The stealing of Raila’s Odinga’s Presidency had nothing to do with the Kikuyu worker, peasant, student or millions of Kikuyu youths suffering the ravages of unemployment, poverty, disease and deprivation like millions of other Kenyans. Poor Kikuyus in Mathare, Kibera, Korogocho and other slums across the country suffer alongside other ethnic groups. The Luo, the Luhya, the Kalenjin, the Masaai, the Mji Kenda, Pokomo, Kisii, Giriama, Turgen and members of other ethnic groups are also found in Mathare, Kibera, Kariobangi and other slums where life is basically hell on earth. Both Luos and Kikuyus in Mathare did not move to better houses because Raila and Kibaki had become buddies. For this reason, it is in the interest of all Kenyans that a government that can deliver and transform our country comes to power.
The stealing of Raila’s Presidency had everything to do with the tiny members of the thieving Kikuyu ruling class that surrounded Kibaki and that appears to have masterminded election rigging through ECK so that Kibaki, a member of their rich club, could cling onto power to enable this class to continue looting and plundering the resources of Kenya in collaboration with Western Imperialism that has been supporting every corrupt ruling class in Kenya since the Colonial Revolution in 1963. It has to be emphasized that the ordinary Kikuyu who paid the ultimate human price for the stealing of Raila Odinga’s Presidency had nothing to do with election rigging.
It is an accepted fact in Kenya that the ethnic group whose member holds the Presidency is of significance to both that ethnic group and other ethnic groups. Given a choice, every ethnic group in Kenya would like “one of their own” to reign at State House because of the illusion that such a power takeover would enable the “winning tribe” to have more access to State resources, which could be translated into development projects in specific areas, employment on ethnic grounds and an assortment of other “benefits”. Since flag independence in 1963, Kenya has been ruled by members of two ethnic groups: the Kikuyu and the Kalenjin. The first President, Jomo Kenyatta, was a Kikuyu; the second President, Daniel arap Moi, was a Kalenjin; the third President, Mwai Kibaki, was a Kikuyu; and after Kibaki stole Raila’s Presidency, the Kikuyu have produced a new President.
The situation when it comes to the Kikuyu in relation to Kenya’s Presidency is unique because a Kikuyu has been in power on two separate occasions prior to December 2007. After Moi, a Kalenjin, left the scene in December 2002, Moi had been in power for a total of twenty-four years. Kenyatta, a Kikuyu, held office for fifteen years while by the time the December 2007 elections came around, Kibaki, another Kikuyu, had held power for five years.
If Kibaki finishes his term after stealing Raila’s Presidency, he shall have been in power for ten years and this will bring the total number of years a Kikuyu has held power to twenty-five years in the forty-nine years of independent Kenya. This will mean that in these forty-nine years, the country’s Presidency shall have been held by two ethnic groups out of forty-two. Kenya is driven by ethnic politics and when Raila Odinga won elections in December 2007, the ethnic element played a big role. In as much as Kenyans voted for Raila as President, the political statement that Kenyan voters were making was that they did not want another Kikuyu at State House after Kibaki ran down the country with a clique of selected Kikuyu sycophants calling themselves Mount Kenya Mafia.
Kikuyu ruling class stole election because of fear of losing stolen wealth
According to my analysis, the stealing of Raila’s Presidency by the Kikuyu ruling class through ECK has postponed the possibility of another Kikuyu rising to the Presidency for an indefinite period of time. The difficulty of another Kikuyu coming to power if Raila could have been sworn in as President of Kenya may have been a powerful motive behind the rigging of elections because the Kikuyu ruling class understood that they were bound to lose everything they had stolen together with all that comes with their man sitting at State House. Why will it be difficult for another Kikuyu to come to power in the near future, assuming that future elections will be free and fair?
There is no debate that the Kikuyu are the largest ethnic group in Kenya. However, the Kikuyu vote alone is not enough to get a Kikuyu elected President and this fact has been demonstrated on four separate occasions in Kenya. The first time was in the December 1997 election when Kibaki presented himself as a candidate in the Presidential election alongside Raila Odinga and the late Kijana Wamalwa. This election was probably the most ethnic-based in terms of voting blocks because Kikuyus voted for Kibaki, Luos voted for Raila and Luhyas voted for Wamalwa. These are the three major ethnic groups in Kenya followed by the Kalenjin who voted for Moi. The impossibility of a Kikuyu rising to the Presidency in the next two to three elections (or even more) also applies to future Presidential candidates from any ethnic group as long as these candidates fail to form an inter-ethnic alliance encompassing the major ethnic groups in Kenya.
