Kenya’s tribal vitriol is more about exclusion than ideology

Narc Kenya leader Martha Karua (center), flanked by other members, addresses journalists in Nakuru on September 28, 2016. But if we are to progress in building a fair and stable Kenya, with inclusivity rather than marginalisation, we may want to return power-sharing. PHOTO | SULEIMAN MBATIAH | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • Today, the divisions in Kenya, almost four years since the last elections, have risen considerably.
  • In these non-ideological spaces, what gels parties and provides commonality, on the one hand, and difference, on the other hand, is our ethnic groups.

Many Kenyans deride the power-sharing government of President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

It has been denigrated as “nusu mkate” and blamed for slow decision making as the two sides were forced to negotiate on virtually everything.

But I believe that in terms of democratic progression, a sense of unity and nationhood and for balanced and equitable development across previously marginalised areas, that coalition government from 2008 to 2013 will be judged kindly by history.

Yes, there was corruption from both sides. But inevitably the other side of the coalition would spill the beans.

Of course, sometimes both sides “ate” together, but rarely so. And yes, decisions sometimes took ages to be made but when they did get made, both sides defended them.

And yes, too, it was a noisy and difficult coalition to manage, but there was a sense that every side — with its supporting ethnic groups — had stakes in the government, meaning the “winner-take-all” mentality was reduced.

In other words, there was balance and inclusion. Hence the fact that the majority of the achievements for which this Jubilee regime claims credit were started in the “nusu mkate” era.

Today, the divisions in Kenya, almost four years since the last elections, have risen considerably, if the comments on social media and blogs are any indicator.

The abuse is vitriolic, especially when people hide in anonymity.

And though the abuse certainly expresses the worst of our tribal prejudices and views, I dare say that it is more about exclusion and marginalisation than it is about tribes.

In other words, our divisions and tensions are a result of proximity to power and its attendant advantages — and conversely the exclusion and marginalisation of those far from power — than it is about any atavistic or primal hatred for other tribes.

And this is all because our politics since independence has been ethnically driven, except for a brief period in the early 1960s, and again in 1966 with the emergence of the Kenya People’s Union when it was ideological.

In these non-ideological spaces, what gels parties and provides commonality, on the one hand, and difference, on the other hand, is our ethnic groups.

POWER-SHARING

And thus, those who feel they have stakes in the regime in power, no matter how tenuous these may be, go all out to attack those who think they are outsiders, and inevitably the attacks and abuse are ethnic.

Similarly, those on the outside use ethnic slurs and abuse to attack those in power.

The outsiders also add in trans-ethnic concerns like corruption, but our recent history shows that this is more about whose turn it is to eat, than it is about being determined to end corruption once and for all.

For example, in 2002, the rhetoric between two of the currently most vociferous and angry communities — Luo and Gikuyu — was laudatory and friendly.

They were allies and both turned their rhetorical anger, so to speak, against the Kalenjin.

Indeed, few, then, would have predicted the current vitriol in the blogosphere between these two communities, especially after Raila Odinga’s “Kibaki Tosha” call.

In 2008, with the election violence fresh in our minds, the vitriol from the Gikuyu side of the blogosphere was turned against the Luo and Kalenjin with unprintable words bandied around.

And similarly harsh and vicious was the anti-Gikuyu rhetoric, including calling them madoadoa.

But after Mr Uhuru Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto joined hands to defeat the ICC and seek power, the previous vicious rhetoric between the Gikuyu and Kalenjin muted considerably.

These “first-past-the-post” and “winner-take-all” notions are the horrible exports from the British version of democracy common in the Anglophonic world.

But, sadly, they do not account for ideology-free political parties or for societies where ethnicity has been used to divide and rule from the very beginning as in Kenya in the 1890s.

It was a great pity that the constitution making process preserved these facets, though devolution has mitigated some of the worst excesses of first- past-the-post and winner-take- all.

But if we are to progress in building a fair and stable Kenya, with inclusivity rather than marginalisation, we may want to return power-sharing.