Despite the tribal drums we hear, this country is changing – big time

The squabbles over the six people fingered by the International Criminal Court in connection with the post-election violence, and within parties like ODM, have taken Kenya to a strange place.

It sounds as if the level of tribe-mongering in Kenyan politics today is higher than what was witnessed in the campaigns for the fateful December 2007 polls.

Quite a few people are despairing, and saying that despite the new Constitution, the country is still prisoner to the demons of the past.

Well, the good news is that it is not. Kenyan politics has changed, or will change, dramatically in the next few months. Kenya’s fortune is that it has many well-educated and travelled young people, and they see a lot more new possibilities.

One of them has developed a profile of what one needs to rule Kenya. His first conclusion is that tribal and counter-tribal alliances will not deliver victory in 2012.

One reason for that is the introduction of the 47 counties. The counties have introduced something very Somali-like in Kenyan politics — the power of the clans.

Until now, tribal overlords got together and when they won elections, sat in Nairobi and divided the carcass amongst themselves. The reward for the tribal chief was in Nairobi.

With the new Constitution, the reward is in the county — specifically the governorship and senate. If the competition is within the tribe for governorship, you need a new basis to mobilise the sectarian vote — the clan.

He gave an example of a politician from Western Kenya who is now the leader of his tribe, but he could be finished in 2012 because he comes from the smallest clan!

Therefore, the most important alliance for a presidential aspirant is with the gubernatorial candidates, not MPs.

The question then is which kind of presidential candidate will someone who wants to be governor ally with? It is the one who leads the most formidable party, especially in his county.

That is because a party will give gubernatorial candidates the one thing they can’t create on their own — a disciplined machine to get out the vote.

There’s a lot of news on creation of a Kamba-Kalenjin-Kikuyu (KKK) multi-tribal alliance. If the earlier scenario is correct, then perhaps the KKK leaders should be concentrating on forming parties.

Parties will be the most precious currency in which a politician who wants to be a big man or woman in Nairobi will trade in 2012.

A political landslide will not be important, for future presidential candidates. One only needs to squeak through.

For a future president, Parliament will be even more important. If he or she doesn’t have a clear majority, he or she will be unable to get any appointments approved.

Which bring us to another big change. The new Constitution has considerably increased the power of small tribes and tiny parties. Look at it this way.

If the KKK alliance did eventually become reality, one of the contenders would be the presidential candidate, and maybe another the running mate. One will have to lose out.

Unless he is 100 per cent sure KKK will win, that “loser” will have to go and run for governor, senator or MP — where he doesn’t need the alliance. But assume he built a party that takes just 10 MPs to Parliament, and doesn’t stand.

It’s going to be difficult for any party to have an absolute majority. So his 10 MPs become critical for enabling the president to govern.

He can name his price, and be sure the president will give him a fat job, and that his appointment will pass through Parliament, than if he gambled on an alliance.

It’s counter-intuitive, but today, you are better off being the leader of a strong rural party, than a bigger tribal alliance formed in the city. Kenya being Kenya, in a few months, politicians will have figured all this out.

cobbo@ke.nationmedia.com