Kenya is well endowed with a wide variety of 'tribes' or communities (though Nigeria with perhaps 300 or more and Papua New Guinea with its 700 languages put Kenya’s diversity into perspective).
There are several reasons for the diversity, including how the British annexed land and extended their authority gradually, without any concern about either grouping communities together, or splitting others. In some cases, communities were divided between Kenya and neighbouring states. Britain also promoted the settlement of communities from outside Africa.
Although all these communities became part of the British empire, they were for the most part kept separate from each other — to the extent that indigenous people could not travel to the land occupied by another community without permission of the colonial power. Because administrative boundaries tended to follow ethnic divides, the districts were also of uneven size.
All this weakened resistance to British authority. 'Divide and rule' was not particular to Kenya, of course. Even as Britain was preparing to give up its authority over Kenya, there was little cohesion among the different communities — indeed, there were serious conflicts among some of them. It also meant that the levels of development among communities varied greatly — as indeed they do today.
In the negotiations for independence, differences between indigenous communities emerged sharply, reflected in the independence constitution —though now the British were keen on a united Kenya.
British-style manipulation of ethnicity remained significantly operative in different ways after independence. Nevertheless, there was the prospect of a relatively united country but for the way Jomo Kenyatta took complete authority into his own hands — primarily for the benefit of the Kikuyu — and his family. Moi did the same — for the benefit of the Kalenjin and his family. The result was the ruling out of any sense of a common nation and state.
Most communities have thus retained a primary sense of membership of their communities — so much so that most Kenyans choose to vote in elections in their traditional home area, rather than where they work and live.
CONSTITUTION-MAKING ETHNICITY
Little was done at official levels to promote a sense of common nationhood until official constitution-making began in 2001. Even then the impetus came from civil society. There were clearly ethnic differences among politicians at the Bomas National Constitutional Conference — but they were in a minority. However, these differences made them less effective as constitution-makers, because they focused on little else.
The majority at Bomas embraced their fellow country-people and accepted the nationhood which is now so clearly a value of the 2010 Constitution.
In two important ways, the Constitution now deviates from the Bomas vision. The first is the adoption of a presidential system. The direct election of one dominant head of state and government — as opposed to a parliamentary system where the head of government emerges from parliament — tends towards someone from a major tribe.
The second is the arrangements for devolution — abandoning the idea of having an intermediate level of government, between the national and the old districts, which would have brought together various communities. The shift was to the system we have now in which many counties are dominated by a single ethnic group.
It is interesting that the first of these decisions — to return to a presidential system — was made when only politicians were involved (politicians focused on power and their own chances of winning). This was in the Parliamentary Select Committee in 2010. Decisions at Bomas were made principally by civil society, much more focused on the national interest.
A consequence of these shifts has been the continuation of the system — as under Kenyatta I and Moi — in which politicians from the larger communities have had major influence on the state — particularly of one tribe, together in partnership with leaders of at least another major tribe.
CONSTITUTION, ETHNICITY AND UNITY
Some decades ago, it became fashionable for countries with significant minorities to devise some form of autonomy — giving some degree of control over their own affairs to communities. There have been extensive studies on this subject (including my own) as a way of protecting ethnic minorities. But the approach to ethnicity that we have is of a different type: It seems geared to helping the numerous and well-off.
The Constitution does still contain a major orientation towards a united state. But this does not exclude aspects of ethnicity or other manifestations of group identity. The ethos of the Constitution is captured in the Preamble: “Proud of our ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, and determined to live in peace and unity as one indivisible sovereign nation”. It also commits the state to “nurturing and protecting the well-being of the individual, the family, communities and the nation”.
It goes on to recognise “the aspirations of all Kenyans for a government based on the essential values of human rights, equality, freedom, democracy, social justice and the rule of law”. Article 10 includes among national values national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people”.
PEOPLE'S ELECTION
We have one electoral system — because we are one people. But alas, we have not always lived up to the principles that must guide our elections. Among the principles binding political parties are upholding national unity, respecting the rights of all persons to participate in the political process, including minorities and marginalised groups. A party cannot have a religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, gender basis or seek to engage in advocacy of hatred on any such basis (Article 91). Nor should parties engage in or encourage violence, or establish or maintain a para-military form of corruption. I leave it to the readers to judge how far our political parties have honoured these rules.
How little our politicians have internalised these principles is made clear almost every time they talk about elections. Luhyas are constantly talking about 'Luhya unity' and the search for one Luhya candidate. Anne Waiguru says that Central Province (read 'Kikuyus') will look to 'their leader' for guidance as to whom they should support in 2022. When Luhyas see nothing wrong with voting for someone because he or she is competent, honest and shares their ideals for the nation, and not because of ethnicity, or Kikuyus are perfectly happy to make up their own minds about who to support, on a similar basis, only then shall we be a united country. This is not incompatible with being a proud Luhya, Kikuyu, Kalenjin or el Molo.
DEVOLUTION, UNITY AND ETHNICITY
The objects and principles of devolved government (Article 174) set out a demanding agenda: promotion of democracy and accountable exercise of power; fostering national unity by recognising diversity; powers of self-governance and participation in the affairs of the state; communities to manage and develop their own affairs; protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities and marginalised communities; promote social and economic development; ensure equitable sharing of national and local resources; enhance checks and balances and the separation of powers; and above all, county governments shall be based on democratic principles and the separation of powers.
It sometimes seems as if these principles have rather little relationship to the present county system.
And it would seem that, despite the exhortation in Article 6(2), the governments at national and county levels do not conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation.
Recognising loyalties other than the national, and adopting devolution, were not intended to enshrine the dominance of ethnicity. There is a free movement of people. The counties are open to all citizens; they must involve their minorities, and must not exclude people from other counties. There is considerable pressure for uniform values and practice. The authorities of counties are of a limited nature. While being able to respond to local needs, they are not intended to be exclusive enclaves.
Perhaps their strength lies in counties collaborating together in matters of common interest to adjacent counties, a process that counties are in fact engaged in.
