Politics of ethnicity and the challenge of national cohesion

Introduction and contextual background

Since Kenyan’s independence in 1963, Kenyan politics has been bedeviled by ethnic politics as a result of ethnic polarization and sentimental coloration of all national issues. This problem has been one of the major factors inhibiting national cohesion and integration and overall national development in Kenya. Kenyan politics is tainted with ethnic sentiments and politically induced disharmony. Ethnic politics has been one of the factors responsible for poor socio-economic development.

Ethnic politics was deliberately introduced and propagated in the Kenyan political system by the British colonial government through its divisive ‘divide and rule’ policy to actualize colonial and imperialist economic and political objectives. The origins of ethnic consciousness as manifested in Kenya’s political processes lay partially in the arbitrary way in which the British colonialists' based administrative boundaries and local government on cultural and linguistic lines, a decision informed by an assumption that Africans lived in tribes, so tribes must constitute the basis of colonial administration (Sandbrook 1985, pp 49-50).

These vices were continued on an even larger scale by post-colonial political leaders who failed to inculcate national cohesion and unity due to their pursuit of sectarian and self-interests at the expense of the nation-building project. Efforts by the successive regimes to advance a national identity have proved futile as all of them have worked to calcify it through its exploitation and politicization. 

The crux of my argument is that ethnicity has, over time, been used by the self-aggrandizing political elite for self-serving interests. 

Before 2007-2008, Kenya was among the few African countries that for a long period of time had enjoyed significant amounts of quiescence since independence. It has been regarded as an oasis of peace in a turbulent region. This was extraordinary going by the quantity of political violence, protracted conflicts, and civil wars that had occurred in the continent. However, Kenya had also seen its share of turbulent times that began as soon as the country attained independence under the Kenyatta regime (1963-1978). This period was largely characterized by the suppression of plural democracy resulting in a one-party state, political assassinations, and monopolization of the media by the state (Osaghae, 1994). 

In 1978, Moi’s regime took over and furthered Kenyatta’s machinations with some enhanced degree of brutality a situation that triggered what came to be known as the clamor for multi-party democracy from the early 1980s. By the early 1990s, the clamor gained momentum and transmogrified into open rebellion, and an ethnicized brand of politics due to the marginalization of some ethnic groups (Throup & Hornsby, 1998). The political climate of the 1990s served to put the country on a dangerous political path that led to political and ethnic bigotry. Pockets of political violence and ethnic clashes in some parts of the country e.g.in Rift valley. 

Following unprecedented internal and external pressure the then President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi allowed for the repeal of section 2A of the Constitution of Kenya and thus multi-party politics was ushered in the country. We had an election in 1997 that had significant violence, particularly in the coast and Rift Valley region. The 2002 General Election was the most peaceful election in Kenya. The transfer of power was also very smooth. 

In 2007, the post-election violence that ensued in the wake of divisive presidential elections highlighted the extent of the ethnic divisions that had largely been ignored in the past as the country stood at the precipice of a civil war. The human cost was enormous with over 1000 people losing their lives in less than two months and hundreds of thousands being displaced. Yet, the violence also revealed the deeply entrenched structural decay that engulfed the country: from the dysfunctional electoral institution, the insidious culture of impunity, ethnicization of politics, and power to imperious presidency and corruption (GoK 2008; 22-36).

In 2008, after the restoration of peace by the panel of eminent personalities led by the late Koffi Anan, Kenya was presented with an opportunity to begin a new chapter of robust constitutional and institutional reforms: packaged in a four-item agenda. Although some significant achievements were registered - promulgation of the new constitution in 2010, reconstitution of the electoral body as well as other institutions like the judiciary and police -the country was still faced the almost similar challenges of 2007 during the 2013 general elections.

In the 2017 elections, the country was in another political dilemma after the results of the elections were nullified by the Supreme Court judges led by Chief Justice David Maraga, citing deep irregularities and utter mendacity. The country was again at the precipice until 9th March 2018 when the historic symbolic ‘handshake’ between President Uhuru Kenyatta and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga took place. In their speeches, grand corruption, ethnicity, and ethnicized politics were among the issues that these two leaders identified as having adverse effects on the country’s social, political, and economic development.

