Many have criticized Dr Ndii’s
article in the Saturday Nation of 26th March 2016, titled: “Kenya is a cruel
marriage, it’s time we talk divorce” (http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Kenya-is-a-cruel-marriage--it-s-time-we-talk-divorce/-/440808/3134132/-/yrd7n0/-/index.html).
However, the article was spot on because it provided a thorough analysis of how
and why the Kenyan nation project failed. The sentiments shared by Dr. Ndii
have been captured by many other politico-economists. Kenya is not a nation
because our people are not one. Kenya is merely a state with various nations.
The
founding fathers did not do well in terms of subsuming the different nations
into one nation. They did not create one big Kenyan vision and dream that all
individuals in the different nations would buy into towards creating one Kenyan
nation.
Before
colonialism, we were separate chiefdoms and fiefdoms that only interacted
through war or trade. During colonialism, the colonialists used divide and
rule. They pampered and empowered collaborators against those that resisted.
Through ethnic profiling, they began to cultivate the ethnic prejudices that
permeate the Kenyan pyche to date.
During
the clamor for independence, the interests of the separate nations informed
dynamics in Kanu and Kadu. While KANU was nationalist, it was seen as a vehicle
for Kikuyu and Luos that would be used to dominate minorities. Consequently,
Kadu had great following among perceived minority nations and advocated for
Majimbo.
It
is instructive to note that Dr. Ndii’s article takes us back to a conversation
that informed Kanu and Kadu politics. Definitely, there were merits to having a
unitary state and merits to Majimboism or Federalism in Kenya. While the Kenyan
Nation project lingers on collapse, many will appreciate the pro-unitary state
that our founding fathers made upon Kanu winning the first elections in
independent Kenya.
President
Jomo Kenyatta should have done better in terms of healing the divide. His
harambee rallying call was apt in uniting the country. He stood tall as a
uniting figure but his politics of patronage while using the provincial
administration structures to advance a state that was not friendly to the
people killed the Kenyan nation dream. The unbridled capital greed perpetuated
by Kenyatta cronies led to a state that Mwalimu Julius Nyerere aptly described
as a man eat man society. Ethnic mobilization due to irrational privatization
of land and appropriation of land held by colonialists compounded ethnic
sentiment in Kenya.
President
Moi with his Nyayo philosophy also nearly united the country. However, like
Kenyatta, Moi also advanced patronage, clientilism, prebendalism leading to
disenfranchising of many in the Kenyan Nation. When Moi’s hold to power was
threatened, due to multi-party politics, the galvanizing of Kalenjins with the
sentiments that they should protect their seat led to cracks, which found
utmost expression in the 2007 post election violence. However, before then, it
is instructive to note how politicians used communal land issues to create the
notion of us against them thus distinguishing the separate nationhood in Kenya.
President
Kibaki had a great opportunity to set Kenya on the right path through the
Rainbow Dream. But when they came down to it, the leaders quickly dealt with
issues wearing their tribal veils leading to none thinking in terms of what is
good for Kenya. If only Kibaki, Wamalwa, Ngilu, Raila among others had stuck to
the dream of a new Kenya; a Kenya with efficient and effective institutions
that deliver to all who merit without favor, that would have been a turning
point.
The
coalition government between Kibaki and Raila had the onerous task of stitching
the Kenyan nationhood together. The negotiations that led to sweeping changes
and reforms in Kenya and the dawn of a new constitutional dispensation should
have been the definitive cementing of Kenyan nationhood. The new constitution,
in all its failings, provides a robust framework for cementing our unique
Kenyan nationhood while respecting our diversity.
President
Uhuru Kenyatta had the envious task of implementing the new constitution and
championing institutional Integrity and capacity building so that Kenyans have
faith in the Kenyan project. Unfortunately, what brought Uhuruto into power is
ICC and their main agenda was the ICC. Consequently, Uhuruto compromised all standards
and all institutions for the sake of winning against the ICC at the expense of
a united Kenya. Rather than promote oneness, they created enmity by accusing
Raila of having fixed them at the ICC. Their machinations led to many Kenyans
losing faith in institutions like IEBC, The Supreme Court, The TJRC, the EACC,
the National Assembly, The Director of criminal investigations etc. In search
for popularity, president Uhuru made moves that rendered institutions like
NACADA lame.
All
is not lost. Dr. Ndii calls for succession just as the initial Majimbo
proponents had agitated. Maybe that is a path worth considering. However,
before we consider that, in a world characterized by globalization, where
regional integration or creation of political and trading blocs is the
strategy, succession is too simplistic a solution. In my opinion, making
devolution work as captured in the constitution is an important step in healing
the nation. We need devolve more resources and function and reduce national
government to maintaining security and coordinating activities in the counties
towards safeguarding national interests. The semi-autonomy of devolved units of
government ought to be emphasized in discourse. Let locals find a greater role
to play in management of devolved funds. If this happened, the sense of
marginalization or victimization by national government might dissipate. If
that sense of marginalization or being treated unfairly by national government
were to end, our nation would heal.
Comments
Post a Comment