I had the opportunity of participating in KTN’s ‘Bottomline’ Tv conversation this last weekend. The topic of discussion was ‘Tribalism’. The forum, which took a cumulative 7 hours over two days, was held in Eldoret. Participants included religious leaders, politicians, elders from various communities, young people, women leaders and social media bloggers. Kenyan victims from the 2007 post election violence were also present. Having had the privilege of spending a considerable amount of time on a search for reasons why tribalism is such a curse in Kenya, it was quite interesting listening to the various issues raised. However as the show went on I became even more convinced that only until we mainstream such conversations, will we solve the tribalism challenge in Kenya. This is because Kenya's tribalism is as a result of private inter-ethnic political conversations, implemented on an ignorant public.
It started in the 1960, 1962 and 1963 Lancaster House Conferences where leaders representing different Kenyan communities discussed what role, responsibility and position each respective community and its leaders would play in the new Kenya. The Lancaster House Conferences were Kenya’s first and most candid inter-ethnic conversations. The institutionalization of the ‘Majimbo’ Constitution was an attempt to implement in public, what had been agreed on in private. The subsequent amendments and eventual collapse of that constitution indicates that this particular effort did not end.
The second major inter-ethnic conversation happened in the 1990s, as Kenyans fought to return the country to a multi-party state. Representatives of various communities huddled in private boardrooms locally and abroad as various communities presenting their issues as political agendas. The formation of the original FORD was an attempt to house all these issues under one political vehicle, and provide an inclusive solution. However it excluded the Kalenjins, whose leaders ensured FORD’s eventual collapse into ineffectual off-shoots. Again, another private inter-ethnic conversation failed to deliver, when brought to the public.
The third major inter-ethnic conversation was in 2002. This one took place within the framework of the Rainbow Coalition and had many similarities to the Lancaster Conferences, including the fact that nearly every Kenyan community, and the sincerity of its discussions. It succeeded, for a while. Then, again like the Lancaster Conference agreements, it collapsed shortly after the leaders got into power and started trying to implement what they had agreed in private, in public; another failure.
Another attempt was made in 2007. This particular inter-ethnic conversation excluded the Kikuyu community. The result was one of Kenya’s bloodiest moments since independence; an epic failure.
In 2013 the fifth major inter-ethnic conversation took place. This time all communities participated, but they ended up holding parallel conversations, at cross purposes. The result was GEMA and Kalenjin communities with pastoralist communities in the periphery; on one side. The Luo, Luhya, Kamba and Coastal communities, on the other. Kenya has not recovered from this division more than a year since the last general elections. This particular structure of inter-ethnic conversations must also be the worst attempt ever made, to-date. CORD’s calls for ‘National Dialogue’ are in reality, calls for another (private) inter-ethnic political conversation.
So what does all this mean?
That Kenya was formed as a Coalition of Tribes. That the reason why tribalism is such a challenge in Kenya 50 years later is because the leaders of the various members of this coalition never seem to agree on how to implement in public, what they agree on in private. That tribalism as currently practiced in Kenya will only end when these private agreements, are publicly agreed upon and implemented. That it might also be time for Kenyans to admit that their tribal representatives; because that is what the people we call national politicians still are; have failed us.
What did Jomo Kenyatta & Jaramogi; Jomo Kenyatta & Moi; Kibaki & Raila; Raila & Ruto; Uhuru & Ruto, agree privately? How does it affect us publicly? Might it be time to exercise direct sovereignty over our affairs and demand these discussions move out of private boardrooms into public spaces?
Might it also be time to (temporarily) stop attempting to manage public inter-ethnic conversations using ‘hate-speech’ laws. If we allow Moses Kuria, Robert Alai, Johnson Muthama, Kalonzo Musyoka, Jakoyo Midiwo, Mishi Khamis, Mary Wambui, Moses Wetangula, etc; to candidly raise the issues they feel disenfranchise us, and their respective communities, will we understand what needs to be done to move Kenya forward, faster? If everyone with a public space is allowed to use it to raise social issues as they see them, without fear of being called tribalist, will we know what to correct more effectively?
Jeff Koinange says the day we stop talking is the day we start talking. However can Kenya really hold a national conversation on insecurity, corruption, land, employment, IDPs, leadership, etc; before we completely exhaust our tribal conversations on the same?
Ngunjiri Wambugu is the Director of Change Associates; a Strategic Political Communications Consultancy
No comments:
Post a Comment