Raila was not elected in 1997 because the Luo vote alone was not enough and the same case applied to Wamalwa who could not ride to State House because the Luhya vote was short of the majority. After all major ethnic groups voted for their son, Moi had to rig elections to emerge as the winner because there is no way he could have commanded the majority of votes after the three major ethnic groups failed to vote for him. However, Moi had an easy time rigging elections because the votes were not only split into different blocks but he also had firm control of the State machine and this gave him a big advantage.
There was no post-election violence after Moi rigged the vote because none of the Presidential candidates commanded the support of the majority of ethnic groups while the votes were manipulated in a way that a clear winner who could claim to have defeated Moi did not emerge. Although the Kikuyu voted for Kibaki, the old man failed to make it to State House. Raila joined Moi after the 1997 elections because he was hoping to combine the Luo and Kalenjin vote in December 2002 and probably woo the Luhya vote in order to become President of Kenya; however, Moi derailed this strategy with the Uhuru project, which has been tackled elsewhere in this book.
The second time when proof emerged that the Kikuyu vote alone could not catapult a Kikuyu to State House was in December 2002 when Kibaki won the election leading to his installation as President. While he got almost all the Kikuyu votes, almost every major ethnic group in Kenya supported Kibaki because there was a huge and powerful anti-Moi wave across Kenya that swept Kibaki to power. Once he was betrayed by Moi through the Uhuru project, Raila mobilized the Luo to vote for Kibaki and Luos responded because they hoped that Raila would be rewarded with the post of Prime Minister. Wamalwa brought in the Luhya vote and this was easy because Wamalwa was destined to become Vice president. Then, Najib Balala roped in the coastal vote. A combination of Luo-Kikuyu-Luhya vote is almost impossible to beat unless the election is rigged. In 2002, millions of Kikuyus did not believe that Uhuru Kenyatta, a Kikuyu, would win under Moi and they dumped him to vote for Kibaki who was in a much better position of winning the election because he had a wider backing encompassing the big tribes in Kenya. If the Luos and the Luhyas refused to vote for Kibaki, he could not have become President of Kenya after the December 2002 election. This is an accepted fact in Kenya.
Chapter Twenty Four: Raila Odinga’s Stolen Presidency and the Future of Kenya (pgs 401-407)
About the Author
In fact Wakenya would look very stupid if the next President be a thuggish Kikuyu.
Wakikuyu are the most oppressed,devided,marginalized and confused tribe in Kenya. Kibaki govt has allowed the whole of Central peoplke to be poisoned with drugs and alcohol .Young men and women in central Kenya has become Zombies. Rapings and killings is the order of the day.Child molestation ,coffee theft abject poverty fightings and fears is worrying every kikuyu in central province.Kikuyu youth must stop listening to old and useless rulers who has failed miserably in uniting the people of central.What happened to all Kikuyu IDPs languishing in tents?Who will re-settle kikuyu IDPs hence Kibaki govt has failed?
Why cant Other young Kikuyu leaders take over the central leadership and lead instead of allowing Uhuru Kenyatta to fool them and deceive them as small children.There is no any other politician in central Kenya who can rally the lost and brainwashed Kikuyu tribe now and perhaps in near future.
Threats to sack Hassan cowardly and display of arrogance
Published on 17/12/2011
By Billow Kerrow
The recent article by Hassan Omar titled ‘What do Kibaki men know or what are they planning?’ that has elicited absurd condemnations from some quarters deserve my support. It is the kind of candid, revealing and wholesome opinion piece that should generate healthy debate on ethnicity, but which political midgets embracing yesteryears sycophancy ethic deride. A formal complaint is before the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, and a case has been filed in court. But rather than wait for the due process of law some people have politicised the matter.
For a start, Hassan’s article opined that ‘it is highly unlikely that Kenya’s next president will be a Kikuyu’ and went on criticise the unacceptable institutionalisation of ethnicity’ under the Kibaki regime.
Citing 2007 General Election as ‘ethnically charged’ he warned that, unlike in 2002, ethnicity will impact on the 2012 elections too. It is a fair comment, meaning it is not actionable in law as it is an opinion on a matter of public interest. Nothing he said in that article is divine revelation, rather it is a pedestrian view.
Ideally, the central Kenya politicians offended by the piece should have responded similarly to discount the view. Resorting to threats to sack Hassan is cowardly and a display of arrogance. Ironically, Hassan wrote a piece titled ‘Why not? Kibaki can still be Kenya’s next president’ on February 20, in which he expressed ‘unwavering position that a Kikuyu can still be Kenya’s next president’. He postulated as a human rights activist that any other Kikuyu could vie and be the next president because ‘Kibaki does not equal other Kikuyus’.
Other Kenyans were not rattled, nor deem it hate speech or ethnic discrimination. He expressed his personal opinion on a matter of public interest. As one of the most distinguished human rights crusaders, he does not warrant such a sterile reaction. For some, his role as chair of the Police Service Commission frustrates their interests. In others, his role in The Hague process is a bitter experience.
While such opinions as the one under contention are common in our media and the Internet, it is not surprising that only Hassan’s article pricked their conscience. Only recently, our media carried Wikileaks revelations that Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka told Ambassador Rannebarger ‘Kenyans would not accept a Kikuyu president immediately after Kibaki in 2012’. There was no hullabaloo from central Kenya.
On September 9, a leading Standard columnist wrote a revealing piece on Kikuyu dominance during the Kenyatta regime and argued that although Kibaki was a ‘very keen and faithful student of Kenyatta, in terms of tribal or regional appointments’, one thing he ought to take from the former’s legacy is discourage ‘another of his tribesmen to succeed him’ as Kenyatta did when he blocked the ‘Change the Constitution’ group. Such opinion pieces are many.
Several Kikuyu elders have been vocal in the media in recent years that they should support another candidate from other ethnic communities in 2012. Progressive leaders such as Paul Muite and Maina Kiai wrote ‘Challenging the Kikuyu oligarchy’ in 2009 which confronted stereotypes and exhorted inward-looking approach to common perceptions of the community.’
The group, ‘Kikuyus for Change’, challenge the status quo and usually urge Kikuyu leaders to embrace nationalism. The secretariat states in its website that ‘Kikuyu politicians respond to issues often with arrogance that confirms the stereotypical thinking on Kikuyus, and make provocative statements that illustrate ignorance and the resultant negative consequences’.
Tribalism in politics resonates with most Kenyans. We must address fundamental issues that feed this innate thought, not by marvelling over the shameful statistics the NCIC keeps churning out are, but by engaging in social discourses such as Hassan has remarkably done.
Challenging the Kikuyu oligarchy
By Maina Kiai and Paul Muite
2009-04-23, Issue 429
In Kenya, politics has hinged on the pre-eminence of ethnic identity since 1964; and today ethnicity has been elevated beyond all other identities and interests. We reject this notion totally and completely. None of us chooses the identity that we are born into, but as we grow older we take on various identities that make us who we are and determine our interests. We are of the Kikuyu ethnic community – and take pride in our language, culture and norms – but we are far more than that. We see ourselves as Kenyan first and foremost, with a national outlook and perspective.
But we have suffered for this view, being called ‘traitors’ and ‘disloyal’; even receiving credible death threats.
Since 2004, it has become apparent that what NARC (National Rainbow Coalition) stood for, nationally, has been seriously eroded. Mwai Kibaki declared in his campaigns he was for zero tolerance on corruption; yet he seems to be condoning it. He had stated that he would operate a meritocracy, with due regard to the diversity of Kenya; yet his appointments to the most sensitive and crucial offices are tilted to one ethnic group and its relatives. He had asserted that he would change Kenya from the dark days of the Moi years, raising our hopes and aspirations; but he was soon recruiting Moi’s people – especially if they were his kith and kin – to crucial positions in public service. Patronage and fear has been used. Simply put, his 2002 rhetoric was exactly that – rhetoric – and now we are continuing ‘business as usual’.
For us, it does not matter what ethnic group the leadership comes from: We expect and demand a government which has the interests of the nation at heart, which is fair, honest, effective, accountable and transparent. And we expect the government to follow the law, especially with regard to human life, and fundamental rights. We challenged Daniel arap Moi on these issues. We can challenge anyone interested in being president of Kenya, including Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, George Saitoti, Musalia Mudavadi, Martha Karua and Uhuru Kenyatta. Why can’t we challenge Mwai Kibaki?
We know what we have fallen foul of is something larger than ‘political opposition’ or ‘dissent’. It is a bigger problem that the Kikuyu community and its allies must urgently confront.
It is the issue of ‘speaking with one voice’. This is the question of blind ethnic loyalty to decisions made by some wealthy old men (there are no women here) who determine the leadership of the community and convince us, mostly through trickery and fear, to follow. There is nothing democratic or progressive about it. They do it on their own, and without our input, behind closed doors and in clubs where the majority of the Kikuyu can never get access. These are the Kikuyu oligarchy, and they are dangerous because they work on the assumption that the rest of the community, and indeed the country, are fools and can be taken for a ride. It is a fatal road we drive along. Their decisions, cloaked in forged assumptions of ethnic nationalism and pride, are never about the good of the nation or even the good of the community. It is all about themselves, and extending their hold and power over Kenya for their own selfish benefit.
