Beyond the Politics of Polarization in Kenya

Through an unexpected confluence of events Kenyans currently find themselves faced with a political conundrum. The spectacular abdication of responsibility by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK), Mr. Samuel Kiviutu, has perpetuated a general sense of confusion, anxiety, anger, hatred and ultimately violence. The fact that Mr. Kivuitu has cast doubt on the final tally of the Kenyan presidential vote, held on 27 December 2007, means that the country is no longer faced with a situation that can be resolved through adjudication and arbitration by national judicial institutions, since they tend to favor the status quo. The situation now demands a process of political dialogue that should be conducted through negotiations, including at the very minimum, the Party of National Unity (PNU), the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), and the Orange Democratic Movement – Kenya (ODM-Kenya). These negotiations should be assisted by Pan-African and international mediation in the form of African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN). The recent intervention by Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a welcome step in the right direction. On 4 January 2008, Tutu indicated that the incumbent and self-declared President Mwai Kibaki of the PNU would be prepared to explore the establishment of a coalition government.

One element that manifests the desire of the majority of Kenyans to transcend the current impasse is the widespread call for peace by Kenyan citizens in civil society, private enterprise, ecumenical groups, and professional associations. Ultimately, the responsibility for the current situation in the country falls squarely on the shoulders of Kenyans, who are after all engaged in violent confrontation with their compatriots. The responsibility for resolving the current situation also rests squarely on the shoulders of Kenyans.
The tragedy of Kenya’s situation is that the seeds of dissension that are manifesting today as the sprouting of violence were sown in the very fabric of the post-colonial nation-state, when the country inherited its current constitution, system of government and its electoral system from the former British colonial administration. Successive Kenyan leaders did not appreciate the necessity or did not see the long-term political expediency of changing and transforming the way in which political power is centralized in what is in effect an imperial and exceptionally powerful presidency. As a consequence the stakes in terms of controlling the presidency are inappropriately high. Since independence in 1963, three of Kenya’s post-colonial presidents have come from only two ethnic groups, the Kikuyu and Kalenjin. It therefore goes without saying that the remaining 40 ethnic groups, out of Kenya’s total of 42 ethnic groups, have a just basis upon which to feel indignant and impatient to take over the mantel of presidential power.

The fundamental problem with the system of government and elections in Kenya is that even though a minority of ethnic groups succeed in capturing state power it will not alter the essential sense of exclusion that other groups will undoubtedly feel. In his book The Wretched of the Earth published in 1961 the Pan-Africanist thinker Frantz Fanon warned the post-colonial African states that were created held within their design all the seeds of a divisive and ultimately violent future for African people and societies. Fanon was observing the process of decolonization as it unfolded in the early 1960’s and noted that the political parties which had taken over control from the colonial powers were in fact strongholds for ethnic group power. Fanon observed that the typical political party ‘which of its own will proclaim that it is a national party, and which claims to speak in the name of the totality of the people, secretly, sometimes even openly organizes an authentic ethnical dictatorship’. He argued that after such political parties captured state power they would seek to maintain and extend their power and dominion over other groups within states, or enter into alliances with a few select ethnic groups to consolidate their position. Fanon goes on to note that ‘this tribalizing of the central authority, it is certain, encourages regionalist ideas and separatism. All the decentralizing tendencies spring up again and triumph, and the nation falls to pieces, broken in bits’.

Fanon was prophetic in his analysis written in 1961. What he describes, and more, has come to pass in Africa notably in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Côte d’ivoire, the Sudan and is today threatening Kenya. The fact that Fanon wrote this 46 years ago even before Kenya was independent is a testimony to his prophetic understanding of the challenge of governing the post-colonial African nation-state without altering how power is configured. Historically the process of decolonization left behind an arbitrary logic of statehood which has sown the seeds of the current instability and ‘ungovernability’ of several African states. Most of the existing boundaries were drawn by colonial administrations without regard for, or knowledge of, pre-existing indigenous or cultural social political groupings. This arbitrary division of community created, and continues to sustain, the potential for tension and it also contributes toward the cycles of violence which plague a number of African countries.

Today, Kenyans are experiencing a country that Fanon predicted and described 46 years ago. The degree of ethnic animosity has been fuelled by years of misrule, economic mismanagement, and corruption. Effectively, the politics of polarization in Kenya today have become manifest through the tragic confluence of this legacy, the deep seated sense of being aggrieved politically among some ethnic groups, a restless and anxious populace, and the failure by the ECK to fulfill its effectively mandate. In terms of the way forward it is self-evident that political negotiations between Kenyan political parties is a vital first step. These parties need to commit themselves to preventing the further escalation of violent conflict and outlining a roadmap for restoring stability to the country. This process would be more effective through international mediation because domestic actors will not be seen as impartial. Some have suggested that an independent audit of the presidential votes may resolve the situation however this will only partially address the core issue of how to govern the country in a way that does not perpetuate the dominance of one ethnic group or groups. In the immediate short-term a governing framework that promotes power-sharing would begin to address this core issue. Even if elections were held again in the next few months the fundamental problem of how the country is governed will not be addressed. In the medium- to long-term a fundamental restructuring of the configuration and distribution of state power in Kenya is absolutely vital for its continued survival. The imperial presidency has to be gradually dismantled and replaced with a system of devolved power to the regions to eliminate the vicious cycle of competitive ‘winner-takes-all’ politics which is threatening to tear Kenya apart.

*Dr. Tim Murithi, is a Senior Analyst with the Institute for Security Studies and author of The African Union: Pan-Africanism, Peacebuilding and Development published by Ashgate.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org