January 15, 2008 - Anyone who knows Kenya as one of the most stable nations on the African continent must now be asking: "What gives?" Why did this country - the cradle of humanity, and one that has been at the forefront in helping to mediate conflicts in places like Somalia and Sudan - rupture into inter-ethnic violence this past week, with what seemed like little or no warning?

The violence has claimed more than 300 lives since last week's disputed presidential elections. This kind of widespread rioting, looting, burning and killing hasn't been seen since 1969 when the charismatic Thomas Mboya, a member of the Luo ethnic group who founded the Nairobi People's Congress Party, was assassinated by a Kikuyu tribesman at the tender age of 39.

But the Mboya killing, and the ethnic violence it inspired, was something of an anomaly in modern Kenyan history. A multi-ethnic country with some 40 ethnic groups, Kenya is normally accommodating of tribal differences. This is why the new round of ethnic violence is a major cause for concern.

Some observers have gone so far as to suggest that the post-election ethnic cleansing and mass killings in Kenya bear some resemblance to the 1994 Rwandan genocide in which over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered, mostly by machetes, over a 100-day period.

Abdullah Nasir, a former chair of the Law Society of Kenya, compared the recent burning alive of 30 Kenyans from the Kikuyu ethnic group in a church in the western town of Eldoret with similar incidents that occurred in the early days of the Rwandan genocide. Indeed, there were reports last week of ethnic Kikuyu hunting down ethnic Luo to seek revenge for the Eldoret killings. So, comparisons to Rwanda may not at first glance seem all that far-fetched.

But there are important differences. Consider that:

• The Rwanda genocide was deliberately planned in advance and there were early warning signs that the underprivileged Hutus wanted to eliminate the much more well-to-do Tutsis. While those of the Luo tribe are less well-off than those of the Kikuyu ethnic group, there is no evidence of any deliberate plan of ethnic cleansing in Kenya.
• The state radio in Rwanda had been promoting internecine violence against Tutsis for years and it took only the "spark" of the apparent assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimina (a Hutu) to ignite the flames of hatred among Hutus in Rwanda. While the suspicion of a rigged presidential election provided the "spark" to ignite violence in Kenya, television and radio stations in that country have not promoted ethnic violence and, in fact, have been temporarily banned from broadcasting the turmoil in the streets.
• Hutu officials and community leaders, including religious figures, in Rwanda stoked the fires of hatred by calling on Hutus to eliminate Tutsis. In Kenya, by contrast, there has not yet been the same kind of promotion of violence by key officials and certainly not by religious leaders.

It would be misleading, therefore, to think of Kenya as "another Rwanda" - or to conflate the political causes of this month's violence with the kinds of structural problems that underpinned the earlier genocide.

Not that those political problems aren't complex. Indeed, there is no doubt that both President Mwai Kibaki (a Kikuyu) and his former comrade and current nemesis, Raila Odinga (a Luo), have very strong egos. Kibaki wants another term in office, and the opposition leader, Odinga, is just as determined to see Kibaki turfed out.

The resentment between these two men dates back to 2002, when Kibaki won a landslide election victory that brought the 40-year rule of the dominant KANU governing party to an end. That triumph was achieved with the support of the members of the National Rainbow Coalition, of which Odinga was one of the key leaders.

A memorandum of understanding was reached, by gentlemen's agreement, on a power-sharing arrangement between Kibaki and Odinga. But the president failed to honour the agreement.

So when Kibaki decided in 2005 to hold a constitutional referendum that, in effect, would have placed even more power in his hands, Odinga and several of his comrades campaigned against the constitutional changes and won.

Out of that victory emerged the opposition Orange Democratic Movement, headed by Odinga. The ODM did extremely well in the parliamentary elections, which by most accounts were transparent and fair. But it is the presidential elections which are in doubt.

The European Union observer mission confronted Kibaki's camp with a list of doctored results from several constituencies in the central provinces (mostly dominated by Kikuyu), where the polling station tallies and the results of Kenya's Electoral Commission showed wide discrepancies. Yet Kibaki apparently pressured the head of the Electoral Commission to announce the tainted results.

These suspicions of voting irregularities were never investigated, and this explains why the Odinga camp is so furious. At times like these, ethnic groups tend to rally around their leaders, which explains to a large extent why Kenya currently is being ripped apart by this ethnic violence.

It is now up to both Kibaki and Odinga to put their egos aside and resolve the impasse. First, they must work to put a lid on the violence. Then, both men should jointly call for an independent international commission to review the results of the presidential elections.

Kabaki has not helped the situation by unilaterally naming members of his cabinet in the midst of this political uncertainty. Both men should also agree to abide by the results of an independent review of the elections, regardless of the outcome.

If there are further suggestions of election improprieties, both men should consent to a re-run of the presidential elections - this time under the supervision of the United Nations Electoral Unit. It might lower the temperature of this potentially explosive situation.

The recent appointment of former UN secretary general Kofi Annan to lead a panel of African dignitaries over the next few days in trying to bring the two sides together is a hopeful sign. Annan is well respected by both Kibaki and Odinga.

But he will have to do what the head of the African Union and president of Ghana, John Kufour, was unable to accomplish this past week - convince the two stubborn leaders to back down sufficiently to reach a negotiated settlement. Hopefully, Annan will be able to use his extensive diplomatic skills and moral suasion to get both men to budge.

Whoever emerges as the victor in this saga should immediately deal with the corruption unearthed by John Githongo, the fearless anti-corruption whistleblower who was driven out of Kenya by Kibaki. Addressing the widespread corruption amongst government officials, as well as the abject poverty and injustice faced by so many Kenyans, including the members of the Luo ethnic group, might be a way of ensuring that Kenya does not go the way of Rwanda.

W. Andy Knight is professor of international relations at the University of Alberta and director of its Peace and Post Conflict Studies Program. This column originally appeared in the Jan. 12 edition of the Edmonton Journal.