Kenya’s greatest
contradiction is not that we fail to recognise tribalism — it is that we recognise it perfectly
well, but often only when it benefits or disadvantages
us.
When jobs, contracts, scholarships, promotions, or public appointments
appear to favour another community, we denounce tribalism with remarkable
clarity and disgust.
Yet when the beneficiaries happen to come from our own
community, many of you suddenly discover alternative explanations: they were
simply the most qualified, the pattern of appointments is exaggerated, or “it
has always been done this way”, and so on.
The principle
quietly gives way to convenience. That selective outrage is what has allowed
tribalism to survive as long as it has and rears its ugly head even more during
every election cycle and without fail.
The only exception
was in 2002 when the whole country rallied behind Mwai Kibaki and
overwhelmingly elected him as president that year. However, as I have
maintained ever since, what is often, if not always missed, is had Raila said
in 2002 “(Simeon Nyachae) Tosha,” Uhuru
Kenyatta would have become president in 2002, not 2013.
Today’s political
landscape bears uncomfortable similarities to the 1992-1997 era far more than
it resembles the unity moment of 2002.
Opposition figures today are refusing to
acknowledge the obvious frontrunner best placed to beat the incumbent, there’s
deep distrust among camps, the
incumbent is quietly positioned to profit from every disagreement and the
public is overwhelmingly hungry for change while leaders remain divided on how
to deliver it.
Kenya today may
have a more politically aware citizenry, a more assertive youth bloc and a
clearer understanding that fragmentation guarantees defeat, but the opposition
is flirting with the same mistakes that kept Daniel Moi in power for 24 years.
And on top of this
is a new, dangerous narrative being sold to voters — the bogus notion that only
a candidate from one of the so‑called ‘Big Five’ communities is suitable to be the
united opposition candidate. This thinking is not just outdated; it is
intellectually bankrupt.
It reduces leadership to arithmetic rather than
competence, integrity, or national appeal. It ignores the fact that Kenya’s
most decisive political shifts — from 2002 to the Gen Z awakening of 2024 —
were driven by tribalism. Voters must reject this lazy logic.
A united
opposition requires a candidate who can command national confidence, mobilise
the youth and articulate a credible alternative — not one chosen simply because
their community has large numbers.
Across the world —
and very much in Africa — there are countless examples of leaders from smaller
ethnic communities who rose to national office and delivered exemplary,
unifying leadership.
For example, Seretse Khama (1921-1980) of Botswana, from
the relatively small Bamangwato community, built one of Africa’s most stable
democracies.
In Tanzania, Ali Hassan Mwinyi (1925-2024), from the small Kwere
community, presided over a critical liberalisation period that set the stage
for long‑term stability.
These cases
demonstrate a simple truth: excellence in leadership has never been the monopoly
of large ethnic blocs and demographic size has no correlation with integrity,
competence, or national appeal.
Once again, Kenya’s voters must reject this
lazy, self‑serving argument that only candidates from large communities are
viable opposition flagbearers. That logic is a political con like no other.
Again, what matters
is the leader’s credibility, coalition‑building capacity and ability to inspire
national trust—not the census numbers of their community.
For the avoidance
of confusion, we must distinguish between tribalism or negative ethnicity and
cultural pride, which is the celebration of one’s language, traditions, history
and heritage while respecting the equal dignity of every other community.
A mature democracy
should celebrate its cultural diversity while refusing to reward ethnic
favouritism in any form.
In other words,
tribalism and negative ethnicity must be rejected as Kenya approaches 2027. To
be clear, negative ethnicity is the practice of distributing public
appointments, business opportunities, or access to state resources on the basis
of identity rather than merit.
Likewise, the promotion of prejudice,
stereotypes, suspicion and hostility toward other communities must also be
repudiated.
Weaponising ethnic identity for political gain has damaged this
country for decades, and voters should refuse to be dragged back into that old
script.
Kenya’s future
depends on choosing leadership on the strength of ideas, integrity and national
credibility, not on the outdated arithmetic of what’s his or her tribe.
