End tribal parochialism and let Kenyans aspire for something bigger

From left: Saboti Member of Parliament (MP) Lazaro Wafula, Webuye West MP Dan Wanyama, Bungoma Woman Representative Reginalda Wanyonyi, Former Cabinet minister Noah Wekesa, Water and Irrigation Cabinet Minister Eugene Mamalwa and Bungoma Governor Ken Lusaka at a meeting held by Luhya leaders at Mr Wamalwa's’s home in Milimani, Kitale on July 23, 2016. PHOTO | JARED NYATAYA | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • We need to make it clear that Luhya electoral politics cannot be written by analogy; it doesn’t matter to me whether that analogy is borrowed from the Gikuyu or Kalenjin nations.

  • Everyone has a democratic right to vote as they are conditioned to vote; but it is illogical and unfair to expect that all other people and communities must be herded and conditioned to vote in the same way.

It is embarrassing to write a column on ethnic politics this week, coming as it does at the end of the inspiring Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Kenya has produced in the last three weeks a shocking number of new “specialists” on Luhya electoral politics. The “specialists” think the community needs to retreat into a narrow tribal cocoon instead of remaining the beacon around which the possibility of a wider Kenyan national aspiration is constructed.

What is disturbing about this situation is that it seeks to mobilise extremely base and primordial instincts to argue for Luhya unity.

And there is even the alleged admission by the Deputy President that he and his Alliance are, in fact, responsible for some of the moves. Worse is that those spewing the agenda of Luhya unity are people who many Kenyans had thought of as “leading” public intellectuals; journalists who were admired precisely because in their previous sane life, they articulated ideas of nation and nationalism that transcended the base and primordial instinct they now stand for or have decided to retreat back into.

Initially, I did not think this warranted attention. I held the cynical view of letting sleeping dogs lie. After all, the external initiators of this idea of Luhya unity are repeating a mistake that Kenyan voters have repeatedly repudiated. Kenyans have a notorious record of voting out a majority of sitting MPs at every general election. Many might not remember that after the 1992 General Election, President Daniel arap Moi invested enormous resources in buying out opposition politicians. He targeted the then Kakamega District. No one remembers any of those people who defected because their political life ended in ignominy. But come 1997 General Election, the number of opposition legislators in Parliament increased, forcing Kanu to seek an alliance with Raila Odinga’s National Development Party. This alliance partly explains the implosion of Kanu in 2002.

LUHYA UNITY

No sane person would oppose the idea of Luhya unity. Indeed, as my fellow columnist Kwendo Opanga will tell you, we know and have been part of several initiatives that seek such unity. However, the difference between those initiatives and the proposed one is that while the former are organic initiatives by communities driven by an internal rationale for improving the conditions of people, be it around education or health, the latter aim to sustain the political comfort of sitting and aspiring politicians.

The latter initiatives are billed as Luhya unity not because they offer anything new or different, but because they are meant to massage the bruised egos of those politicians who feel humiliated by rivals from other communities. Simply on the basis of this childish complaint, these politicians want to turn their personal vendetta into an ethnic grievance. The aim is to mobilise a whole community into a hateful reaction. Fortunately, not too many people within the Luhya nation are impressed by such childish antics.

The newly minted “specialists” on Luhya electoral politics borrow the narrative of their ethnic communities and use it to imagine Luhya political engagements. Thus, precisely because some other communities vote ethnically almost to a person, the Luhya, it is assumed, must aspire for similar voting behaviour. Clearly, the so-called Luhya unity has no existence outside this desire to mobilise ethnic votes for ethnic bossmen, many of whom are totally absent in most parts of Luhyaland and have no record beyond their small corners and clans.

We need to make it clear that Luhya electoral politics cannot be written by analogy; it doesn’t matter to me whether that analogy is borrowed from the Gikuyu or Kalenjin nations.

Everyone has a democratic right to vote as they are conditioned to vote; but it is illogical and unfair to expect that all other people and communities must be herded and conditioned to vote in the same way.

Godwin R. Murunga is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi.