Nelson Alusala, Senior Researcher, Arms Management Programme, Pretoria.
Last Friday, 27 August 2010, Kenya ushered in a new constitution, replacing the one inherited at independence in 1963. This is also one of the first major reforms implemented since the 2007 general elections that led to violence, death and destruction. In view of the promulgation of the new constitution, it is important to re-examine how much the events ranging from the 2007 bungled election to the unveiling of the new constitution have transformed the modus operandi of the average Kenyan politician.
From the manner in which various politicians conducted their referendum campaigns (which were relatively peaceful), it is evident that while Kenya is stepping into the future in new attire, the fabrics that comprise the political landscape seem not to have changed much, at least not in the manner in which the ethnic card continued to be misused as a political bargaining tool. It is for this reason that every Kenyan should remain cautiously optimistic about the future of the country, irrespective of the new instrument. The success of the new constitution will depend on the nature in which the politics are played out, especially in the run up to the 2012 general elections.
The promulgation of the new constitution came with the formalities of the president, the prime minister and all members of parliament taking a fresh oath of office in an elaborate ceremony that was witnessed by several heads of state. This grand event, dubbed the birth of the “Second Republic,” featured the military and other disciplined forces showcasing their hardware and preparedness to defend the new constitution. If this event were to be contextualised, President Mwai Kibaki and his team have, in actual fact done what they should have done had the 2007 elections not been bungled, sparking ethnic violence that spread across the country that left over 1500 people dead. It was also a chance for President Kibaki to redeem his glory, having been worn in secretly without pomp. The ideal case would have been something akin to this promulgation ceremony, with various heads of state in attendance.
With ululations welcoming the new constitution resounding across the country, the big question is how long this excitement and celebration will last before the scene is transformed into another round of political campaigns and formation of ethnopolitical alliances ahead of the 2012 general elections. Despite the attainment of a new constitution, which provides an atmosphere for better elections in many ways, the majority of the political personalities continue to dominate the scene, save for President Kibaki who is serving his second and last term. One would therefore want to know how much these politicians have learnt from the 2007 post-election violence, and how this will shape their approach to politics in the run up to 2012 general elections.
Much as one would want to believe that the new constitution is a harbinger of a peaceful 2012 general election in Kenya, the electorate should be warned that the contrary is still a possibility, telling from the campaigning mood that characterised the recent constitutional referendum campaigns.
Firstly, the voting pattern, more like the 2007 general elections, was aligned on a regional basis, with politicians in the “No” camp and the “Yes” camp being judged in a large measure not by their moral conviction about the contents of the constitution, but by “how many votes one brought from his ethnic base to the camp one belonged to.” This, in the Kenyan political language signified a show of the number of voters one commanded from one’s own ethnic base. In many respects this is not necessarily a bad thing because in politics it is the numbers that count. The fault with the Kenyan politician is the inherent tendency to imagine that without a strong ethnic clout, one has no political prowess and have failed politically. Fear of this kind of “failure” has created in a Kenyan politician a perpetual feeling of insecurity, hence making ethnicity the chessboard upon which the pawns (electorate) are played around, and sacrificed whenever the players (politicians) are threatened.
As demonstrated by the trend and outcome of the recent constitutional referendum, and now the ongoing undertones regarding the 2012 general elections, campaigns have indeed started, although every politician wants the pawns to believe that the 2012 game has not started yet, and that they (politicians) are the good citizens whose “good” work in implementing the new constitution is their sole primary concern. If this were the case, then why is Kalonzo Musyoka, the vice-president, being seen as a lesser force come 2012, simply because in his province (Eastern), the referendum vote was split almost into half between the “Yes” and “No” sides? Or, why is William Ruto now being regarded as a force to reckon with in 2012, simply because he led his Rift Valley Province in a majority “No” vote for the constitution?
The absurd reality here is that ethnicity has become the landmark of political life in Kenya. This has been demonstrated by a recent opinion poll that depicted the most favourable alliance to win the 2012 elections to be that between Raila Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta. In Kenyan understanding this meant political cooperation between the Luo and the Kikuyu tribes, political arch-rivals and two of the largest ethnic groups in the country.
In the 2007 general elections, Odinga (Nyanza Province) and Ruto (Rift Valley), acting as the rallying figures for their respective ethnic bases, joined forces and aligned themselves against Mwai Kibaki (Central Province) and Kalonzo Musyoka’s (Eastern Province) alliance. The end result was a hotly contested outcome that led to a deadly inter-ethnic violence.
The same political personalities are the very ones in the forefront of the gospel of peace and transformation. What makes them believe that one cannot win an election purely on principles, and not because of ethnic alliances? It is this kind of politics that breeds bad governance, thereby entrenching cronyism, nepotism, ethnicity and corruption.
The promulgation of the new constitution provides one of the rare opportunities for the average Kenyan politician to shelve (albeit briefly) his or her ethnic card and, like a hungry lion at the thought of the next meal, aim to score mileage ahead of 2012 general elections by being seen as the most pro-reform leader, one who has been on the forefront of giving Kenyans (a good) new constitution. The selfless spirit of harambee (Swahili word meaning ‘pulling together’) that is on the country’s coat of arms seems to have taken a back seat.
What these leaders do not realise is that a constitution, however good it may be, can only be as effective as far as those it guides adhere to its dictum. It is therefore the decorum of the Kenyan politician and his electorate that will determine the effective implementation or abuse of this new constitution. It is thought that patriotism and not ethnicity should be the pedestal upon which Kenya’s Second Republic is built. It is only when Kenya gets a leader that will be judged not by the command they have over their ethnic base, but by the values that they stand for, and the forthrightness of their conscience, that Kenya will embark on a true healing process. As it is, the country remains as ethnically fragmented as the numbers the leaders seek to bring to their political bargaining table for ethnopolitical alliances.
If the US President Barack Obama had been raised in Kenya, he may never have seen the doors of the state house. He did not have an ethnic group to realign with in the US, nor ethnic numbers to bring to the table for political bargaining. He was voted in strictly on the values and beliefs he stood for. Ironically, he is a descendant of the same Kenya.
Today Kenya stands tall to be counted as a success story but whether this newly-established stature on the global platform will be maintained will depend on the extent to which the electorate will be manipulated using ethnopolitical slogans, come 2012.