With the elevation of ethnic politics in Kenya, this behind-closed-doors community trickery is dangerous and unacceptable within any community. But we are addressing ourselves to the Kikuyu community at this point, because the power, assumptions and suspicions of the Kikuyu political elite is at a critical crossroads and could destroy this country.
‘Speaking with one voice’ suggests that because of our ethnic heritage we have the same values, interests and ideals, and we should therefore accept the things that these old men, sipping single malt whisky after a game of golf, decide for us. But nothing could be further from reality. In fact, critically assessed, this class – conservative, corrupt and chauvinistic – has nothing but disdain for the majority of Kikuyu, who are poor and struggling, and pay for their arrogance and mistakes. If they did care for poor ordinary Kikuyu, then some of the things that have happened over the last few years would never have been condoned.
Consider the following. It is during the time of a Kikuyu president, with a Kikuyu minister for internal security, a Kikuyu intelligence chief, a Kikuyu head of CID (Criminal investigation department), a Kikuyu PS in internal security, when there are extra-judicial killings of poor young Kikuyu men, claimed to be Mungiki. More than 600 cases are documented of these deaths in 2006, and hundreds more disappeared. For the sake of argument, lets assume they were Mungiki, despite the fact human rights defenders are sure that more than two-thirds of them were not. There are laws that govern these matters. Why were they not used? Killing poor young Kikuyu men, illegally, does not solve the problem of Mungiki. It shows utter contempt for the poor. It shows us that although we are expected to ‘speak with one voice’; the Kikuyu community is certainly not one. There is the powerful, old class and there is the ‘other’ Kikuyu.
We doubt that there has ever been such a large-scale state-sponsored killing of Kikuyu since the emergency period or during the clashes in the 1990s; yet none in the oligarchy has uttered a word in protest or shock. The silence – from the president down – speaks volumes about the view of the poor.
And consider this. When the post-election violence started in January 2008, these same Kikuyu men were in control of the security apparatus. They decided it was better to deploy security to Uhuru Park, to prevent Raila Odinga and his supporters from gathering there, than to stop the killings of Kikuyus – mostly peasants – in Eldoret. We know for a fact that emissaries were sent to State House and Harambee House to plead that the Kenyan airforce be deployed to fly jets over the affected areas to ward off the invaders and others who had targeted the Kikuyu in Eldoret. But these suggestions were rebuffed. The effect is that peaceful protests at Uhuru Park were prevented, and security forces concentrated on killing opposition demonstrators in Western Kenya, at the cost of hundreds of lives in Rift Valley, and the destruction of property worth millions belonging to the poor.
And last but not least: Listen carefully to the old guard, and some of their new recruits. They put the entire community at risk with reckless and derogatory comments that undermine national unity. Comments like ‘the stock exchange is not a fish market’ are arrogant and demeaning to everyone, and exacerbate perceptions that the Kikuyu leadership feels superior, and needs to be taught a lesson. Unfortunately, because this leadership is inaccessible and far removed, these lessons are ‘taught’ – tragically – to the ordinary Kikuyu who are more accessible, rather than the leadership.
We are all diminished by stereotypes and chauvinism. We would dismiss the attitudes of old men with humour, but for the fact their destructive views translate directly into the significant state power they wield.
Expecting us to speak with one voice does not protect our interests. It protects theirs. Statements that assert – as Minister John Michuki recently did – that the state has no obligation to explain why it conducted an illegal act in raiding the Standard Group, show a dangerous attitude. His mindset is essentially that if something is done by the state, it cannot be wrong. So if the state kills, say 2000 people in the name of ‘state security’, we should not ask questions? It is instructive that John Michuki was in charge when a number of killings by the state have occurred – young Kikuyu men pre-election; in Western Kenya during the post-election crisis; in ‘security operations’ in Mt. Elgon and Mandera – and there has been no accountability.
This mentality is not new in Kenya. It was the prevalent attitude of the colonial government, the Kenyatta government, and Moi’s government. Now we have that old political class, dangerously entrenched by a sense of ethnic ‘entitlement’. Kikuyus should realise that this does not bode well for the nation, let alone their community.
But this attitude is not just the prerogative of powerful politicians; it has also affected the middle class and ordinary Kikuyu. There is a dangerous sense of victimhood and entitlement.
