Kenya’s Enduring Divide: Politicians Exploit Ethnicity Even 60 Years Post-Independence
Since the country’s independence in 1963, Kenyan politicians have used ethnicity to win elections.
Kenya is a country of ethnic minorities, with roughly 40 ethnic groups and no single dominant community. During elections, political parties and candidates do raise policy issues; however, ethnicity, or tribalism as it is commonly known in Kenya, is the default vote-seeking strategy.
Voting is, with few exceptions, comparable to an ethnic census. Typically, leading presidential candidates are members of the predominant ethnic communities.
Three of Kenya’s five presidents have been Kikuyu and two have been Kalenjin, two of the country’s largest ethnic groups. This has sparked concerns regarding exclusion and stoked ethnic animosity.
My research reveals that ethnicity is central to political influence in Kenya. They share a mutually beneficial relationship.
In my opinion, ethnicity is neither a manifestation of cultural identity nor a source of national talent.
It has been politicized and is associated with social standing. It is essential to social mobility, stagnation, and regress because it determines people’s fortunes.
Since no single ethnic group is large enough to impose its political will on others, successful presidential candidates have had to form alliances with other ethnic groups. Political authorities have incorporated ethnicity into the governance and administration system.
Successive governments have arbitrarily created more ethnic groups for self-preservation. They have solidified administrative units based on ethnicity and emphasized ethnic differences.
This has normalized the political and economic exploitation of ethnicity. The populace embraces ethnic politics in the misguided belief that their respective ethnic leaders will assist them in enhancing their lives.
How ethnicity manifests
Kenya’s 60 years of independence have been marked by inconclusive elections marred by electoral fraud and executive interference.
The exceptions were the transitional elections conducted in 2002 and 2022. Electoral disputes are frequently drawn out. They have the potential to escalate into interethnic violence.
Kenya’s ethnic politics manifest in four main ways.
First, the Kenyan government is colonial. It is exploitative, discriminatory, and coercive.
Moreover, it is subtly ethnicized, elitist, and classist. Beginning with the first president, Jomo Kenyatta, succeeding Kenyan presidents have rooted the state in ethnicity.
Second, ethnic politics and electoral violence are manifestations of historical land injustices in which communities and individuals were dispossessed of their ancestral land, first by colonialists and then by post-colonial elites.
A general lack of justice, particularly for victims of state-sponsored ethnic violence, has also contributed to ethnic consciousness.
Thirdly, institutional disregard for the rule of law makes ethnic politics appealing, with political elites appealing to it to avoid accountability. Their deliberate efforts to obliterate history and distort Kenya’s contested past also contribute to ethnic tensions. Likewise, a lack of trust among the people and between the people and the government exacerbates the problem.
Fourth, ethno-regional political figures, which are essentially personality cults, have a disproportionate impact on the psyche and political choices of Kenyans. This occurs at the expense of civic identity, individual autonomy, and the pursuit of collective goals.
Often, ethnicity determines party loyalty. People form political parties with the expectation that members of their ethnic group will support them. Since independence, a disproportionate number of the president’s co-ethnics have held state positions.
In Kenya, urbanization has led to a rise in ethnic diversity. Contrary to conventional belief, it is the Kenyan elite, not the masses, who are obsessed with ethnicity because it determines access to the benefits of modernity.
Through ethnicity, the privileged tend to advance their political and economic interests. This has led to its pervasiveness in the media, academia, politics, religious institutions, civil society, and state apparatus.
There is a connection between ethnicity, aspirations of privileged status, and the effects of modernization. The impact of missionary education and infrastructure expansion on Kenyan communities varied. Nature also contributed by providing some communities with arable land and others with severe environments. Developmental disparities provide the foundation for ethnicity.
False beginnings
The 2010 constitution of Kenya aimed to neutralize ethnicity. It requires that state appointments reflect and promote Kenya’s diversity. In addition, it endeavors to streamline political parties to improve national cohesion and harmony.
The constitution also stipulates the devolution of authority and resources to county governments. This is intended to remedy winner-take-all politics, which has fueled animosity and resentment.
However, the constitution is only as effective as the political culture and norms of the society. It cannot by itself transform Kenyan society. Persistent governance deficiencies and abuses have undermined the state for decades.
Kenya has not always been concerned with ethnicity. In elections held before 1962, for instance, candidates prevailed on the strength of their vision and national appeal. Tom Mboya, a Luo, defeated Munyua Waiyaki, a Kikuyu, in a constituency that was predominantly Kikuyu.
However, after a schism among the post-colonial elite, ethnic consciousness increased. The stakes were raised by the desire to monopolize political power and control national resources.
This led to political assassinations, authoritarianism, and a reduction in political space. Some politicians abandoned policy-focused programmatic politics and resorted to ethnic mobilization in an attempt to regain their waning influence.
The inability of Kenya to transcend ethnic ideology has made it difficult to establish alternative political bases.
Class versus clan
Class-based national identities have given way to kinship ties and ethnic prejudice. Before the 2022 elections in Kenya, opponents of class politics compared it to ethnic politics. They claimed that it was intended to incite the impoverished against the wealthy.
In contrast to ethnic politics, class politics is programmatic. It is not founded on fundamental distinctions and similarities. It enables voters to address social, economic, and political issues through the ballot box.
As a presidential candidate in 2022, William Ruto shifted the conversation from ethnicity to the economy by employing a “hustlers vs. dynasties” ideology.
He triumphed. Ruto would have likely lost if he had based his strategy solely on ethnicity, as the opposition stayed loyal to tradition and forged a broader ethnic alliance.
Ruto’s narrow victory margin of just over 230,000 ballots demonstrates that class politics as an alternative form of political organization is not immune in Kenya.
Next actions
To move away from ethnic politics, the Kenyan government must be reformed to assure social justice, the rule of law, and equal opportunity for all. This would initiate the deconstruction of ethnicity as an operational ideology.
It is necessary to decolonize the state to purge it of oppressive, extractive, and predatory tendencies. This must begin with a reform of the education system so that it is pertinent to Kenyan society.
The minds of citizens must be empowered by imparting in them a sense of national pride and awareness.
The problem is that the political elite has no incentive to enact such reforms, as doing so would make them vulnerable to an informed populace.
Kenya’s Enduring Divide: Politicians Exploit Ethnicity Even 60 Years Post-Independence
