In his collection of speeches titled The Challenge of Nationhood,
Tom Mboya identifies national unity as key issue affecting the African state.
The book shows that leadership problems, corruption, nepotism and other
political as well as social vices plaguing the African body politic today are
traceable to the big man syndrome of the founding fathers. Many African
countries found themselves unable to nurture nationalism and patriotism.
This was on account of the various ethnic communities brought together by colonialism. The ethnic communities were distinct and almost independent of each other. They had separate and different leadership structures.
They had different languages, traditions and cultural practices. Many times, they engaged in military expeditions against each other. The colonialists also encouraged the inter-ethnic hostilities through their divide-and-rule policy.
This made it easy for them to rule the local inhabitants. The tribes held each
other in mutual suspicion and distrust.
At Independence, the departing colonialists left many African states in turmoil. The founding fathers did not have clear strategies on how to deal with the simmering ethnic tensions.
Instead, they entrenched ethnicity by mobilising political support in the first elections on tribal inclinations. Many pioneer parties were established along ethnic lines. Political alliances were formed by separate tribal chiefs.
Except for Mwalimu Julius Nyere of Tanganyika, almost all independence leaders relied on their respective tribes for their political support base. Nyerere mounted serious civic and political education, which resulted in a more united nation than under colonialism.
In Ghana, Kwameh Nkruma soon found himself removed from power. Patrice Lumumba of Congo was assassinated by Moise Tshombe-led Katanga region separatists.
Milton Obote as
prime minister of Uganda used Idi Amin of the Kakwa tribe to overthrow Kabaka
Mutesa as head of state. The resistance movement led by Jonas Savimbi of UNITA
against the MPLA government of Agostinoh Neto, and later Edwardo dos Santos,
was along ethnic lines.
Kenya found itself in the same situation in 1963. Jaramogi Oginga Odinga led his ethnic Luo community into an alliance with Jomo Kenyatta’s Kikuyu. At the time, these were considered the most populous tribes.
They won the first elections under Kanu and formed the government. Daniel Moi cobbled together a loose alliance of smaller tribes together with Ronald Ngala of the Coast.
The Moi-Ngala alliance got the support of the minority white settler community but could not win the elections. However, in the run-up to the elections, voters were mobilised on ethnic lines.
The language was toxic and created animosity. No
efforts were made to inculcate a sense of nationalism amongst the citizens.
People cast their votes based on their own tribal chief’s leaning. Therefore,
the first Cabinet of Kenyatta had no one from the Kalenjin or Coast
communities. It was basically a government of Kikuyus and Luos.
Thereafter, the government inadvertently implemented policies that created further exclusion. The Sessional Paper Number 1 of 1965 provided for heavy investment in areas considered high potential.
These areas were mostly the previous white highlands. It had the effect of concentrating budgetary allocations to Kikuyu lands. The government provided funds to many Kikuyus to purchase the former white settler farms.
At the same time, instead of promoting
national values, the government engineered the collapse of the opposition party
Kadu. Daniel Moi and his team just crossed the floor of the house. They would
later be incorporated into the Cabinet. However, while the top political
leadership appeared united, the ordinary citizens felt marginalised.
The fallout between Oginga Odinga and Jomo Kenyatta in 1966 best exemplifies the scenario. The majority, if not all ordinary Luo citizens, trooped to the new party, KPU. Deputy party leader Bildad Kaggia could not win reelection in his native Murang’a district.His Kikuyu tribesmen considered him a traitor. He had joined a Luo against his tribesman Kenyatta. Matters became worse with the 1969 oath-taking in Gatundu.
Other ethnic communities were never expected to produce a president. When Moi was appointed vice president, he was meant to ease the settlement of dispossessed Kikuyus in the Rift Valley. The Kalenjins felt they were being alienated and dominated in their ancestral lands. This would explain the eruption of violence and ethnic cleansing during the multi-party elections. The worst was to happen in 2008 after the disputed presidential elections.
The political class have taken the question of nationalism and patriotism seriously. Their conduct and pronouncements have helped entrench ethnic divisions. Vote mobilisation continues to follow the old tribal lines. Political alliances are on ethnic collaboration instead of political party ideologies. Successive governments have brazenly marginalised those areas considered to be opposition.
The citizens from opposition party areas have felt the brunt of neglect. They thus have turned hostile to the government in particular and country in general. There is lack of commitment to national values. The levels of patriotism are comparatively very low.
Nepotism and
corruption dominate the decision-making process in government management. The
practice of politics by the leaders has made nonsense of the novel provisions
of the 2010 Constitution.
The Uhuruto coalition governments were exclusionist and sought to entrench the domination of the two communities of Kikuyu and Kalenjin. The second republic under the new Constitution continued along the same lines with William Ruto joining forces with Rigathi Gachagua. It was a tribal alliance. Gachagua was audacious to declare the government was a shareholding company of the two tribes.
Appointments to public offices and the Cabinet followed this script. Budgetary allocations for development were heavily skewed in favour of the two regions. There has been a great feeling of dejection among those communities considered to be opposition.
But the impeachment of Gachagua as
deputy president has once again exposed the fault lines of Kenya’s nationhood.
The matter has been reduced to betrayal of the Kikuyu community by the
Kalenjin. The merits and demerits of the charges have been sacrificed at the
altar of tribal intransigence.
Serious attempts have been made by key leaders of the Kikuyu community to portray the impeachment process as persecution of the tribe. Propaganda has been liberally used to incite ethnic flames. Demonstrations against the process were organised to demonise the government.
It is in this environment that President Ruto finds himself as the country’s top leader. Deliberate efforts must be put in place to ensure the process is not interpreted as an anti-Kikuyu movement. It is important that Gachagua is made to bear responsibility for his actions as an individual.
Once the impeachment process is concluded, the President should embark on strategic activities to heal the nation. Civic activities should be initiated to infuse the sense of nationhood and patriotism among the citizens.
Kenyans should be allowed to celebrate their respective cultural heritages but at the same time place a high premium of the sovereignty of the nation. While previous political leaders have failed in this front, President Ruto has the grand opportunity to address the matter.
This
would cement his place in the country’s history. The national leaders should
also be measured in their pronouncements. They should not appear to balkanize
the Kikuyu community on account of Gachagua’s misdeeds.
The writer is a Political and Policy Analyst