The feeling of victimhood is now deeply entrenched in the community – and understandably so, given the colonial emergency, the clashes in the 1990s, and the post election violence in Eldoret – but it is coupled with a sense of entitlement and superiority over other communities, expressed in attitudes that the Kikuyu are somehow superior; that they work harder than other Kenyans; that they have more financial and entrepreneurial sense than others; and are better able to govern than others. It is also expressed in derogatory assumptions and stereotypes about other communities.
This is foolhardy, a recipe for disaster and chaos: Once we start ranking people and communities, we will be ranked ourselves. It has made our position precarious, and if we don’t start asking questions of this ‘leadership’, we will only have ourselves to blame if the current tensions explode.
This is the time to re-think and reject the old class, whose interest is now focused on ensuring that their sons (never daughters) take over from them as the ‘leaders’ of the community. These ‘sons’ have no skills or vision to lead, just a sense of entitlement in the ‘family’ business. This is not just contemptuous of the ordinary Kikuyu, but also of the entire nation. It assumes that they can continue to maintain this charade, cloaking their personal interests as community interests.
We should learn from the experiences in other countries. Look at the demons and forces unleashed in the Balkans by Serbian leaders who continuously highlighted what they described as the Serbs’ historical grievances, as well as their ‘specialness’, playing on that for their own political ends. But even closer to home is Rwanda. Can any of us, here in Kenya, forget what happened there? By whipping up anger about historical injustices against the Hutu majority, and emphasising the ‘right’ of Hutus to rule, Hutu leaders facilitated the genocide. And always, it is the ordinary Hutus who paid the price for not questioning received ‘wisdom’.
This is a moment of truth for the Kikuyus as a whole. We recognise that much of what we have said may not be be palatable to many. It will, in fact, be painful. But these are truths we cannot run away from. Let us have a robust debate, but one that is based on what each of us has analysed for him or herself.
If there was ever a time for change and challenge, it is now.
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/55791
The “Kikuyu question”
Many Kenyans would readily admit that tribalism or negative ethnicity is a serious problem here. But it is difficult to find anyone going beyond vague condemnation of the vice: we are all Kenyans; let’s live like brothers and sisters; tribalism is evil blah, blah. Who actually practices tribalism and how?
The Standard cartoonist Maddo was brutally honest a few weeks ago. He deserves a new bottle of ink for a good job. In his ‘Madd Madd World’ page in The Standard on Saturday, Maddo featured a mock meeting chaired by Kibaki and attended by the following top mandarins:
Mwirichia (Energy Regulatory Commission), Njoroge (Kenya Power), Njoroge (KenGen), Nyoike (PS Energy), Murungi (Energy), Muthaura (Secretary to Cabinet), Kenyatta (Finance), Kinyua (Finance PS), Njuguna (CBK), Waweru (KRA), Thuge (Economic Secretary)…
“It is possible to have a high level meeting in Kenya to discuss the national economy, energy and finance conducted in a lingo other than English and Kiswahili with the participants understanding each other perfectly!” Maddo quipped.
Last week, Omar Hassan of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights took up the subject in a comment in The Standard titled, ‘Every Kenyan must take a stand against Kibaki’s tribalism’.
The Kikuyu constitute only 16 percent of the population, Hassan wrote, but a report by the National Cohesion and Integration Commission shows that members of that community form 22 percent of the civil service and over 50 percent of State House staff.
And that is not all. All organs of national security are headed by people from President Kibaki’s tribe: Karangi (Chief of Defence Forces), Mbugua (AP Commandant), Gichangi (Director General NSIS), Ndegwa (Director CID). There is of course Iteere, who is from the neighbouring Meru.
If you want to understand the roots of Kibaki’s tribalism, as Omar Hassan called it, you’ve got to read an article written in April 2009 by former KNHCR chairman Maina Kiai and former MP Paul Muite, both Kikuyus.
“[Kibaki upon coming to power] had stated that he would operate a meritocracy, with due regard to the diversity of Kenya; yet his appointments to the most sensitive and crucial offices are tilted to one ethnic group and its relatives,” Kiai and Muite wrote in the article titled, ‘Challenging the Kikuyu oligarchy’.
This oligarchy propagates “blind ethnic loyalty to decisions made by some wealthy old men” in Kikuyuland. “Their decisions, cloaked in forged assumptions of ethnic nationalism and pride, are never about the good of the nation or even the good of the community. It is all about themselves, and extending their hold and power over Kenya for their own selfish benefit.”
