Ethnic hostilities blamed on winner-takes-all system

The Constitution, passed in 2010 to address the many ills that brought the country to the brink of civil war two years earlier, could be responsible for the sharp rise in ethnic animosities.

Scholars and peace activists say the winner-takes-all political system in the new law has created and entrenched a feeling of exclusion among the followers of politicians who lost the 2013 General Election.

“In retrospect, the way the Constitution was crafted created a power structure that is not the best for the country given our history of ethnic strife. This winner-takes-all system makes huge parts of the country that voted for losing candidates feel alienated from central power,” Bishop Cornelius Korir of the Eldoret Catholic Diocese said.

Bishop Korir is currently involved in efforts to find an amicable solution to the stalemate over the fate of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission that has generated a lot of heat between the Government and Opposition.

Bishop Korir knows all too well the upshot of political grandstanding and feelings of exclusion by a section of the country.

His dioceses hosted thousands of people displaced by the post-election violence in 2007/2008.

“Tragically, we seem headed there again if we don’t tame our tongues, accommodate the views of others and learn to love each other more,” he said.

Prof Winnie Mitula, the Director of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, laid the blame squarely on the political class.

“Our differences as Kenyans are not that deep. However, the divisions we are seeing now have been mobilised by the political class for their selfish ends. Politicians must make an extra effort to make us feel like one nation,” she said.

The situation is getting worrisome as Kenyans approach next year’s General Election that is seen as one of the most closely contested in recent times.

“It is a sad case,” said Francis ole Kaparo, chairman of the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, whose main mandate is to make Kenyans live harmoniously.

“We abuse one another and claim to be building a nation. Each of us needs to reflect carefully whether an action or a word will build or help destroy our society,” he said. 

His commission seems to be fighting a losing battle against hate mongers who have taken over social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to hurl insults and hate speech at perceived opponents.

“We used to associate tribalism with the older people but look at what is happening on these platforms. The young, educated people are also spreading hate,” he said.

ETHNIC ANIMOSITY
A casual observation shows that the most active and virulent bloggers today are from two communities that are perennial political competitors — the Luo and the Kikuyu.

While Prof Mitula attributes the rise in ethnic hatred to the failure by National Rainbow Coalition government to capitalise on the widespread goodwill and unity of purpose witnessed after President Mwai Kibaki’s election in 2003, other scholars trace it further back.

Some scholars trace the origins of ethnic animosities to the acrimonious parting of ways between the two giants of the independence struggle, Jomo Kenyatta and Jaramogi Odinga. 

Laura-Catalina Althoff, in her 2014 research study titled Identities and the colonial past in Kenya and Tanzania, called this the “betrayal myth”.

She argued that long before the parting of ways in 1966, the colonial government had sown the seed of ethnic disharmony by playing communities against one another.

She posits that even before independence in 1963, Kenyans were divided along ethnic lines and the only thread that held them together was a common desire to kick out the colonialists. 

And so when Kenyatta and Jaramogi fell out, leading to the latter’s arrest and detention, it was easy for the two communities to fall back into the tribal cocoons created by the colonists.

“Yet … popular perception of history and a narrative about the fallout between Kenyatta and Odinga is crucial in justifying and stoking today’s ethnic discord. The independence period is remembered as an opportunist race in which Odinga was first offered the presidency by the British, but waited for Kenyatta to be released from prison so they could rule together, and was then ‘betrayed’ when the alliance fell apart,” she writes.

She added: “This ‘betrayal myth’ has been invoked and echoed in countless interview sequences and seems crucial to the Luo’s identification as victims of the Kenyatta government and of subsequent non-Luo governments more generally.”

The governments of the first two presidents — Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Moi — practised open discrimination which favoured their communities in development and appointments to plum State jobs.

President Kibaki ruled over two coalition governments in his two terms but was also accused of favouring his community in State appointments.

It was hoped that the new Constitution would cure a lot of these ills by taking resources directly to the counties and by dispersing power from the all-powerful presidency through devolution. 

In as much as it has helped neglected regions grow, Prof Mitula said “the politics and strategies of the national government keep dragging us back”. 

ONLINE CLASHES

She was referring to the unyielding positions taken by the government on sensitive issues such as the fate of IEBC and appointments in government which appear to favour the two communities from which the President and his deputy William Ruto come. 

For example, the majority of the 10-member board of directors of the National Oil Corporation of Kenya come from the Kikuyu and Kalenjin tribes.

“That’s a nation that is being built on sand,” Prof Mitula said.

In her research, Althoff said “many Kenyans, especially intellectuals, today view ethnicity as very real, yet not as restricting and destructive, but as natural, necessary and empowering”.

Social media platforms have provided a medium through which the hate speech spreads instantly to a mass audience.

For example, reactions to the brutality meted out on Mr Boniface Manono by the police during last Monday’s anti-IEBC demonstrations illustrate the worrying depths of tribalism.

Social media warriors from Jubilee and Cord took to their keyboards and phones to wage a jingoistic war on the fate of the young man.

Cord bloggers first alleged that Mr Manono had died of his injuries in an attempt to prove that the Jubilee government is taking the country backwards by curbing freedom of speech and expression.

This line was even picked up by a section of the international media. Jubilee bloggers fiercely disputed this, saying the man was alive and well.

At the beginning, when Mr Manono’s identity had not been clarified, Cord bloggers claimed the man was called Ngatia and alleged he had been brought by Gatundu MP Moses Kuria to disrupt the demonstration.

The point Cord bloggers were driving was that Jubilee had inadvertently claimed one of its own.

Capital FM journalist Judie Kaberia looked for Mr Manono and interviewed him. He told her he was well despite his injuries.

However, Cord bloggers insisted the government had secretly buried him and found an impersonator who it bought clothes similar to the ones he was wearing. 

“His shoes are different, Jubilee, better be good in photoshopping (sic),” said one Cord blogger. “Kindly do a better job at photoshopping,” another said.

Not to be outdone, Jubilee bloggers hurled choice epithets at their opponents.

In the slanging match on Facebook and Twitter, Mr Manono became an instant celebrity as he shuttled between TV stations telling his story.