A fortnight or so ago, there was a difference of opinion between Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja.
What they publicly disagreed about, was the question of what was to be done about the Nairobi street vendors – generically referred to as 'hawkers' – who make most of their money through sales conducted when the city’s commuters are rushing home.
Every effort made to get such hawkers off the streets by building them 'modern markets' in one location or another has failed.
Kenyan shoppers may go out of their way to shop at a supermarket that is famous for offering discounted products.
But for the kind of stuff that is offered by the street vendors, they will not go out of their way at all to make any purchases, however steep the discounts offered.
It is the hawkers who must come to them – in many cases, literally block their path with an assortment of cheap consumer goods, or fruits and vegetables.
And in case any of us did not know, the Deputy President made it clear that the great majority of such hawkers in Nairobi hail from Central Kenya, and as such, are “his people”. So, he is obliged to defend them when their informal micro-enterprises are threatened.
Even at the risk of colliding head-on with his political associate, the governor of Nairobi.
This little incident illustrates why even as the intense and destructive tribal rivalries that animated Kenyan politics for so many years have largely dissipated, our voting patterns will continue to be defined by tribal interests for the foreseeable future.
Why is this?
Well, it is because we continue to be a nation of small-scale farmers; and each of the various cash crops that can earn such a farmer a decent income for his efforts, are to a large extent grown in very specific regions of the country which coincide with the 'ancestral lands' of specific tribal communities.
In other words, insofar as certain viable economic activities continue to be associated with certain tribes, the voting patterns cannot but be tribal.
For example, anything that promotes fishing or fish products generally tends to benefit the people of 'Luo Nyanza' and those at the Coast. This remains so despite the many serious attempts to encourage fish farming all over the country.
Then, as and when coffee fetches high prices in the global markets, the primary beneficiaries are bound to be the coffee growers of Central Kenya.
Turn to maize, and you will find a solid block of growers in the North Rift, who even now are nervously waiting to see what impact the promised cheap fertiliser and cheap grain will have on the local markets where they sell their harvest – Kenya not being a maize exporting country.
Mind you this kind of pattern is not just limited to the regional agricultural interests. It sometimes applies to national institutions as well, when these are located in a specific region.
For example, I do not think any specific regional interests can claim the Central Bank Governor’s position as being necessarily bound to be offered to 'one of their own'. Any competent Kenyan can hold this position with a minimum of fuss.
But when it comes to the Kenya Ports Authority – the premier employer in all of the coastal region – then you will find that the coastal communities are easily offended if the top position in 'their' port goes to a non-coastal.
Never mind that with ever-increasing mechanisation and automation, the port which at its peak staffing about 20 years ago employed more than 12,000 people, now barely has half that number of employees.
In so many ways then, Kenyan regional economic interests serve to unite the voters of these regions. And any ambitious politician knows that 'all politics is local'.
It is one of the many sound reasons for a return to the Westminster parliamentary system.
That system allows for the political affiliation of various regional economic interests to push forward their economic agenda, without the toxic presidential elections we have all learnt to dread.
