Kenya: A Case Study of Mis-governance, Corruption, Tribalism, Underdevelopment, Political Wrangles, and Wrong Democracy

Introduction: The State of Kenya Today

Kenya, a country that was once seen as a beacon of hope for the African continent, is currently navigating through a complex web of political, economic, and social challenges. The rising cost of living, rampant unemployment, and ongoing corruption scandals have left many Kenyans feeling disillusioned. In the words of a Nairobi street vendor, "We have hope, but it's hard to keep believing when nothing seems to change." This introduction sets the stage for an in-depth examination of Kenya's governance issues, tracing their roots from colonial times to the present day. The series explores how misgovernance, corruption, tribalism, and poor leadership have contributed to underdevelopment and a distorted democracy that serves the interests of a few at the expense of the many.

The aim of this series is to shed light on these critical issues, not just from a historical perspective but also through the lenses of political economy, sociology, and modern management theories. We will delve into the systemic challenges that Kenya faces today and propose potential pathways for transformation. In doing so, we hope to speak directly to the person on the street—the everyday Kenyan who endures the consequences of failed governance and dreams of a better tomorrow.

A Historical Perspective: The Roots of Misgovernance

This section delves into the historical foundations of Kenya's misgovernance, tracing its roots back to colonial times. It examines how the exploitative structures put in place by the colonial administration created deep socio-economic divisions, and how the early post-independence leadership failed to dismantle these systems. By understanding these historical dynamics, readers will gain insight into how Kenya's current challenges are deeply connected to its past.

From Colonialism to Independence: The Seeds of Misgovernance

The story of Kenya's misgovernance begins with its colonial past. When the British colonized Kenya, they introduced an exploitative governance structure that prioritized resource extraction and subjugation of the local population. This created an entrenched system of inequality and division, laying the foundation for many of Kenya's current problems. The colonial legacy continues to impact Kenya's governance today, as the centralized power structures and economic disparities established during colonial rule have persisted, leading to systemic issues such as corruption, favoritism, and the marginalization of certain communities. As political economist Claude Ake once noted, "The colonial state was essentially an apparatus of domination, and its primary objective was to extract resources, not to promote development."

From an economic historical perspective, the colonial administration focused on developing infrastructure primarily for economic exploitation—railways and roads that connected plantations to ports, rather than connecting communities to opportunities. As a result, development was uneven and catered to the colonial economy, with little regard for the wellbeing of the indigenous population. This lack of inclusivity set the stage for the inequalities that persist to this day.

Sociologically, colonial rule created divisions along ethnic lines, favoring some groups over others, which sowed the seeds of tribalism that would come to define Kenya's politics after independence. These divisions were exacerbated by the divide-and-rule strategies employed by the colonial government, which pit communities against each other to maintain control. The early years of independence were thus marred by political instability, as the new government struggled to unify a divided nation.

After independence in 1963, the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta took over a state apparatus that was fundamentally flawed. The new government faced immense challenges in transforming the colonial administrative system into one that could serve the needs of an independent Kenya. Kenyatta's government inherited and perpetuated many of the colonial governance structures, including the centralization of power and an emphasis on patronage, which was initially seen as a way to maintain stability in a newly independent state. However, these structures soon became tools for consolidating political control and enriching a select few.

Modern management theories, such as Systems Theory, suggest that a malfunctioning system will perpetuate dysfunction unless radical changes are introduced. In Kenya's case, there was no significant overhaul of the colonial systems; rather, the focus was on maintaining continuity to ensure a smooth transition. As a result, power merely shifted hands from British colonialists to an African elite that continued to use the state as an instrument of personal gain, rather than instituting reforms that would foster inclusive governance and equitable development.

The political economy of Kenya during the post-independence period was defined by the emergence and entrenchment of a patronage system that became the modus operandi of successive governments. Political loyalty was rewarded with access to land, lucrative business opportunities, and other state resources, while those perceived as opposition were systematically excluded from the benefits of independence. This favoritism encouraged corruption and institutionalized it, leading to the establishment of a kleptocracy that has persisted for decades.

Under this system, loyalty to those in power often meant the difference between access to wealth and complete marginalization. For example, individuals who aligned themselves with the ruling party were granted large tracts of land or awarded government contracts without merit. A notable recent example is the allocation of lucrative government tenders during the Jubilee administration, where well-connected individuals and companies were awarded multi-billion shilling contracts, often with little regard for due process or accountability. The National Youth Service (NYS) scandal, for instance, highlighted the extent of corruption and favoritism, with billions of shillings being misappropriated by politically connected individuals. This not only deprived the public of much-needed development projects but also further deepened the mistrust between the government and its citizens. Conversely, those who opposed the leadership were sidelined, often losing access to opportunities for economic and social advancement. This environment not only stunted economic growth but also eroded public trust in governance.

To illustrate the impact of these dynamics, consider the words of a local farmer in Nakuru: "We watch as those in power distribute land to their friends while we struggle with barren plots. It feels like independence was not for us, but for those who sit in the offices in Nairobi." Such personal stories underscore the real, everyday consequences of the entrenched patronage system.

The resulting kleptocratic system diverted public resources away from development projects that could have benefited the broader population, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure development. Instead, resources were concentrated in the hands of a few politically connected individuals, perpetuating inequality and leaving the majority of Kenyans marginalized. This entrenched culture of corruption created a vicious cycle where those in power used state resources to maintain their position, further institutionalizing a system of governance that served the interests of the elite at the expense of the broader population.

