It is easy to overlook,” a friend reminded me recently, “the historic ideological divisions in our politics due to the nature of our politicians and their coalitions.” He is right.
Kenyan politics in the 1960s had ideological underpinnings. Kanu, which won the first elections, positioned itself on the left as a nationalist party, focusing on social democracy with issues of land redistribution, Africanisation and justice as its key planks. It was non-aligned internationally, with links to the Americans, Russians, Chinese and British.
Kadu, the opposition formed by the European settler class, was the party of the establishment, a right wing, status quo party that wanted to delay independence until the Africans “were ready for it” and with strong views on the role of the private sector. Internationally, it was pro-British.
It was impossible to sell Kadu’s policies effectively and tribe was thus used, suggesting that Kanu was the “big tribes” (Kikuyu and Luo), while Kadu was the smaller tribes. But while this had some resonance, Kadu badly lost the elections.
But some in Kanu were as conservative and pro-status quo as Kadu and there were deep divisions in Kanu pitting these conservatives against the nationalists. The conservative wing won the first round, convincing Kadu to merge with Kanu.
They then published Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 — authored by Tom Mboya and Mwai Kibaki — as the economic blue-print. This blueprint, despite its title of “African Socialism,” was deeply conservative, laying out pro-status quo policies, focusing on the more developed regions as the focal point of development that would “trickle down” to the rest of the country.
Tellingly, they ratified the policy of “willing seller, willing buyer,” in land reforms, though it should have been “able buyer,” as only the economically able benefited.
And as my friend reminded me, the Kikuyu community was the most economically able then, having been incorporated into the cash economy in 1910, with the imposition of Hut Tax that forced them to work on settler farms to pay this tax. Schools were also set up across Kikuyu-land aiming at developing a class of mid-level civil servants that would serve the colonial state.
The progressive nationalists in Kanu were eventually forced out in 1966 and, led by Jaramogi Oginga Odinga and Bildad Kaggia formed the Kenya People’s Union.
It was then that tribe was used most effectively, with Kanu painting KPU as a Luo party, and changing the constitution to stem the natural defections from nationalists. It then used state repression to severely limit the growth of KPU, before banning it in 1969.
But like Kadu earlier, conservatives could not take a strictly rightwing approach and elements of social democracy were implemented. Thus subsidised or free health care, education and other benefits were provided.
Ordinary citizens were organised to buy settler farms so that it was not only civil servants and politicians acquiring land. At the same time, they took a laissez faire approach to the economy, with corruption being the hallmark.
All our presidents have been part of this conservative group, allowing corruption to foster, focusing on trickle-down economics while using their tribes as bastions of support.
Today, it appears that these old divisions are intact despite the tribal clothing of the coalitions. Raila Odinga epitomises social democracy from his rhetoric and history; while Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto belong to the old conservative school of pro-establishment, pro-status quo, and laissez faire capitalism.
It is hard to sell this laissez faire capitalism in a country where more than half of the population lives on less than Sh160 a day, hence the use of ethnicity, and now, ageism.
Of course within both coalitions there are people who would be more comfortable in the other side, but for ethnic considerations. In CORD, these would include those who have made a living from corruption and land-grabbing, as well as being part of the Moi regime.
And in the Coalition of the Accused, these would be those who spent some time fighting for social justice before being swallowed by the tribal and “eating” machines.
Kenya would be better off if we could look beyond our tribes and see where our social and economic interests lie, for there is nothing wrong with being either conservative or social democratic.
Perhaps then some sanity — with fewer tensions — may just emerge in these elections.
Maina Kiai
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment