Willis Evans Otieno has warned Governor Gladys Wanga, Kaluma Opondo and PS Raymond Omollo that political violence can create problems that remain long after an election is over.
His warning is that the use of young people to intimidate political opponents may appear useful in the short term, but it can create a security problem that becomes difficult for leaders and communities to control.
Otieno argued that political violence does not simply disappear when campaigns end. The young people involved may stop receiving money once rallies are over, but the habits and networks created during that period can remain.
Some may reorganise themselves into gangs or other groups and begin using the same methods against traders, residents, rival groups and even the politicians who once supported them.
His message is that sponsoring violence should not be mistaken for political strength. A politician may use a group of youths to block roads, intimidate opponents or disrupt a meeting, but such actions do not build lasting support. Instead, they create fear and deepen divisions within communities.
The recent chaos reported in Homa Bay during the Linda Mwananchi visit has brought these concerns into sharp focus. People were killed, others were injured, vehicles were burned and property was destroyed.
There have also been accusations that groups of youths were hired to block roads and attack supporters. The specific allegations must be established through proper investigations and, where necessary, the courts.
However, the wider concern about political violence cannot simply be ignored.
Kenya has experienced the consequences of political mobilisation around violence before. The 2007-2008 post-election violence remains one of the country’s darkest political periods. Thousands of people were killed or displaced, while many families lost homes, businesses and sources of income.
The effects of that period continue to influence how Kenyans view political competition and ethnic tensions.
The lesson from that history should be clear. Violence that begins as a political tool can quickly move beyond the control of those who encouraged it.
A group brought together to disrupt a rally may later become involved in other forms of crime. Once people become accustomed to being paid to intimidate others, political campaigns may no longer be the only source of income they seek.
This creates a serious problem for ordinary citizens. Businesses can close when people fear attacks. Public transport can be disrupted. Families can avoid certain areas. Young people who have nothing to do with political competition can also become victims of violence. The political leaders involved may eventually move on, but communities are left to deal with the consequences.
For this reason, Otieno’s warning deserves attention. Political leaders have a responsibility to discourage violence regardless of which side benefits from it. Governor Wanga and Kaluma Opondo have influence in the region, while PS Raymond Omollo holds a senior position in the national security structure.
Their positions give them an opportunity to speak firmly against intimidation and ensure that disputes are handled through lawful channels.National security institutions also have a responsibility to investigate allegations of organised violence without political favour.
If young people are being hired to cause disorder, those responsible should be identified through proper investigations. At the same time, accusations should not be treated as proven facts before evidence is established.
Political competition is part of democracy, but violence is not. Leaders can disagree strongly, campaign against each other and defend their supporters without turning young people into instruments of intimidation.
Elections come and go, but communities remain.
The biggest danger is that political violence can create a cycle that becomes harder to break with every election. Groups formed for one campaign can remain active after the campaign ends. Alliances can change, politicians can move to different parties and those who once funded the groups can lose their influence.
The people left behind may then look for new ways to survive.Otieno’s warning therefore goes beyond the current political dispute in Homa Bay.
It raises a wider question about the kind of political culture Kenya wants to build. Political leaders should be seeking support through policies, ideas and public engagement rather than fear.
Creating disorder may offer a temporary political advantage, but it does not provide security or stability. Once violence enters a community, controlling its consequences becomes much harder.
The responsibility now lies with political leaders, security agencies and citizens to ensure that political disagreements do not become another source of insecurity.
The young people of Kenya should also not be reduced to political tools. They need opportunities, education, employment and a future that does not depend on being paid to intimidate another citizen. Using their desperation for political purposes only postpones a larger problem.
The warning is therefore simple. Political violence does not end when the politicians leave the stage. The people recruited today may still be in the community tomorrow, and the damage caused during a political contest can take years to repair. Kenya has seen the cost of political violence before. Repeating the same approach and expecting a different outcome would be a serious mistake.
