Challenging the Kikuyu oligarchy

In Kenya, politics has hinged on the pre-eminence of ethnic identity since 1964; and today ethnicity has been elevated beyond all other identities and interests. We reject this notion totally and completely. None of us chooses the identity that we are born into, but as we grow older we take on various identities that make us who we are and determine our interests. We are of the Kikuyu ethnic community – and take pride in our language, culture and norms – but we are far more than that. We see ourselves as Kenyan first and foremost, with a national outlook and perspective.

But we have suffered for this view, being called ‘traitors’ and ‘disloyal’; even receiving credible death threats.

Since 2004, it has become apparent that what NARC (National Rainbow Coalition) stood for, nationally, has been seriously eroded. Mwai Kibaki declared in his campaigns he was for zero tolerance on corruption; yet he seems to be condoning it. He had stated that he would operate a meritocracy, with due regard to the diversity of Kenya; yet his appointments to the most sensitive and crucial offices are tilted to one ethnic group and its relatives. He had asserted that he would change Kenya from the dark days of the Moi years, raising our hopes and aspirations; but he was soon recruiting Moi’s people – especially if they were his kith and kin – to crucial positions in public service. Patronage and fear has been used. Simply put, his 2002 rhetoric was exactly that – rhetoric – and now we are continuing ‘business as usual’.

For us, it does not matter what ethnic group the leadership comes from: We expect and demand a government which has the interests of the nation at heart, which is fair, honest, effective, accountable and transparent. And we expect the government to follow the law, especially with regard to human life, and fundamental rights. We challenged Daniel arap Moi on these issues. We can challenge anyone interested in being president of Kenya, including Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, George Saitoti, Musalia Mudavadi, Martha Karua and Uhuru Kenyatta. Why can’t we challenge Mwai Kibaki?

We know what we have fallen foul of is something larger than ‘political opposition’ or ‘dissent’. It is a bigger problem that the Kikuyu community and its allies must urgently confront.

It is the issue of ‘speaking with one voice’. This is the question of blind ethnic loyalty to decisions made by some wealthy old men (there are no women here) who determine the leadership of the community and convince us, mostly through trickery and fear, to follow. There is nothing democratic or progressive about it. They do it on their own, and without our input, behind closed doors and in clubs where the majority of the Kikuyu can never get access. These are the Kikuyu oligarchy, and they are dangerous because they work on the assumption that the rest of the community, and indeed the country, are fools and can be taken for a ride. It is a fatal road we drive along. Their decisions, cloaked in forged assumptions of ethnic nationalism and pride, are never about the good of the nation or even the good of the community. It is all about themselves, and extending their hold and power over Kenya for their own selfish benefit.

With the elevation of ethnic politics in Kenya, this behind-closed-doors community trickery is dangerous and unacceptable within any community. But we are addressing ourselves to the Kikuyu community at this point, because the power, assumptions and suspicions of the Kikuyu political elite is at a critical crossroads and could destroy this country.

‘Speaking with one voice’ suggests that because of our ethnic heritage we have the same values, interests and ideals, and we should therefore accept the things that these old men, sipping single malt whisky after a game of golf, decide for us. But nothing could be further from reality. In fact, critically assessed, this class – conservative, corrupt and chauvinistic – has nothing but disdain for the majority of Kikuyu, who are poor and struggling, and pay for their arrogance and mistakes. If they did care for poor ordinary Kikuyu, then some of the things that have happened over the last few years would never have been condoned.

Consider the following. It is during the time of a Kikuyu president, with a Kikuyu minister for internal security, a Kikuyu intelligence chief, a Kikuyu head of CID (Criminal investigation department), a Kikuyu PS in internal security, when there are extra-judicial killings of poor young Kikuyu men, claimed to be Mungiki. More than 600 cases are documented of these deaths in 2006, and hundreds more disappeared. For the sake of argument, lets assume they were Mungiki, despite the fact human rights defenders are sure that more than two-thirds of them were not. There are laws that govern these matters. Why were they not used? Killing poor young Kikuyu men, illegally, does not solve the problem of Mungiki. It shows utter contempt for the poor. It shows us that although we are expected to ‘speak with one voice’; the Kikuyu community is certainly not one. There is the powerful, old class and there is the ‘other’ Kikuyu.

We doubt that there has ever been such a large-scale state-sponsored killing of Kikuyu since the emergency period or during the clashes in the 1990s; yet none in the oligarchy has uttered a word in protest or shock. The silence – from the president down – speaks volumes about the view of the poor.