They have ingrained among the Kikuyu “a sense of entitlement and superiority over other communities, expressed in attitudes that the Kikuyu are somehow superior; that they work harder than other Kenyans; that they have more financial and entrepreneurial sense than others; and are better able to govern than others.”
Yet protestors have not poured out into the streets chanting ‘Haki yetu!’ Who would believe those Kibaki speeches about building national cohesion? The leader of the Party of National Unity is a Kikuyu chauvinist to the core!
Michael Njoroge, East Africa Press
Kenya, the ICC and elections 2012
By Daniel Branch
Kenya is, according to the writer Billy Kahora, a ‘half-made place,’ a country of ‘parallel universes, parallel economies, parallel lives, futures and realities.’[i] One does need to look hard these days to find the parallel universes and realities. On one hand, the country is still celebrating the promulgation of a new progressive constitution last year. The judiciary is being overhauled, some of the powers of an over-mighty executive dismantled and partial devolution to new county authorities is under way. In an address to the nation made to mark the first anniversary of the constitution, President Mwai Kibaki told Kenyans that the new constitution ‘is a guarantee that the Kenyan people shall henceforth resolve any potential conflict through the rule of law.’[ii] On the other hand, Kibaki and other leading politicians have been engaged in a sustained effort to deny that very same rule of law.
Besides the constitution, the big story over the past year has been the two ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court in which six prominent individuals are alleged to have overseen the violence that followed the dispute 2007 presidential election. Beginning on 1 September, the six – Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, ex-Higher Education Minister William Ruto, Cabinet Secretary Francis Mathaura, ex- Police Commissioner Mohammed Ali, MP Henry Kosgey and the broadcaster Joshua Sang – face a round of hearings in The Hague to determine whether or not the cases will go to trial.
Once the names of the six suspects were publicly announced last December, a sustained campaign was launched in order to discredit the ICC and its chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. With President Kibaki anxious to protect his protégé, Kenyatta, and close ally, Muthaura, some parts of the government mounted a diplomatic effort. Although supported by other African states, Kenyan diplomats led by Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka failed in their efforts to persuade the United Nation’s Security Council to order the court to drop the charges. Unbowed by this defeat, MPs allied to the president, Kenyatta, Ruto and Kosgey attempted to have Kenya withdraw as a signatory to the Treaty of Rome that established the ICC, but again to no avail.
These efforts should not be dressed up as the concerns of an African state about the extent of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the continent or as part of philosophical debates about sovereignty. Instead, the attempts to derail the ICC cases are motivated entirely by politics. Two of the suspects, Ruto and Kenyatta, want to run for president in elections due to be held next year. For his part, the current president does not want his allies like Muthaura and Ali to face trial on charges of state-sanctioned violence against his people. So every effort that can be made to block, delay or dispute the ICC process is being taken in order to protect the political ambitions of a few individuals.
Under Kenya’s new constitution, Ruto and Kenyatta will be able to stand for election even if trials are underway by the time the election is held next August. Both have made it clear that they intend to do so, but many Kenyans understandably find the thought distasteful.[iii] Driven by a belief that the Kenyan judicial system remains inadequate for the trials of suspected perpetrators of the post-election violence, respondents to a series of opinion polls have demonstrated sustained support for the ICC process. In an effort to destroy that popular support, the suspects and their leading allies have turned to depicting the charges as the result of a political conspiracy stretching from the offices of their rivals to The Hague. As Ruto puts it, ‘It is really a tragedy that things can be cooked and taken to the international arena.’[iv]
In the fictional narrative presented by Ruto and Kenyatta, the two men are been targeted as part of wider efforts to victimise their respective Kalenjin and Kikuyu ethnic groups by supporters of the ICC case, most obviously Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his Luo support-base. The suggestion that Odinga is somehow behind the cases is patently absurd, but one that seems believable in a context in which the Luo leader is the most public voice of support for the ICC.
Neither Odinga nor his leading supporters were included in Moreno-Ocampo’s list of suspects announced last December. A presidential candidate on numerous occasions in the past and the most likely actual winner of the disputed 2007 poll, Odinga will certainly stand for the presidency in 2012. Ahead in the opinion polls, free from the distractions of having to mount a legal defence at The Hague and not discredited at home or abroad by being the alleged perpetrator of crimes against humanity, Odinga cuts a formidable figure as the country looks ahead to next year’s election.