Ladies and gentlemen allow me to explore a number of theories relating to ethnicity which we use as the theoretical milieu upon which the manifestation of ethnicity in Kenyan politics can be construed.

Theoretical underpinning

Theorizing ethnicity is almost impossible without an understanding of what constitutes an ethnic group. According to Smith (1991), an ethnic group is a community whose members share a collective proper name, the myth of common ancestry, shared historical memory, common culture, sense of solidarity, and a specific homeland. In this sense, ethnicity becomes a relational notion that derives from a group of people. This perspective is corroborated by Young & Turner (1985), who argue that the relational conceptualization is often portrayed in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’/ ‘us and them’ whereby ‘we’ assigns positive attributes to themselves while disparaging the ‘they’ group.

There are four broad schools of thought which have emerged in a bid to define and analyze ethnicity. They include the primordial, instrumentalists, constructivists, and situationists. The primordial school argues that ethnicity is an old and permanent set of fixed identities acquired at birth from the clan-kinship structure of the society (Geertz, 1963; Isaacs, 1975; Stack,1986). Between the 1950s and 1960s ethnicity in developing countries, especially those in Africa, was viewed and analyzed through the prism of primordialism. This was anchored on the logic that political behavior in such countries was motivated by instincts and emotions deriving from ancestral relationships (Brown, 2000). However, an attempt to depict ethnicity as a peculiar phenomenon of developing countries was disputed by a number of scholars. Stones (1983), posits that some countries, e.g. Bulgaria, that emerged in Europe in the 20th century proved that ethnic nationalism was not a confine of African countries.

The instrumentalists’ school provides another basis for defining and analyzing ethnicity. It holds that ethnicity becomes a salient defining principle when groups are in competition for values as well as scarce natural and resources (Young & Turner, 1985). In essence, ethnic identity is construed as a significant attribute which member of an ethnic group can use to seek favors from the nation-state or use it to fight for recognition or to eliminate deprivations which are believed to be politically induced. All these become manifest in contests for political power.

Access to political power is an important reality to most ethnic groups in Kenya due to the perceived privileges that go hand in hand with political power. This perception provides an incentive for individuals and ethnic groups to seek control of the state (Mutua 2008). Due to the ethnic groups’ urge to control the state, it is in the instrumentalists’ view that African politics is typified by the manipulation of ethnic identities for economic and political ends (Berman 1998) and that ethnic politics is propagated by the fact that ethnicity can be exploited and manipulated at will by the political elites (Ake2000). Moreover, instrumentalists also argue that ethnicity provides a sense of belonging, especially in individualistic urban centers which are prone to compete for scarce resources and insecurity. Thus, it grants the much-needed social safety nets which mitigate against such ills like poverty in the face of harsh economic times (Nnoli1995). 

The constructivists’ approach to ethnicity is one that discredits the very existence of ethnic groups and to them, ethnicity and by extension ethnic groups are socially constructed (Ajulu 2002). They also regard those who are inclined towards the existence of ethnic groups as people engrossed in what they term as ‘ideological consciousness’ depicting ethnicity as a reality that can be mobilized and manipulated for political purposes (Brown,2000). Therefore, their understanding of ethnicity is anchored on the notion that ethnicity is a product of a conscious and premeditated effort by both the members and non-members of an ethnic group to define that ethnic group (Le Vine 1997, p 50).

The situational school, whose perspective of ethnicity is closely related to that of the instrumentalists, considers ethnicity as a reality that can be used in different situations depending on the rewards at stake. As such, ethnicity becomes a malleable phenomenon whose boundaries can inflate and deflate in different situations (Bates, 1983). Based on the four approaches, it is tempting to view Kenyan politics through the prism of the instrumentalist but doing so would render other attributes like those identified by the primordials exclusively irrelevant. As such, this paper adopts Young’s (1993) suggestion that approaches to ethnicity are intertwined in a mesh that brings together three interactive approaches that include instrumentalist, primordialists, and constructivists.

