The country has just come
from two long weeks of national mourning for one of her quintessential icons of
liberation, Raila Odinga.
The enigma has been celebrated as foremost
nationalist and pan-Africanist par excellence. Across the globe and within the
breath and length of the country, the ODM leader was eulogised as a unifying
pillar of the nation.
He dared dream where many recoiled in fear. Kenyan
leaders from both sides of the political divide put aside their differences to
eulogise him as the true face of justice and liberty. His leadership developed
networks that transcended tribes and regions.
Delegations from organisations,
communities, families and regions continue to pour in their numbers at Opoda
farm and Kang’o ka Jaramogi, the burial site.
The ODM party and the government
under the broad-based arrangement provided the largest and most visible
representation at the funeral. Almost all the speakers agreed that the best
tribute to give Raila was to emulate his nationalist ideals.
Opinion was
unanimous that while he never achieved his desire to be the president of Kenya,
he was able to influence government policies more than any of his political
peers.
His patriotism made him put
aside his personal interests for the good and unity of the nation. He
championed inclusivity and justice for all without any bias. Within the region,
he was not only a conciliator but also an influencer of democracy and justice.
Many prodemocracy crusaders looked up to him as their mentor. He was always
called upon to broker peace and negotiate amicable solutions in political
disputes. Such was the case in Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique, South Africa,
South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It was quite unfortunate
that it would be during Raila’s mourning period that key national leaders
resorted to spewing tribal vitriol. The jingoist fervour reared its ugly head
at a time of solemn farewell to a gallant son of the nation.
To add salt to
injury, the champions of ethnic balkanisation chose to use his name and
reputation as the basis for fanning tribal hatred.
Politics in Kenya has
generally been organised along ethnic lines since the colonial period. As the
nation geared up for Independence, Africans were allowed limited political
organisation and representation through regional political parties.
At
Independence, the dominant parties of Kanu and Kadu were both formed and
organised on the basis of tribes and regions.
However, during the one-party
system era under Presidents Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Moi, the tribe emerged as
the single most important vehicle to state power.
From 1966 onwards,
government and state operations were designed with the Luo ethnic community as
the strategic target. Interestingly they were targeted not as key partners in
government but as dangerous elements and opponents of the state.
Every effort
was made to isolate and marginalise them from the centre of government
institutions. Inadvertently, these deliberate actions had the consequence of
radicalising many political leaders from the region.
It did not help matters
that the community had a critical mass of intelligentsia immediately
post-independence. From the political realm, government operatives became
sensitive to Luos occupying key positions in institutions of governance.
Systematically
they were removed from the leadership of academic, security and financial
institutions of the country.
The return of multiparty
democracy in 1992 did entrench and formalise the tribal cleavages. Parties
emerged along ethnic and regional lines.
The political fault lines of yore came
into play once again but this time with more vigour and resoluteness. The 1992
presidential election was a life and death competition among the three leading
political tribes of Kenya.
President Moi of the Kalenjin went all out to
protect his community’s interests by retaining power at all costs. Kenneth
Matiba and Mwai Kibaki sought to restore the lost glory of the Kikuyu hegemony.
The community was ruing the misfortune of allowing Moi to succeed Kenyatta upon
his death. Jaramogi Oginga Odinga hoped to redeem his Independence debt.
It will be recalled that as
Kenya approached Independence, claims were made that Jaramogi turned down the
British offer to form government. He instead insisted that Kenya would only
gain genuine uhuru with Kenyatta as her leader.
Kenyatta appointed him his
first vice president before they bitterly fell out after the infamous Limuru
Kanu conference of 1966.
Other scholars, however, opine that this narrative was
an M15 intelligence spin to hoodwink the Kikuyu extremists that Kenyatta was a
national leader, hero and freedom fighter. Subsequent events after 1966
consolidated tribal jingoism.
Upon his return from exile,
Raila joined the opposition forces under the behemoth of Ford. The movement would
succumb to ethnic bigotry and state machinations to split into Ford-Kenya and
Ford-Asili. He cast his lot with the radical and socialist-leaning Ford-Kenya
under the chairmanship of his father Jaramogi.
The rest of the conservative
group joined the entrepreneur and gradualist Matiba. Soon after the death of
his father, Raila broke ranks with his comrades and formed NDP.
The new party
was premised on social democracy as its ideology. He sought to bring into his
fold political and social leaders of diverse backgrounds and from across the
country.
Raila was intentional in
his philosophy to rid the country of tribalism. He took bold steps to bring
down the ethnic boundaries by reaching out to his erstwhile political enemies
and comrades who later turned into regime apologists.
His made deliberate
efforts to unite the country: merge his party with Kanu; join Kibaki in Narc;
form the grand coalition government; shake hands with Uhuru Kenyatta; and form
the broad- based government with President William Ruto.
He saw the tribes as
custodians of the nation’s cultural heritage but not as bastions of ethnic
chauvinism. His party ODM was the best example of the fruits of his life
struggles in membership and leadership constellation.
The surge of ethnic bigotry
and jingoism being propagated during Raila’s funeral is a dent in the country’s
national consciousness.
Leaders must be called out to halt the unnecessary
drift toward inflammatory political rhetoric. Nyeri Governor Mutahi Kahiga set
the ball rolling by insinuating that the death of Raila was good riddance. He
suggested formation of the broad-based government was the former Prime
Minister’s strategy of alienating the Kikuyus from government.
His contention
that the new government was equal to the inclusion of Luos and the exclusion of
Kikuyus from government is baseless but fodder for tribal animosity.
He knows
that this is not true and the facts point otherwise. Yet he brazenly makes such
declarations to appeal to raw base emotions of his tribe for political expediency.
The hatred that public pronouncements foment will certainly lead to political
tensions that easily erupt into violence.
Kahiga’s counterpart in
Homa Bay, Governor Gladys Wanga, response continues in the same spirit. She
brings in former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua into the fray and declares
that he is not welcome.
She treats Kahiga as speaking on the behest and behalf
of Gachagua by virtue of ethnic affiliation. By default, Wanga is entrapping
the Kikuyus around Gachagua by gaslighting them. The net effects of these
activities are a siege mentality and ethnic jingoism.
The country has been on
this road before and the consequences are well known and recorded for
historical reference.
The worst scenario being the 2007 post-election violence,
but it can still be worse than that. Kenyans must reject this invitation to glorify tribal politics and refuse to
follow such leaders into the political abyss.
