Tribalism in Kenya is a paper tiger, we should not exaggerate its danger

During the Lancaster House talks in London, the leaders of the Kalenjin community were stoutly opposed to independence unless full majimbo was introduced and the powers of the central government radically reduced.
Their reason? They feared they would be dominated by the bigger tribes once independence was granted.
Leaders of “small tribes” such as the Kalenjin, the Luhya, the Maasai and coastals felt that Kanu would comfortably rule without regard for their opinions because of the superior numbers of their core supporters — the Kikuyu, Luo and Kamba.
Fifty years on, this picture is unrecognisable. The Kalenjin, whose leaders were the driving force behind Kadu, now stand accused of being in an alliance of “two tribes” that have a “tyranny of numbers” capable of locking others out of power.
This evolving situation illustrates a little discussed issue about the question of ethnicity in Kenya.
Deep-seated hatreds
Kenyan communities do not bear deep-seated, static hatreds. If they did, we would have the same ethnic groups ranged against others all the time.
Tribalism is, in fact, a game among the elite that has constantly shifting frontiers and ever-changing shapes and directions. One day, this group is in alliance with that one and sees another group as the enemy. The next, roles are reversed and enemies become the best of friends.
This is not a situation like you have in the Middle East where the Jews and Arabs are permanently at each other’s throats. Or in the Balkans where Serbians and Croats will never agree. It is not anything like the Hutu-Tutsi divide in Rwanda.
The battle lines between ethnic elites in Kenya change not every five years but every few months. Just imagine what would have happened if Raila Odinga had successfully persuaded William Ruto to be his running mate.
That would have forced Uhuru Kenyatta to form an alliance with Kalonzo Musyoka with either man at the top of the ticket.
If that happened, you would not have Kikuyus and Kalenjins in a fight with Luos and Kambas on Facebook as the situation is today.
Roles would be reversed with Kikuyus and Kambas ranged against Kalenjins and Luos. If Mr Kenyatta had instead allied himself with either Musalia Mudavadi or Eugene Wamalwa, these frontiers would have been adjusted accordingly.
Another example is William Ruto. In early 2008, he was the most unpopular man in Meru and he would have been well advised not to walk in the streets without heavy guard.
Only a few months later, as a fairly effective Agriculture minister, his popularity was such that his United Democratic Movement party bagged two seats in civic by-elections there, including one in the constituency of local titan Kiraitu Murungi.
Kenyans are on the whole not deeply tribal. They do not harbour immutable hatreds and suspicions. This is not a situation of fixed and seemingly permanent hostilities like those, say, of the Shiites and Sunnis in places like Iraq and Syria.
A game of cards
The fact Kenyans swing from embracing each other to viewing members of another ethnic group with loathing means that we may be exaggerating the issue of what the last election taught us about ethnic relations in the country.
If voters get wiser, they will realise that they are pawns in a game of cards among the elite. No alliance is inconceivable for the party chiefs. Power is the only endgame. They know that once they advise their supporters on who their new friends are, voters will line up behind them, until they fall out with the ethnic chief of Group Y and ask their people to embrace Group X. It’s just a game.