Odinga has, however, powerful enemies. He and Ruto fell out shortly after the last election and their subsequent rows were one of the defining characteristics of the power-sharing government that has been in place since April 2008. Ruto was finally sacked from the government last week, but had long ago formed an informal anti-Odinga alliance with Kenyatta and Vice President Musyoka. Now known as the G7 alliance, this faction is determined to see their great rival thwarted in his bid for the presidency in 2012. Musyoka, incidentally, is the other main beneficiary of the ICC case. Should Ruto and Kenyatta eventually face trial, Musyoka may be able to persuade the pair that he should be the main anti-Odinga candidate. An uninspiring individual, Musyoka will nevertheless be a strong candidate with the backing of his own Kamba community and the endorsement of Kenyatta and Ruto.
The ethnicisation and politicisation of the debates about the ICC are alarming, particularly given the history of politically orchestrated ethnic violence between Kalenjin and Luo in the 1990s. And while a sense of shared grievance against the ICC and Odinga may temporarily tie together Kalenjin and Kikuyu – the fault line that cracked in the first few weeks of 2008 with deadly consequences – a heightened sense of ethnic victimisation on the part of Kikuyu or Kalenjin does not make for a rosy future. But there are signs that the tactics of Ruto and Kenyatta are working. A recent drop in public approval for the ICC cases can be attributed to a collapse in support for the process among voters in Ruto’s and Kenyatta’s respective heartlands of the Rift Valley and Mount Kenya regions.[v]
The line needs to be held if the victims of the violence of 2008 are to receive justice. In the months running up to the next election, numerous arguments will doubtless be made that the ICC’s influence over the outcome is disproportionate and an unnecessary external interference in the internal politics of Kenya. The ICC is an imperfect institution, but in Kenya can be seen to living up to its mandate as the court of last resort. There is no credible, proven alternative legal structure that can deliver justice. The government has passed up numerous opportunities to demonstrate its commitment to punishing those guilty of crimes committed during the post-election violence.
Every effort should be made to ensure that the ICC cases are allowed to run their course. This is an unparalleled opportunity in Kenya’s recent history to demonstrate the worth a judicial process unencumbered by the political concerns of the ruling elite. If the suspects think Moreno-Ocampo’s evidence is weak, let them demonstrate that in the court room at The Hague rather than the court of public opinion in Nakuru or Eldoret. Obstructing the ICC case will do nothing to make Kenya a fully made place.
Daniel Branch is associate professor of African history at the University of Warwick. His history of post-colonial Kenya, Kenya: Between Hope and Despair 1963-2011, will be published by Yale University Press in October. His first book, Defeating Mau Mau, Creating Kenya: Counterinsurgency, Civil War and Decolonization was published by Cambridge University Press in 2009.
Goodbye to GEMA presidency. Kenyans should c u after 100 years!
Unfortunately the current Kikuyu leadership is dreamland. They are so much interested in protecting what they have, maximizing on what they can possibly steal and in the process maligning the community – a real catalyst of tribal animosity against the Kikuyus.
The potential leadership is just stale and hypocritical rallying the community to vote for them just because their fathers were national leaders and/or because they are women or they were betrayed by the incumbent. In the current political pool, these pretenders to the throne are outmaneuvered in all by political novices. This clearly shows that the Kikuyu leadership is it currently exists are sterile and impotent and it would be, not only dangerous but extremely foolish for the community to bank on them for future leadership roles.
The Kikuyu community must wean itself of the “Mt Kenya Mafia” in the mainstream political leadership. The community must re-brand it self so that Kenyans shall no longer see the community in the eyes and actions of few criminals who criminals that conduct and engage ruthlessly in politics for private advantage.
In all these aspirations, the path must be that or respect of rule of law and respect other communities based on mutual inter community trust, respect and interests.
There can never be Kenya without the Kikuyus and there can never be Kikuyus without other communities in Kenya.
Kenya does not belong to anybody’s father, mother, grandfather or grand father.
Kenya belongs to all Kenyans and that cannot and will never change.
New Order Party of Kenya! A new Deal for Kenya!
By
Lawrence Kamau Macharia
Chairman
New Order Party of Kenya
This is a very bigoted piece and chauvinistic. Dont think other tribes in are silly. The only reason why there has been exponential growth in any business related to a Kikuyu is because of the presidency that favours them. If you noticed,there has to be something not straight about any given Kikuyu wealth. There never misses something wrong or foul in it. Apart from being shrewd there is nothing so special about Kikuyus. They robbed us since independence,and they are tribalists that’s why Central Kenya can never have genuine business competition that is all inclusive. They would kill you if you not their tribe apart from killing themselves. Look at the cronism in employment,you would wonder if there arent any qualified Kenyans who can take up those jobs apart from Kikuyu. Wait until tables turn that is when you will realise you are no special than other tribes in Kenya. How do you explain other provinces with high tax remittance are poor? The new constitution is so beautiful,coz it has devolution. It wont matter who the president is,every county will get its own development kittys,in essence there will no longer be marginalisation of communities. Thats when reality will knock and you will decide to do away with this unrealistic bandwagon.
one nwags da nation? we should hope n pray. otherwise da movement is strong.
