By: Gerald Acho and Huguette Kazeneza, Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations (HIPSIR)
Since the nullification of the August 8 presidential elections in Kenya, the country has been in a political turmoil. There has been instability in different parts of the country especially areas that are the opposition stronghold. As the opposition continues to protest against the election, their supporters have been met with serious brutality from the police. Given this tense atmosphere, HIPSIR organized a National Dialogue event on “The State of the Nation in Kenya” to reflect on the crisis facing the country. Presenters included Dr. Susan Waiyigo, Lecturer in History and Political science at Kenyatta University, who discussed the history of Kenyan politics, and Dr. Elias Opongo, Director of HIPSIR, who discussed Historical Perspectives on the Root of the Kenyan Crisis.
The current Kenyan crisis has its roots in the colonial period, argued Dr. Waiyigo. The Berlin Conference gave Kenya to the British to be governed under the British system of Indirect Rule. The British system created distinct ethnic groups, separating people who had long lived together peacefully through imposing boundaries and choosing leaders. This division of the country into sub-groups fostered an identity crisis, as many Kenyans were unable to fully integrate into the new system. Because the system of indirect rule favoured communities that were more productive over others, the mentality of “us against them” emerged. With independence, this ethnic mentality became what we call today identity politics. Since at this time there were no political parties, Kenyans organized themselves along ethnic lines, with many hiding behind religion as well as a means of self expression.
Movements led by religious leaders then constituted the foundation of the rise of political parties in the late 1950s and early 1960s. By the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s, Kenyans realized they needed to unite in order to fight colonialism. Two trends emerged: the first preferred fighting colonization through legal and constitutional means. This line was mostly followed by educated youths who advocated a consensus between the British government and Africans. The second chose to fight White colonialists with guns in order to regain their lands. This group, composed of elders, went to the forest using guerrilla warfare. The educated elite who were mostly the youths gained the upper hand against the uneducated who chose to fight. The British government and the educated elites agreed that the British would give loans to the Kenyans to buy back their (own) lands.
In 1963, when Kenya obtained independence from the British government, Jomo Kenyatta, its first president, suggested that those who had been fighting in the forest should return home and work together in collaboration with the new elites. Unfortunately, when these fighters came back, they found the Kenyan elite appropriating everything that the British had possessed, including the land. From Kenyatta’s first government (1964-1978) to the years of Daniel Arap Moi (1978-2002), and then the democratically elected president, Mwai Kibaki (2002-2013), the system remained essentially the same. Similarities included the centralization of power at the national level, the concentration of power in the person of the president, and the ongoing politicization of ethnicity, leading to the ethnicization of politics.
When, in 2002, the opposition formed a coalition and won the elections, its agenda was to oust president Daniel Arap Moi from power. After Moi’s protégé Uhuru Kenyatta was defeated, the new leadership team was unable to agree on the best path for Kenya. The coalition that brought together Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki broke apart after a short while and the same old problems of ethnic identity came back to light. This is largely seen to be the foundation of the 2007 post-election violence (also see: Healing the Wound. Personal Narratives about the 2007 Post-Election Violence in Kenya, edited by Kimani Njogu), which, in fact, was the culmination of many unresolved issues buried in Kenya’s past. In the negotiations led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, four items were discussed, including the question of how to deal with past injustices. Moreover, the new constitution adopted in 2010 sought to implement this agenda by providing clarity on the question of landownership. However, the idea of addressing past injustices has not been touched on, even after the 2013 elections. Hence, the elections of 2017 were again held without dealing with the historical injustices of land appropriation, power sharing, and marginalization.
The question now is: was it wise to organize the second polls after 60 days of the nullification of the August 8th election if the country has not dealt yet with lingering issues of social and political injustices from the past? In her conclusion, Dr. Waiyigo argued that besides addressing historical injustices, the country needs to rethink its whole system of governance and the electoral system (“winner takes all”). Also, what solution is there for youth unemployment problem? Can Kenya reconcile both ethnic and national identities? Dr. Waiyigo highlighted the importance of initiating dialogue from the grassroots to the national level.
Indeed, the political divide facing Kenya today, Dr. Elias Opongo, SJ agreed, has its roots in a systematic historical machination of injustices. There are Kenyans who feel marginalized by the bigger ethnic groups. The fear of the larger ethnic groups led to the formation of coalition parties by the smaller ethnic groups. President Moi was forced by the World Bank through the structural adjustment program to adopt multiparty democracy or cease from receiving any assistance from the international community. Kenyans believed that multiparty politics which was prescribed for them by civil societies and international community through structural adjustment programs in the 1990s was the best way forward. Unfortunately, the formation of multiparty politics has, instead, strengthened ethnic identities and ethnic politics wherein groups start seeking for one of their own to be at the helm of the government. The implementation of the structural adjustment programs in the 1990s worsen the situation especially for the poor, creating an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, leading to further polarization of relations as majority of the rich come from particular ethic groups who hold powerful positions within the government.
Politicians identifying these weaknesses within the system took advantage of the situation and politics became ethnicized and ethnic identities became politicized. According to Dr. Opongo, the politicization of ethnic identities has today made it almost impossible to separate politics from ethnicity. Too many Kenyans tend to believe that having one of their ethnic member as president or vice president will bring respect to the community, making equitable development secondary at best.
Since some ethnic groups are bigger than others, they command a lot of power as they are able to vote in leaders based on their large numbers. This has in turn created tension amongst other ethnic groups who believe that power should be evenly distributed for all citizens. When talking of the power of ethnic belonging in politics as it is played in Kenya, it is important to note that out of the 42 ethnic groups in Kenya, only few are well recognized to compete for power. This has created an atmosphere of marginalization or neglect of the smaller ethnic groups. As such there is high probability for violent conflicts as there continue to be horizontal inequalities within the country. As Steward and Brown (2007:222) argue, “when cultural differences coincide with economic and political differences between groups, this can cause deep resentment that may lead to violent struggles.” This appears to be the reality in Kenya since the recent presidential elections. Some parts of the country have started demanding secession, arguing that they have been victims of marginalization for a very long time. This sense of marginalization, whether real or perceived, is dangerous for the unity of the country.
The government has been able to respond to some of these challenges through the constitution of 2010, the creation of District Peace Committees, the Nation Steering Committee on Peacebuilding and Conflict Management (NSC) – to name but a few. The 2010 constitution also strengthens the judiciary system which has been used to resolve a number of conflicts through legal structures. Unfortunately, in spite of all these structures, the leaders have failed to address pertinent issues that are causing division among the people, issues like historical land injustices. They talk of dialogue and reconciliation, but they forget that there can be no reconciliation without addressing injustices.
Peacebuilding cannot be left in the hands of politicians alone. There is need for applied research on the crisis, and this is the contribution of academia so that people can be provided with facts about the division within the country. It is also within the scope of academia to unpack the ongoing reinforcement of historical stereotypes that different ethnic groups have about each other. There is need for a genuine national dialogue where all citizens will come together as equals and talk about issues that generally concern them. This dialogue should never be seen as an event but rather as a process.