Ethnicity, Political Parties, & Coalition Politics

The Kenya 2010 constitution requires that a presidential candidate had to garner 50% +1 of cast votes to win an election. This constitutional requirement is responsible for intense ethnic mobilizations since a presidential candidate could not win a national election by merely depending on his or her ethnic blocs. The largest ethnic groups in Kenya consist of roughly 10–18% of the total population. For example, according to the 1999 population census, the following communities could be considered as the largest with each having more than a 10 percent share of the population, Kikuyu (17.15%), Luhya (13.82%), Kalenjin (12.86%), Luo (10.47%), and Kamba (10.07%). This means that the major ethnic groups made up 64% of the total population while the over 35 remaining ethnic groups share made up 36% of the total (Republic of Kenya 2009). These figures mean that to win an election in Kenya, different ethnic groups must form pre-election coalitions to face off with their opponents (Elischer, 2008).

Political parties in Kenya are highly ethnic. As a result of these ethnically-based political parties, the quality of democracy has been compromised. Parties have a strong following in areas and ethnic groups where the party leader comes from. This is despite the fact that a political party is supposed to have a physical presence and membership in at least 24 counties out of the 47 counties in Kenya. 

Further, politicians who have built successful political careers by appealing to ethnicity have colluded to prevent other politicians from appealing to anything but ethnicity. Individual political identity is thereby reduced to ethnic identity as citizens essentially delegate their vote to entrenched ethnic elites. It can, therefore, correctly argued that Kenyans are subjected to a narrow choice of ethnic political parties with no different ideologies and philosophies in their manifestos. Most political parties in Kenya are created as electoral vehicles instead of entities that can discuss serious policy options.

Political parties in Kenya are afflicted by corruption, exclusion, patronage, ethnicity, nepotism, and disregard for internal party democracy, among other vices threatening to undermine the growth of democracy. Party leaders rejected the winners of primary elections and instead awarded official nomination certificates to their favored candidates. This is one of the reasons for multiple defections to and from parties before the General Election. Some parties are very costly to women and young upcoming politicians as they impose a charge hefty life membership and as much as Sh500,000 for party nominations. This is the reason for the dissatisfied members vying as independent candidates, which is a good thing provided in our constitution. 

Women and youth have been marginalized in the running of political parties in Kenya. No political party, in its management and leadership, has been keen to identify youth as a key constituent — to be involved in decision-making yet they constitute about 67 percent of the voters in Kenya.

Factors affecting national cohesion in Kenya

Historical injustices

Land grabbing has its genesis in pre-independence Kenya when a small group of white settlers was allocated 20 percent of Kenya’s landmass consisting of the best agricultural land. The post-colonial government of Jomo Kenyatta used the land formerly held by settlers for patronage purposes to solidify support and build alliances. This trend continued and intensified in the successive Moi regime. The Ndungu Report demonstrates how illegal land allocations regularly increased around the time of competitive elections under former President Moi. Illegal and irregular allocations of community land continue unabated. 

Corruption

Corruption is endemic in Kenya. It is manifested in both public and private life. Civil servants, or bureaucrats, exploit their powers of discretion, delegated to them by the Government, to further their own interests by indulging in illegal, or unauthorized, activities. These activities can take various forms, including bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and fraud. Corruption is visible at both county and national levels. Unfortunately, those who looted public funds in the past not only escaped punishment but are today taking a moral high ground and criticizing the Government about "new corruption". 

Unequal distribution of resources

Inequality encompasses the imbalance or skewed distribution of resources in a system, including social, economic, political, and other factors. 

Uneven distribution of national resources has led to underdevelopment of regions in Kenya thereby bring about regional imbalance in terms of distribution of national resources, which has negatively affected the socio-economic development of the country

The constitution ushered in a devolved system of government, where each of the 47 (devolved) county governments would have its allocation of resources from the central government as a percentage of the last audited government accounts. Each of the devolved governments would also have the mandate to raise local revenues and partner with different stakeholders to drive their own local development agendas. This was a change from the status quo, in which all such funding came via the central government, which was often perceived as discriminatory in how it shared out development budgets, allowing some areas to grow and leaving other areas marginalized in the process. However, corruption is gaining root in counties and denying citizens much-needed development. 

There are significant disparities in the way public jobs have been allocated as revealed by the NCIC ethnic audit of public services and county government. NCIC is statutorily to ensure that every ethnic group has an equal opportunity during the hiring process and that not more than 30% of the employees in the counties come from the dominant ethnic group. 

