The Discourse of Tribalism in Kenya

Recently I came across an argument supporting tribalism in Kenya:

It is important that a community of interest put their votes in one basket based either on a political, economic, or ideological philosophy along the lines of the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. The people of Mt Kenya region definitely have issues that are unique to their circumstances just like the people of other regions have certain situations specific to them. It is easier articulating these issues under one roof rather than the disparate voices currently dominating our political discourse. Why do we turn a blind eye when some regions organize under one banner yet are quick to jump at the mention of Kikuyus uniting?

This is the convoluted but seductive logic of tribalism; a discourse that resembles the mandazi [fried bread]—swollen and puffed-up on the outside and barren and empty on the inside. Suddenly, geographical proximity creates a community of political or ideological interest. In a flash, linguistic and cultural similarity creates political solidarity. And this, somehow, is akin to how the Democrats and Republicans engage in U.S. politics!

And it’s not only the discourse by itself that is flimsy; its outcomes are similarly frayed. As the deaths, injuries, displacements, and losses occasioned by the 2007 post-election violence show, tribalism is truly diabolical. As a servant, it exhibits the sedate friendliness of a cat but as a master it unleashes the brutal terror of a tiger. Even so, we continue to court it and nurture it.

As our servant, we argue that through it, we will get better jobs, better schools, better hospitals, and better roads. We contend that charity must begin at home where “our” people consume the morning milk and the rest can wait until the cows are milked in the evening. We state that only through it can we thrive more the “others”; because of it are “we” superior and above “them” but without it “we” will sink and drown.

As our master, tribalism makes it okay to demean and denigrate “others” for being short or brown-toothed or fish-eaters or uncircumcised and so on ad nauseum. We turn “others” into cockroaches, ogres, monsters or madoa-doa. We find them a truly dehumanized mask to wear so that we will not be pricked by our consciences when we raise our machetes to chop off their heads or shoot our arrows to pierce their bodies.

As our master, moreover, tribalism makes it okay for some to steal because they are “our” thieves, some to murder because they are “our” defenders, some to maim because they are “our” warriors and others to loot and pillage because they are “ours.” They are us and we are them and if they are under attack we must, as one, come to their aid.

Spot the lie? Are they really us? Are we really them? If they are really us and we are really them, why do we, for example, have internally displaced people in Kenya while some have registered in their names tracts of land as big as districts? If they are really us and we are really them, how come some live in the shanties and slums of Mathare or Kibera from where they can be quickly enrolled into risky political expeditions while others live in the leafy and palatial environs of Karen and Runda away from all the raucous din and pungent pollution of the rest?

Stop! These kinds of questions, we are warned, will cause disharmony and disunity among “us.” They will divide us and keep us apart. And, by the way, are we blind or are the “others” not doing it? Are the “others” not only talking among themselves but also boarding their own tribal matatus [Kenyan shared taxis]?

The logic behind this argument, I am afraid, resembles the incestuous homogeneity of a plate of ugali [African cornmeal porridge]. It states: because they are eating ugali, then we too must eat ugali. No diversity or difference is required or expected; it is just that whoever creates and consumes the greater ugali carries the day. Before long, obviously, the country suffers political constipation. Still we continue with our consumption of ugali and ultimately, there is an outbreak of political kwashiorkor, or distended belly syndrome.

The discourse of tribalism is a non-nutritious political dish that Kenya cannot stomach any longer. Whether displayed and paraded as the ugali argument or as the mandazi one, it is a discourse that is health-hazardous.

It is imperative, hence, to create a new discourse, one that like Article 10 of the new constitution understands and embraces inclusiveness as a national value and principle. Politics in a modern democracy has to be more than a game of numbers; it will need rise above the cynical manipulation of identity to create an insular political edifice that resists all attempts to create accountability and responsiveness. Indeed, it will have to be the artful political assemblage of different ethnicities for the common purpose of enhancing the national good while respecting and celebrating difference.

It may be filling to consume discourses that resemble ugali or mandazi. However, we all know where this will pitifully and abysmally end. Strong nationhood will only be achieved through celebrating our diversity and uniting despite any difference; grounded upon sound governance and accountability principles. This is the pilau [pilaf] discourse: both politically satisfying and nutritious.