked on ways to track down perpetrators. Once caught, they are handed over to the government or banished from the community altogether.

In Burnt Forest, innovative activities such as people from different ethnic groups meeting in each other’s homes (each time, the visitor contributes money to the host) and so-called table banking, ¹⁷ which allows members to take loans without collateral, are ongoing. These activities have spread to other places such as Yamumbi, Kapteldon, and Huruma, all in Uasin Gishu County, where AM is in operation. These interactions encourage dialogue and reconciliation among the communities. Furthermore, bridges that link two villages occupied by Kikuyu and Kalenjin have been constructed to facilitate easy movement from one village to the other. These include the Lainguse, Sugut, and Olale bridges.

As a result of AM in the two sites, there is notable sustainable peace. Despite the erratic eruptions of violence in parts of Kerio Valley, it has become clear that the church’s efforts have brought about peaceful coexistence. At Kapsait, a border point for social contact between the Pokots and Marakwets, members of the two sides came together to construct a huge cross, which they placed on top of a hill at the border. They named the place Kapsait Lady Queen of Peace. On January 1, members of both communities join in a procession to the cross on the hill to celebrate the peace success stories. They slaughter animals donated from both sides to celebrate as they hold interdenominational prayers.

At Burnt Forest, the level of social trust is evidenced from the intermarriages. During a focus-group discussion a Kalenjin woman said, “My son has married a Kikuyu girl. If as a Kalenjin family we still perceived them [Kikuyu] as enemies, then he would not have married her. They already have given me grandchildren. You tell me, how am I supposed to treat these grandchildren? They are my blood. We therefore do not have a choice. We have to coexist, or our children will force us to!”

Social contract and monitoring processes are the final steps meant to assure the communities that they can live in trust of each other. At Burnt Forest, a parish priest brought up the need for a final ceremony of oath taking, commonly referred to as muma by both communities. Together with the communities, the church planned for the warriors and elders to arrange for the final ceremony, which would deter anyone from shedding human blood. This is a culturally recognized ceremony that unites those partaking of the oath to be each other’s keeper. Once this oath is taken, the belief is that whoever sheds the other’s blood is cursed. Furthermore, to shed human blood is to contaminate the very soil that feeds them, which is a taboo for these communities.

With all these activities, the communities have clearly committed themselves to conflict transformation. The peace connector projects serve as long-term reminders of the journey they have walked.

Conclusion

The AM model seems to work in different contexts of conflicts, albeit with modifications. Peacebuilders need to be aware that conflicts are dynamic, and so must the approaches be for their resolution. ¹⁸ In the future, different approaches to conflict resolution may be called for. The use of any specific model thus depends on the factors underlying a given conflict. Furthermore, active participation of the locals and the church is relevant. ¹⁹ We conclude that the models described here have led to clear and lasting success in the communities that have embraced them. And we note the crucial role of the church in the peace building processes of dialogue, forgiveness, reconciliation, restitution, and healing.