John Bwakali is an activist and journalist behind the Kenya IndyMedia project, a Nairobi-based grassroots media effort. John and I have never met in person, but over the last few months we've manage to develop the start of a friendship over email and instant messaging. When the news broke that President Mwai Kibaki and his campaign challenger had entered into a power-sharing agreement, I asked John if he might answer a few questions about the current state of affairs in Kenya. He generously agreed to do so.

The violence was mainly caused by two factors: a backlash after a flawed election and an outburst of pent up injustices that had gathered over the years. The former has generally been dealt with by the peace agreement. Those who felt robbed now feel appeased. In fact, they are the ones who feel that they have 'won.'

On the other hand, the latter cause of the violence will take painstaking and systematic national action to deal with. This accumulated injustices go back to the pre-colonial days but particularly the immediate post-colonial days when ethnicity started becoming a political means of attaining and maintaining political and economic power. Having said this, I think that the peace agreement has presented Kenya with the golden opportunity to address most if not all perceived and real national injustices.

In the midst of these troubles, you've managed to capture the stories of everyone from students to grandmothers to activists. From what I gather, the goal is to use a few pieces of simple technology, like digital recorders and cameras, to give "everyday" Kenyans a chance to push back against the havoc around them. How successful do you you've been on that front? Lessons learned?

Interestingly, what I would consider to be our biggest achievement was at the time when peace seemed but a pipe dream. When tension was at its height, we gave people at the grassroots hope. They actually gave themselves hope by speaking out not just about the problem but the possible solutions. This is why there were a lot more articles and audios in the crazy January days. I would say that we greatly succeeded in enabling a listening audience that then enhanced the grassroots voices. The biggest lesson is that there needs to be a consistency in tapping into and enhancing grassroots media. We need to be more systematic without killing the spontaneity.

But we also need to be able to channel some of the information coming in into some action. For instance, on December 31st before the massacre in the Eldoret church, a phone interview with someone there revealed that truckloads of people had been ferried into the town and that mayhem was about to break out. This news wasn't even in the mainstream media. In this instance, we were able to stand in solidarity with the person in question and give her hope. But we just couldn't do more and rescue her (though she made it through the ordeal).

At a larger level, such info should not come in and just find an audience, then stop there. It should result in some action.

We've talked via e-mail about an idea that I've been mulling over since reading Architecture for Humanity's Design Like You Give a Damn. In brief, whenever you see a "solution," -- whether it's a new building or a newspaper -- the question you have to ask is "whose problems are being solved here?" So, when it comes to the professional press in Kenya, whose needs are being met?

I think the professional press here has tried to give balanced and accurate reporting of the unrest. But beyond being professional in this manner and thus not fanning violence, they have have not mobilized any resources or action in a substantial manner.

I therefore don't think that they met the needs of a people who needed peace and justice, particularly the 'low class' people. But they did meet the needs of their shareholders through big sales. They also undoubtedly met the needs of the middle and upper classes by keeping them informed. For example, somebody in Lavington -- an upper class neighbourhood -- flicks on the TV and watches prime time news at 9PM. S/he watches about the killings in Kibera but then watches the arrival of Condi Rice and the renewed hope in the mediation talks. She sighs at the deaths in Kibera but smiles at the hope in the talks. Her needs have to a certain extent been met by the media.

But for the neighbours of those who were killed in Kibera, even if they were able to watch the news, their needs are far from met. They will probably dispute what they are seeing on the TV. They realize that they only seem to matter when death and violence strike them. In fact, it is their predicament that matters, not their voices.

What would you say to someone who says that with so many people still suffering in Kenya, alternative media is at the bottom of the list of places where we should be devoting energy and resources?

Alternative media -- in as far as it is grassroots media but not some form of exclusive media -- is actually not a luxury, but a need. It is about the grandmother in western Kenya speaking and being heard by a wider audience for the first time ever in her life. But these days I prefer the term "grassroots media" as opposed to "alternative media," because the latter may and often implies something extreme, sort of anarchic and thus exclusive.

(Asante sana for your time, John. Appreciate it.)