Cattle Rustling A Leadership Crisis
The African continent has had very few transformational leaders who have inspired hope, went beyond the ordinary and felt it necessary to transform lives. On the particular issue of cattle rustling and insecurity, the question to pose perhaps is what kind of leadership exists in pastoralist areas and what role does this leadership play within this context?
beba B. Amene, Civil Society and Community Outreach, Mifugo Project, ISS Nairobi
The African continent has had very few transformational leaders who
have inspired hope, went beyond the ordinary and felt it necessary to
transform lives. On the particular issue of cattle rustling and
insecurity, the question to pose perhaps is what kind of leadership
exists in pastoralist areas and what role does this leadership play
within this context?
It is a common assertion that the root of many of Africa’s numerous
ills could be traced to poor leadership. At the minimum, leadership at
various levels has been thought to be purely superintending. Key
elements would include a leadership that is compromised and quite
comfortable with the status quo. The extreme version is the kind of
predatory leadership that ignores the people it serves, is quite
unapologetic in its non-delivery of the aspirations of the citizenry and
takes pride in the destruction of any growth.
The practice of cattle rustling is that of theft of livestock amongst
pastoralist groups whose main livelihood is dependent on livestock.
Pastoralists in Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda have been engaged in
cattle rusting - a practice that many describe to be a mechanism for
restocking livestock decimated by drought and other factors. Depleted
livestock, limited pasture and water from the cumulative effect of
cyclic drought, as well as the availability of small arms are currently
forcing aggressive and violent restocking measures. In the process of
these negative measures that include cattle rustling, the conflicts
have been violent with evidence of pastoralists losing their lives from
increased in-country, inter-community and cross-border raids.
Recently, some media houses in Kenyan reported fatalities of over 30
pastoralists as a result of one single case of cattle rustling in the
Samburu district. There is an absence of systematic monitoring
mechanisms, thus there is very little record of mortality rates. The
information one gets would vary considerably depending on the source.
Regardless, one would expect a general outrage following reports of
thirty people dead in one village, but that is hardly the case.
Pastoralists occupy marginal areas in most of these countries and
issues affecting them also tend to be marginal in the national
conscience.
Just like leadership in other settings, leadership in pastoralist
communities in the Eastern and Horn of Africa falls within the formal
and informal/traditional categories.
If a simple measure of the success of the leadership within formal
government is in its delivery of basic services and policy making that
is sensitive to the people’s needs, then a critical assertion is that
most of the governments where pastoralists exists have failed. There is
widespread weakness in the provision of security for pastoralists and
their livelihoods, which is exacerbated by lack of provision of social
amenities and services such as schools or medical facilities.
Infrastructure is at a bare minimum and systems of public accountability
are unheard of in most of these pastoralist areas. This does not quite
mean that there is no government effort to deal with problems in
pastoralist areas. There have been numerous conflict prevention and
peace-building interventions over time. Also, disarmament exercises have
been attempted producing mixed results.
Local political leadership in the formal government structure in most
pastoralist zones might seem to know the cause and solution to the
problems affecting pastoralists but this usually is from a theoretical
perspective. In most cases, they tend to blame the government for
failing to provide security and development. Essentially, this comes
down to a leadership vacuum because most politicians are current or
former members of parliament. As parliamentarians, they form part of
the government in representing their constituencies. They also tend to
blame neighbouring political leaders whom they accuse of incitement
whenever their own communities are affected by cattle rustling. In
addition, some politicians have also been blamed of capitalizing on the
ignorance of their communities in view to perpetuate poverty and
promote their personal political agendas.
Some of the solutions ascribed include budgetary allocation to
pastoralist areas as well as deliberate efforts to improve
infrastructure, development and security. In most cases, there is buck
passing and no one seems to provide leadership out of the quagmire that
pastoralist face.
The traditional leadership made up of various categories such as
elders as well as seers who are believed to have the capabilities of
‘seeing’ into the future have played various roles in pastoralist
conflicts. It is quite difficult to generalise but it is a common
perception that these traditional leaders have played the role of both
war and peacemakers. They have been variously charged with aiding and
abetting cattle rustling by sanctioning raids or even performing
blessing ceremonies on youths before a cattle raid exercise.
There is also evidence of many elders engaged in dispute settlement
or those who curse youths in order to deter cattle raids. Hence, it is a
challenge to categorise this kind of leadership as one that is either
good or bad. What is clear is that pastoralists are entitled to their
rights just like any other set of people and while their tenacity to
survive under these harsh conditions is widely admired, this does not
give anyone the right to severely test their will to live.
It is perhaps not all gloom and doom. A younger generation of
traditional and local leaders could make a difference. Recently in the
Karamoja region of Uganda, an elaborate ceremony to pass the mantle of
leadership over to another set of leaders was held. Historically it
takes at least forty years to transfer power from one generation to
another. However the highest leadership age, commonly known as ngimoru (mountain) overstayed its tenure. It has now passed the leadership structure to the next age set known as the gazelles.
This current leadership in Karamoja has a rare opportunity to
capitalise on these changes and usher in a new era of transformational
leaders who would turn around the lives of pastoralists and lay to rest
the practice that is cattle rustling once and for all. If such a model
works well in Karamoja, it is worthwhile to replicate to other
pastoralist zones in Eastern Africa as the search for sustainable
solutions continues.
