Advertisement

Kenyan politics revolves around superficial identity rather than national consciousness

Thursday March 22 2018
odm

Opposition supporters in coastal Mombasa: Beyond affiliation to political parties, Kenyans have no national ideology or ethos that brings them together as a state. PHOTO | LABAN WALLOGA | NMG

By TEE NGUGI

Its sneakiness aside, the recent meeting between President Uhuru Kenyatta and opposition leader Raila Odinga is a step in the right direction.

But it is worrying that, as usual, Kenyans are already seeing the rapprochement between the two leaders as the panacea for all that ails the country.

It is true that the warming up to each other will cool down the political heat and perhaps put a stop to calls for secession by groups that have felt marginalised since Independence, principally people from the Coast and Nyanza.

But the warming up of relations between two individual politicians cannot be a substitute for a reengineering of the Kenyan nation-state, because what ails Kenya, and many African countries by extension, is the absence of what can be termed as a “central organising ethos.”

This can be thought of as a set of values, principles, ideals, traditions, and shared historical experience around which the nation-state is constructed. A national ethos is understood by all without coercion, and regardless of their religion, ethnicity, political party or class, citizens freely commit to it.

That is why in Asia, Europe or Latin and North America, there is a deeply felt sense of being, say, Chinese, French, Brazilian or American. When someone from Brazil says he or she is Brazilian, they are not just referring to a geographical or administrative entity; they are referring to a deeply-rooted national consciousness described as “Brazilian.”

Advertisement

And because in these countries there is a strong sense of nationhood inscribed in the minds of their citizens, there is also a strong sense of national purpose, a collective understanding of, and commitment to, the country’s socio-political and economic goals.

In countries such as, say, South Korea or even Vietnam, everyone — from president to street sweeper — seems committed to an ethic that propels the national purpose.

During the recent convention of the Chinese National People’s Congress dubbed “Two Sessions,” the delegates discussed socio-political and economic policies and strategies for the next decade and beyond.

Apart from the removal of term limits for President Xi Jinping, one was impressed by the seriousness of the delegates, their discipline, and their utter commitment to helping China succeed. They were challenging themselves, setting even higher standards for themselves because of their keen sense of what their country wants to become.

By contrast, our MPs, when they are not scheming to falsify mileage claims or to increase their already astronomical salaries, or complaining about lack of toilet paper in their bathrooms, they are parroting the positions of the tribal coalitions they belong to, or inciting communities against one another.

African scholars have spent half a century postulating this and that colonial theory to explain Africa’s underdevelopment. But they need not have gone to all that trouble, because a mere glance at the contrasting preoccupations of African and Asian leadership should have told them all they needed to know.

So if the meeting between Uhuru and Raila is to have any significance beyond their personal political interests, the two must now constitute a national convention to discuss the reengineering of our nation-state.

There are so many fundamental issues the country needs to urgently discuss as part of the process of creating a national ethos on which to reconstruct the Kenyan nation-state. There is the Agenda 4 of the National Accord that ushered in the coalition government of 2008, and that has remained largely in limbo.

This agenda is a list of issues — from poverty to land to marginalisation — that the Kriegler Commission identified as the long-term causes of ethnic hostility. There is also the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission report that is gathering dust.

We also need to re-examine the constitution and see what has worked and what has not. There is, for instance, the question of being over-represented in parliament and whether the Senate is not a complete waste of resources. Why does corruption seem like a hydra-headed monster? Why has every government department been captured by a cartel?

But most crucially, we must have an honest examination of why, even after 54 years of independence, we have been unable to create a national consciousness out of the different ethnic nationalities.

Unless we find ways of addressing that issue, “Kenyanness” will remain a superficial identity, more a reference to a geographical and administrative entity, as opposed to a deeply-rooted national consciousness.

Without grounding the Kenyan nation-state on a national ethos and ethic, we will continue to drift chaotically towards an uncertain future, a violent implosion always a possibility.

Advertisement