And consider this. When the post-election violence started in January 2008, these same Kikuyu men were in control of the security apparatus. They decided it was better to deploy security to Uhuru Park, to prevent Raila Odinga and his supporters from gathering there, than to stop the killings of Kikuyus – mostly peasants – in Eldoret. We know for a fact that emissaries were sent to State House and Harambee House to plead that the Kenyan airforce be deployed to fly jets over the affected areas to ward off the invaders and others who had targeted the Kikuyu in Eldoret. But these suggestions were rebuffed. The effect is that peaceful protests at Uhuru Park were prevented, and security forces concentrated on killing opposition demonstrators in Western Kenya, at the cost of hundreds of lives in Rift Valley, and the destruction of property worth millions belonging to the poor.

And last but not least: Listen carefully to the old guard, and some of their new recruits. They put the entire community at risk with reckless and derogatory comments that undermine national unity. Comments like ‘the stock exchange is not a fish market’ are arrogant and demeaning to everyone, and exacerbate perceptions that the Kikuyu leadership feels superior, and needs to be taught a lesson. Unfortunately, because this leadership is inaccessible and far removed, these lessons are ‘taught’ – tragically – to the ordinary Kikuyu who are more accessible, rather than the leadership.

We are all diminished by stereotypes and chauvinism. We would dismiss the attitudes of old men with humour, but for the fact their destructive views translate directly into the significant state power they wield.

Expecting us to speak with one voice does not protect our interests. It protects theirs. Statements that assert – as Minister John Michuki recently did – that the state has no obligation to explain why it conducted an illegal act in raiding the Standard Group, show a dangerous attitude. His mindset is essentially that if something is done by the state, it cannot be wrong. So if the state kills, say 2000 people in the name of ‘state security’, we should not ask questions? It is instructive that John Michuki was in charge when a number of killings by the state have occurred – young Kikuyu men pre-election; in Western Kenya during the post-election crisis; in ‘security operations’ in Mt. Elgon and Mandera – and there has been no accountability.

This mentality is not new in Kenya. It was the prevalent attitude of the colonial government, the Kenyatta government, and Moi’s government. Now we have that old political class, dangerously entrenched by a sense of ethnic ‘entitlement’. Kikuyus should realise that this does not bode well for the nation, let alone their community.

But this attitude is not just the prerogative of powerful politicians; it has also affected the middle class and ordinary Kikuyu. There is a dangerous sense of victimhood and entitlement.

The feeling of victimhood is now deeply entrenched in the community – and understandably so, given the colonial emergency, the clashes in the 1990s, and the post election violence in Eldoret – but it is coupled with a sense of entitlement and superiority over other communities, expressed in attitudes that the Kikuyu are somehow superior; that they work harder than other Kenyans; that they have more financial and entrepreneurial sense than others; and are better able to govern than others. It is also expressed in derogatory assumptions and stereotypes about other communities.

This is foolhardy, a recipe for disaster and chaos: Once we start ranking people and communities, we will be ranked ourselves. It has made our position precarious, and if we don’t start asking questions of this ‘leadership’, we will only have ourselves to blame if the current tensions explode.

This is the time to re-think and reject the old class, whose interest is now focused on ensuring that their sons (never daughters) take over from them as the ‘leaders’ of the community. These ‘sons’ have no skills or vision to lead, just a sense of entitlement in the ‘family’ business. This is not just contemptuous of the ordinary Kikuyu, but also of the entire nation. It assumes that they can continue to maintain this charade, cloaking their personal interests as community interests.

We should learn from the experiences in other countries. Look at the demons and forces unleashed in the Balkans by Serbian leaders who continuously highlighted what they described as the Serbs’ historical grievances, as well as their ‘specialness’, playing on that for their own political ends. But even closer to home is Rwanda. Can any of us, here in Kenya, forget what happened there? By whipping up anger about historical injustices against the Hutu majority, and emphasising the ‘right’ of Hutus to rule, Hutu leaders facilitated the genocide. And always, it is the ordinary Hutus who paid the price for not questioning received ‘wisdom’.

This is a moment of truth for the Kikuyus as a whole. We recognise that much of what we have said may not be be palatable to many. It will, in fact, be painful. But these are truths we cannot run away from. Let us have a robust debate, but one that is based on what each of us has analysed for him or herself.

If there was ever a time for change and challenge, it is now.

* Maina Kiai is chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR). Paul Muite is a lawyer and senior counsel.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.