Tribe still a factor in race for State House
By Dominic Odipo, Standard Digital
Monday, August 06 2012 at 00:00 GMT+3
It will be the end of an era; the end of the beginning. When President Mwai Kibaki leaves office after the presidential elections now scheduled for Monday, March 4, 2013 that event will mark the end of the reign of the old order— the leadership of the generation which led this country to Independence in 1963.
Intriguing tales
In a sense, President Kibaki’s exit will mark the end of independent Kenya’s pioneering political leadership. It will be the end of the beginning as the torch passes to a new generation of Kenyans, most of whom were born in the second half of the 20th Century.
History and statistics, when combined, sometimes tell very intriguing tales. Take Kenya’s presidential history, for example.
Fifty years after our Independence, there is still only one Kenyan secondary or high school which has produced a Kenyan president — Mangu High School. Of the three men who have served as Kenyan presidents, only Mwai Kibaki managed to attend a secondary school in Kenya. And that school was Mangu.
Incidentally, Mangu also stands out, historically and statistically, as having produced the highest number of vice presidents. Of the 10 men who have so far served as Kenya’s vice presidents, three of them — Kibaki, George Saitoti and Moody Awori — went through Mangu. But, perhaps, there we digress, if only peripherally. As the Independence generation of Kenya’s political leaders fades away, what factors are most likely to determine who will be elected the country’s fourth president?
Will it be the high school or university which a particular presidential candidate attended? Will it be money, in the sense of how much each of the leading presidential candidates will be able to amass and deploy during the campaigns leading up to March, 2013?
Will it be a candidate’s moral character, in the sense or extent to which one is an exemplary husband or wife? Will it be a candidate’s so-called reformist or non-reformist credentials?
Will it be a candidate’s latest relationship with the International Criminal Court? Or, at the end of the day, will the most critical factor simply turn out to be the candidate’s tribe or ethnic origins?
Undercurrents
The words Luhya, Luo, Kamba or Kikuyu do not appear anywhere in our new Constitution. And perhaps they shouldn’t.
But any Kenyan politician gunning for the presidency who ignores these words, and the undercurrents they portray and unleash, might as well be living in outer space.
Politically, the Kenyan tribe is, indeed, very much alive.
At each of our three presidential successions, this tribal factor has reigned supreme, whether or not the word ‘’tribe’’ appears in our Constitution. Jomo Kenyatta’s Kikuyu ethnicity was probably the most critical factor in his rise to the presidency of this country in 1964.
Given the critical role that the Kikuyu community had played in the struggle for our Independence, it would have been difficult to contemplate the possibility of any Kenyan from another community taking power immediately after Independence.
Critical factor
When President Kenyatta passed on in 1978, the wheel had turned full circle. Then, after 15 years with a Kikuyu as President, it had oddly become very difficult for another Kikuyu to succeed him.
The fact that Vice President Daniel arap Moi was not a Kikuyu suddenly became a critical factor in the Kenyatta succession power play.
Twenty-four years later, as President Moi was preparing to step down, this subterranean tribal factor reared its ugly head again. After Moi settled on Uhuhu Kenyatta, a Kikuyu, as his preferred successor, the Opposition quickly concluded that only another Kikuyu candidate could stand the best chance of defeating Uhuru and the entire state machinery at the polls.
That is how Kibaki, another Kikuyu, quickly and unexpectedly rose to the helm of the Opposition and on to the presidency. Kibaki’s ethnicity had suddenly become the critical factor in the 2002 presidential sweepstakes.
Reformist
If this tribal factor has played such a decisive role in all our previous presidential successions, is it not reasonable to suspect that it could play the same role next year as well? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the next President of Kenya could emerge not because of his schooling, money, moral standing, or so-called reformist credentials but mainly because of his or her ethnic origins?
The political purists among us will quickly rubbish such a thought. But, before they do, they had better glance at the American experience. It took more than 180 years for the Americans to elect their first Catholic president, even though nothing in their Constitution barred them from doing so.
It took them 232 years to elect their first black president. The Constitution is not always the best guide to a country’s inner political dynamics.
The writer is a lecturer and consultant in Nairobi.
oops and now we have a Kikuyu president.
AGAIN!!!
KSB: Rigged!
heheheh kikuyu will rules forever or what!!