Historical Economy and Modern Management Theories in Context

The economic strategies pursued by the newly independent state were largely influenced by modernization theory, which emphasized rapid industrialization as a path to development. Modernization theory was premised on the belief that developing nations could progress by emulating the industrial growth models of Western countries. However, without a foundation of strong institutions, these economic policies failed to uplift the majority of the population. The newly formed government focused on infrastructure projects and industrial ventures, but many of these initiatives lacked proper planning, accountability, and inclusivity. For example, large-scale agricultural schemes were launched, but they benefited primarily those with political connections, while smallholder farmers struggled with inadequate support.

The lack of investment in human capital further exacerbated these issues. Education and healthcare, critical components for empowering the broader population, were underfunded, leading to limited opportunities for the majority of Kenyans to participate in the economic transformation. Instead, the focus on elite-driven growth meant that a small segment of the population, mostly those connected to political power, reaped the rewards of development. This created a dual economy—one characterized by modern industries benefiting the elite, and the other by subsistence agriculture and informal labor for the rest. Consequently, high levels of inequality emerged, as ordinary Kenyans were left out of the economic gains and continued to struggle with poverty and limited access to essential services.

Incorporating the principles of modern management, one can argue that Kenya lacked a clear vision and strategic direction after independence. According to Strategic Management Theory, developed by scholars like Michael Porter and Igor Ansoff, organizations—and by extension, states—need a coherent strategy to achieve long-term objectives, allocate resources effectively, and adapt to changing environments. Strategic management involves defining a vision, setting long-term goals, and formulating actionable plans to achieve them. In Kenya's case, this theoretical framework was not applied effectively, as there was no cohesive developmental strategy that focused on inclusive growth and long-term prosperity for all citizens.

Instead of emphasizing inclusive development, the post-independence leadership prioritized consolidating power and securing resources for a small elite. This is evident in the lack of a clear economic plan that considered the needs of all segments of the population. For instance, the focus on large-scale agricultural projects, such as those in the Rift Valley, predominantly served politically connected individuals rather than smallholder farmers who were most in need of support. Strategic Management Theory also emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement, yet the Kenyan leadership failed to incorporate the voices of marginalized communities in the decision-making process. This exclusionary approach hindered equitable development and led to missed opportunities for broad-based economic growth.

Furthermore, another applicable theory is Henry Mintzberg's concept of 'Emergent Strategy,' which suggests that effective organizations not only plan but also adapt based on emerging opportunities and challenges. Kenya's leadership, however, lacked the agility to adapt to evolving socio-economic needs, choosing instead to reinforce centralized power structures and elite interests. This rigidity prevented the country from taking advantage of new opportunities that could have spurred inclusive development. The absence of a strategic direction that included a focus on social welfare, infrastructure that benefited all citizens, and human capital development has directly contributed to the underdevelopment and inequality seen in Kenya today.

From a sociologist's perspective, Kenya's social fabric was further weakened by the adoption of a political culture centered around ethnic mobilization. Politics became a zero-sum game, where winning meant access to state resources and losing meant marginalization. This culture of exclusion not only deepened ethnic divisions but also institutionalized ethnic politics as the primary mode of political competition, a trend that continues to shape Kenya's political landscape today.

The results of this political system are evident in contemporary Kenyan politics, where ethnic alliances are often the basis for political parties and voting patterns. Politicians continue to appeal to ethnic loyalties to secure electoral support, rather than promoting policies that benefit the entire population. This has resulted in a fragmented political system where national unity is compromised by ethnic interests. The infamous 2007-2008 post-election violence serves as a stark example of the consequences of this divisive political culture. The violence, which left over 1,100 people dead and hundreds of thousands displaced, was fueled by political leaders exploiting ethnic tensions for their own gain.

Moreover, the culture of exclusion and ethnic mobilization has hindered the development of a cohesive national identity. Instead of fostering a sense of shared purpose and collective progress, politics in Kenya has often been characterized by mistrust and competition between ethnic groups. This has also impacted governance, as leaders prioritize regional and ethnic interests over national development. The legacy of ethnic mobilization continues to manifest in political appointments, resource allocation, and public service delivery, where favoritism often overrides merit and equity.

The persistence of this political culture has prevented the emergence of issue-based politics that could address the real needs of ordinary Kenyans, such as poverty reduction, healthcare, and education. Instead, political leaders leverage ethnic sentiments to maintain power, resulting in a governance system that is reactive rather than proactive, and more focused on retaining control than driving meaningful progress. The ongoing cycle of ethnic mobilization, exclusion, and marginalization has thus entrenched a political environment that stifles both economic growth and social cohesion.

To highlight this, consider a comparison with Ghana, which has made strides in reducing ethnic divisions in politics through deliberate reforms and efforts to foster national unity. Ghana's approach to electoral reforms, which emphasizes inclusivity and transparency, offers valuable lessons for Kenya. By addressing ethnic tensions and focusing on issue-based politics, Ghana has managed to create a more stable political environment that supports development. Kenya could learn from such examples to break the cycle of ethnic mobilization.

Call to Action

As we examine these historical and contemporary challenges, it is important to think about how each of us can contribute to positive change. Whether through civic engagement, promoting accountability, or fostering unity in our communities, there are ways we can collectively work towards a better Kenya. This article aims to inform, but also to inspire action towards a more inclusive and prosperous future.