According to NCIC Report (2012), the members of the president’s communities have been dominant in all senior and strategic positions in government ministries and departments. Moreover, the distribution of cabinet posts has been skewed in favor of the country’s leadership communities. The norm is when the leader wins the elections, they share the spoils in terms of political appointments to powerful positions of influence thereby accessing the economic resources including land. 

Tender and contracts and both county and national government are unfairly given according to ethnic and political affiliations with no regard to meritocracy. 

Negative ethnicity

Negative ethnicity in Kenya has hindered the growth of democracy. This is because the Kenyan electorate votes along ethnic lines. Thus, the electorate will vote for a candidate who is from their ethnic community even if he/she does not have good leadership qualities. Negative ethnicity brings about marginalization, distrust and heightens ethnic tensions and this eventually leads to conflict, for example, 1992, 1997, and the 2007/2008 post-election violence over the sharing and allocation of power and national resources.

Translating concern into action: what is the role of the youth and upcoming young leaders in creating a movement for the envisioned transformation? As values-driven leaders, how can we move beyond pointing fingers to putting our "salt" and "light" to work in our various spheres of influence? 

The remarkable role of our young people in peacebuilding, social cohesion, and community reconciliation cannot go unrecognized. Youth can and indeed are agents of peace and cohesion in their communities. Youth should be agents of mending our social fabrics and embrace national unity and diversity. Youth should shun tribalism and use their numbers. The youth are bringing a new appreciation of diversity across the globe. Many countries have resorted to tapping their potential in ironing historical injustices and initiating a new breed of leadership.

Social cohesion is what holds societies together. It cannot be achieved through legislation or government regulations, but by building social networks that enable one to appreciate and intrinsically demonstrate it. Strengthening social networks and relationships translates to trust, which makes people work together to achieve common goals. To achieve this, the role of young people as central actors in social dynamics must be increasingly emphasized, from the tender age to adulthood.

Our social institutions are fundamental to the success of our social cohesion efforts. The most important of these institutions are, of course, the school. That is why the National Cohesion and Integration Commission has mainstream cohesion and integration in schools which is a natural and important breeding ground for national cohesion. 

Colleges and universities are incubators of our future leaders. Kenyans should depend on institutions of higher learning to improve cohesion and integration in the country. Kenyans depend on institutions of higher learning to improve cohesion and integration in our country. The ultimate goal of national cohesion and integration is to create an overarching national community that renders loyalty to competing ethnic, racial, regional, class, and religious communities secondary. National cohesion embraces the unity of purpose in the citizenry’s participation in economic, social, and political processes. The youth should be at the forefront of advocating for good governance and ethical leadership in Kenya. Indeed, the future belongs to them. They must come out in large numbers and vote out corrupt, inept, and tribal leaders at all levels. Effective and strong leadership that articulates the vision for a good governance framework in our country cannot be gainsaid. 

Conclusion

Successive governments in Kenya, beginning with the Jomo Kenyatta in 1963, perfected, the aspect of ethnicity that dovetailed with patronage, rent-seeking, and prebendalism[1] to the detriment of the nation-state. In this presentation, I have attempted to trace ethnic politics in Kenya from the colonial period to the advent of political pluralism. 

The theoretical section provides a lens through which to interpret the apparent ethnic incubus in Kenya’s politics. If we juxtapose the single-party period with the multiparty era we realize that whereas ethnicity played an overarching role in Kenya’s politics in both phases the difference lies

in the extent of the ethnic cleavage, it induced. During the time of one-party rule both Kenyatta and Moi deftly manipulated ethnicity for political as well as economic ends. However, state repression against dissent made it difficult for countervailing forces to mobilize around ethnicity in order to challenge the government of the day. With the opening up of the political landscape after multipartyism was introduced in 1992 political mobilization and voting patterns took on an ethnic dimension, with resultant cyclical ethnic skirmishes in the run-up to or in the wake of general elections. It is this perilous brand of politics that put Kenya on the edge of precipice put the election was bungled in the 2007 general election leading to loss of lives, displacement of population, and destruction of property. 

Ethnicity per se is not a problem. Ethnicity is largely a social construct. What is damaging to Kenya’s social fabric is the politicization of ethnicity by wily and demagogic leaders who stump the country whipping up the ethnic sentiment by appealing to stereotypes in a bid either to wrest power or to maintain it.

[1] Prebendalism refers to political systems where elected officials and government workers