From: People For Peace
Colleagues Home & Abroad Regional News

BY PAM INOTI
NAIROBI-KENYA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011

With the next general election drawing near, it becomes important to reflect on the issue of political parties and their quest as vessels of democracy consolidation in Kenya. Arguably, political parties in Kenya lack substance, but are just narrow ethnic based. Past behavior is the best indication of present and perhaps future action. The 2007 general election turned out to be a show of might largely between the Western/Rift Valley based ethnic groups and their Central/ Eastern counterparts.

;

In any given country, political parties act as the crucial linkage between the people, their leaders, civil society and the private sector, underscoring their necessity as institutions of policy formulation, political, economic and social governance. Political parties regulate the effective removal of leaders who do not fulfill the wishes of their electorate, making them vessels of accountability.

However, the noble role of political parties as envisaged by the fathers of democracy has been circumvented by party kingpins in the Kenyan context. Though it bears similarity with the rest of Africa, I would perhaps not be wrong to posit that the case of Kenya and the surrounding ethnic political party inclinations is far off. Ethnicity forms the base for mobilizing social solidarity and which more often result in political activity.

In 2002, the NARC overwhelmingly trounced KANU because its partners were drawn from various ethnic groups to fight a common enemy. The ethnic groups, while voting, were each convinced that one of their own was at the helm, close to the national cake. During the 2005 referendum vote, the voting pattern took an ethnic twist depending on who was at the Yes or No camp.

On such an important matter as the constitution debate, the ethnic tilt was evident in the referendum results by each of the 8 provinces in Kenya. The Yes and No faction leaders appealed to ethnic sentiments pitting GEMA communities against majority of the other ethnic groups. Arguably, instead of voting for whether the draft was ideal or not, Kenyans ended up voting for the side that their political leaders and ethnic group was in for.

Come the 2007 elections, ethnicity took a more drastic turn when ethnicity became so pronounced resulting to the devastating post-election violence. The election assumed the self-other dichotomy that translated to ‘us’ versus ‘them.’ The people were convinced that unless one of their own won the election, like a honey comb, that is the only way benefits that would trickle down to their regions.

;

Ethnicity and kinship ties are the first thing we can think of when asked who we are voting for. Tribe is the first thing Kenyans need to know about one another which then forms the foundations of all subsequent interactions. Evidently, political party leaders have transformed parties into vessels of upward political and social mobility to secure power and access a piece of the national pie. The notion of party leaders securing leadership positions to enrich themselves may be one of the reasons why leadership positions party is highly contested in Kenya.

Picture this: In a random interview conducted by a political scientist 2005, party leaders told of how their leadership positions had “improved their social standing both at the constituency level and nationally.” A whooping 85 percent of those polled mentioned that party leadership had helped them “acquire wealth, prestige, and a measure of power that enabled them to influence government decisions vital for their political survival.”

A big attribute to this factor is that political parties in Kenya is a lack of internal party democracy with no party rules-of-conduct and regulations that govern their existence and operations. But who needs a political party manifesto when a party’s main purpose is to promote its ethnic interest? Instead, parties are more concerned with membership recruitment around elections to support their office bid. They lack any ideology cum policy-driven, but instead focus on playing the ethnic card to secure an election win. Leaders shamelessly stand at public bazaars and appeal ethnic kinsmen for votes with a plethora of promises on what his/her win will mean for the ‘people.’

Not a bad thing per se, but the impact that those kind of terms sets to further alienate other ethnic groups who wonder what their votes will translate into receiving a part of the national cake. Without the said terms, it could be possible that political parties can draw a national outlook that befits a multi-ethnic society like Kenya.

Since the introduction of multiparty politics, Kenya lacked any clear regulations that would govern the formation and existence of political parties. It was not until the Political Parties Act created in 2007 and entered into force in 2008 that saw some semblance of political party order, albeit in their registration.

At inception, FORD is the only political party that can be said to have a nationwide appeal before leadership wrangles divided the party into two factions. Onwards, any political party formed recruits its membership from the party leader’s backyard. Furthering ethnic interests is an invention that began with the Kenyatta government (1963-1978) where the notion of enriching one’s kinsmen soared by the famous Kenyatta quote “my people have milk in the morning while your tribes have milk in the afternoon,” meaning a fruit does not fall far from the tree.

The trend was exacerbated with Moi’s regime (1978-2002) where the Kalenjinis took over key positions in cabinet, civil service and parastatals. In fact, with the introduction of multiparty politics, I remember the campaign promise by pro-KANU contester in my constituency during 1992 and 1997 election to vote in KANU so that the constituency could not be neglected development wise. Talk of dangling a carrot politics to reward the allies and punish the foes.

Likewise, I also attribute ethnic wariness amongst our generation to the education quota introduced by the Moi government in 1985 obliging schools to take 85% of their pupils from the local area, such that students intermingled with other ethnic groups in institutions of higher learning. By then, ethnic bias and stereotypes had already set in, making it easier for politicians to center on that to advance personal interests disguised as ethnic interests.

I do not exonerate the Kibaki government (2002-present) from playing ethnic politics. Whereas his initial NARC government was expected to usher new changes of strengthening ethnic relations, it has instead alienated people further by playing the same fiddle as the previous regimes he once attacked.

As a people, we have also formed the detrimental habit of following ethnic party leader’s position of the divide they are in. We are not concerned on what ideals or policies a party stands for, but instead follow the party leader blindly further tearing our country apart. I see it as a form of ‘personality cultism’ that will continue to divide our country unless we put a stop to it. Show me any single party that promotes national cohesion? I guarantee you there is none at the moment, yet elections are looming around the corner.

The politicians’ talk of G4, G7, Mt. Kenya Alliances and so many others are a myriad of what is yet to be unveiled as 2012 elections draws near. Let us shun ethnic political rivalry. The wounds of 2007/2008 are still raw. Those who do not learn from history are myopic and are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Let one and all arise… May we dwell in unity… is our solemn prayer as a nation. The buck stops with you and me.

Pam Inoti is a student at USIU and an intern with People for Peace in Africa

People for Peace in Africa (PPA)
P O Box 14877
Nairobi
00800, Westlands
Kenya

Tel +254-7350-14559/+254-722-623-578
E-mail- ppa@africaonline.co.ke
omolo.ouko@gmail.com
Website: www.peopleforpeaceafrica.org