Nairobi — As I often say, to understand is not necessarily to endorse. I fully understand the causes of the movements that have terrorised the Middle East since the end of World War II.

The anti-Western anger which wells in the Arab can surprise only those unfamiliar with the atrocities which the Western world has perpetrated in the Levant ever since the Crusades 10 centuries ago.

The injustice, then, is deep and undeniable. What I cannot endorse is only the method of struggle. Terrorism is the desperate act of a group claiming that the official society has blocked all other avenues for pursuing justice.

But terrorism is justifiable only where the group has made its demands absolutely clear. If Mungiki enjoys a following as big as is thought, its goals and pledges must be deeply attractive to members.

How else can you explain the alacrity with which they slaughter fellow human beings unless they feel that the official society has adamantly refused to listen to their case whenever they make it through less murderous methods?

The question is: Who knows exactly what Mungiki is demanding? This was the question I thought would be answered when Raila Odinga suggested that the government should invite the organisation for talks.

But the Prime Minister was speaking as a man unfamiliar with establishment ways. Thus older insiders quickly condemned him for succumbing to the wishes of terrorists. But that, once again, is the question: Exactly what are these wishes?

The failure to understand each other may thus be blamed on both sides - Mungiki for not saying publicly exactly what it wants from society, and the government for not trying to create what the business investors call an "enabling environment" for a round table.

Governments have this inexplicable attitude that counter-violence is the only answer to insurgency. Israel's state counter-terrorism against Palestinian guerrilla terrorism is the epitome of this official refusal to consider counter-insurgency methods less costly in human terms.

That is why both forms of violence will play "Tom and Jerry" with each other "... till the conversion of the Jews...". By this phrase the poet Andrew Marvell means that the deadly "game" will be played for ever. Christians who have tried to convert Jews know it well enough.

That seems to be our official attitude to the "Mungiki menace". Since the government does not seem interested in finding out exactly what the movement wants, it is in no hurry either to meet those demands or - if it finds them unreasonable - at least to negotiate.

The government seems to think that this would be beneath its dignity. The question is: How can a government claim any dignity where an unofficial organisation has taken the law into its own hands and apparently reduced government agencies to immobility?

The policy of non-negotiation with a terrorist group can make sense only when the government is seen to be confronting the insurgents effectively. Non-negotiation without any effective containment is tantamount to a surrender to blood-letting.

To be willing to talk to the "enemy" is not to expose one's weakness. If the colonial government had been willing to talk to the Kikuyu, it would have emerged much more strongly. It would have obviated the Mau Mau causes, saved tempers and thousands of lives and, indeed, prolonged British rule.

No, the policy of fighting fire with fire cannot be condemned absolutely. It may bear short-term benefits. It may, for instance, buy you a little time. But, as the colonial government found out, deep-going social grievances - such as land hunger - cannot be solved by military and police methods alone.

The only long-term solution to Mungiki, I reiterate, is to find out what its grievances are and to confront those grievances directly and squarely. But I do not see how you can pinpoint those grievances unless you engage in some way with the Mungiki leaders.

If you do, you may find that many of those grievances have something essential to do with the reforms which all other Kenyans are demanding. And if you commit yourself to solving them, you will find that you actually have nothing to lose - neither dignity nor power not yet popularity.

On the contrary, you will endear yourself more rapidly to the people and thus prolong your tenure. That, too, is my appeal to Mungiki. Unless you can defeat the system quickly - which I doubt - you will only prolong the excruciating agony of the very people you claim to be trying to liberate.

Many Kenyans will sympathise with you if the government refuses to talk - but only if you enunciate all your grievances and sue for negotiations.