RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Understanding Kenya

 Garrett Jones wrote this for the Foreign Policy Research Institute.  I am posting here with Garrett’s permission.  Original can be found at this link.

Garrett Jones is a senior fellow of FPRI. A 1993 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, he served as a case officer with the CIA in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. He retired in 1997 and now lives in the northwestern United States.

While most Americans were preoccupied with the holidays, Bowl games, and the Iowa caucus, Kenya had a presidential election. As African elections go, it went off pretty well. There were long lines, and a record number of people were estimated to have voted. While there were some reported problems—shortage of ballots, attempted intimidation, etc.—it worked well enough at the local level. Raw results showed that the challenger Raila Odinga defeated the incumbent Mwai Kibaki by about a million votes and that most of Kibaki’s cabinet members were voted out in the accompanying parliamentary poll. So far so good.

Somewhere between the local polling stations and the Kenyan Electoral Commission in Nairobi, incumbent president Kibaki simply stole the election and had himself declared winner. It was no more subtle than that. The Election commission hastily met and announced that Kibaki won. No public tallying, poll watchers or transparency of any sort. Kibaki quickly had himself sworn in for his second term as president, and the opposition went mad. There have since been a series of riots, killings and arsons, which have largely paralyzed Kenyan society. The opposition shows no signs of backing down, and Kibaki has indicated no interest in negotiating about the results.

This is the second presidential election since former president Daniel Arap Moi (a member of the Kalenjin tribe, a small tribe distantly associated with the Maasai) was forced to retire in 2002 and give up single-party rule after 24 years in office. Moi had taken over the office as vice president after the first postcolonial president, Jomo Kenyatta, a Kikuyu, died in office. At the time Moi took office, he was considered a placeholder until the Lou and Kikuyu tribes could sort out which of their many political leaders would be next to inherit the presidency. Moi turned out to be a clever political operator, and through manipulating tribal hatred and a liberal use of bribery, stayed in office long after anyone thought possible. He would probably still be in office, but the end of the Cold War had brought demands by the Western aid donors for a fair multiparty election, which Moi had no chance of winning.

The first true multi-party election was held in 2002. Kibaki (a Kikuyu, the largest tribe in Kenya, centered in the Mt. Kenya-Nairobi area), with Odinga (a Luo, second largest tribe, found in western Kenya), combined into a coalition which easily won both the presidential and parliamentary elections. Part of the pre-election platform was an agreement that Odinga and Kibaki would share power and that a new constitution would be written providing more power to the prime minister. (Under current Kenyan law, the prime minister is largely a figurehead; the real power resides in the presidency.) Once Kibaki was sworn into office in 2002, he quickly disowned the pre-election accord and excluded Odinga and members of the Luo tribe from any meaningful positions of power. After removing Odinga as political rival, Kibaki then continued to obstruct the rewrite of the Constitution until the effort largely collapsed in confusion and left him with the powers of the presidency intact.

Kibaki’s performance in office has been abysmal. Corruption has spiraled out of control during his tenure, provoking complaints and threats from normally complacent donor countries. (Kenyan political wags note that several of Moi’s more notorious “bagmen” have been “rehabilitated’ under the Kibaki administration, prompting some of them to wonder if they are being brought back for their experience in “advanced thieving”.) The protests about corruption have been led by Great Britain, with the U.S. following along with supporting statements about the need for reform. But no stern measures have been taken by any of the major donor nations, and even the current farce of a “free election” has not resulted in a denunciation, only an expression of concern about the results. (The U.S. State Department had congratulated Kibaki on “his victory” early on, only to quickly back off after knowledgeable observers pointed out that they might want to rethink that position.)

Kenya is usually described by the media as a strategic ally, whose stability is vital to U.S. interests. That is pretty much overblown hype. Kenya is useful but hardly irreplaceable to U.S. policy. It has always had “good press” in the U.S. for two rather odd reasons, one romantic the other logistic. The romantic stems from the many Americans who have been to Kenya. As a result, it is the only African country with which they have any familiarity. Kenyans are a friendly, wonderful people, and the countryside itself is every bit as stunning as the movies portray it, and then some. Americans go there on vacation and have one of the most memorable and exciting experiences of their lives. They fall in love with the very small and largely orchestrated part of Kenya they are shown by their safari guides. I will refrain from cataloging the number of otherwise hardheaded Americans I have seen come to Kenya and then lose themselves in the romance of “Out of Africa”. The place is magic.

The logistical cause is that living in Nairobi, until now, is a lot nicer than living in Kampala, Dar as Salaam, or any other city in East Africa you care to name. As a result, NGOs, charities and U.S. government agencies have located large numbers of their staff in Kenya and use Nairobi as a regional base. (This diplomatic/NGO economic activity is a significant part of the Kenyan GDP.) Since the various aid and NGO organizations are the best-known voices about Africa, at least in the U.S. political context, their opinions carry weight. Aid organizations are no different from any other organizations. If large parts of your infrastructure are invested in a place; the country suddenly becomes important, nay vital. Unfortunately, these groups are unlikely to risk their “good standing” with the Kenyan government by backing any serious international moves to correct the situation. It seems that those on the side of the angels may have clay feet this year.

Kenya is a useful ally in Africa and a country with which the U.S. should cultivate good relations, but it is neither strategically important nor vital to U.S. interests. Other East African countries can replace the ports and airfields currently available to the U.S. military in Kenya. Kenya has been a useful listening post for events in Somalia, but this role can also be picked up elsewhere. U.S. economic activity in Kenya is minor. The main foreign economic players in Kenya are the United Kingdom and India. So far, the UK has been the only donor country pushing for some sort of power sharing compromise, although the European Union seems to be headed that way. The U.S. has badly fumbled its response to the situation and has confused the average Kenyan. It is hard to puzzle out what U.S. policy is at this point, even for me, and I follow the matter closely.

Who is doing the killing? Most of the deaths and arsons until now are a result of inter-tribal fighting—the majority tribe in an area setting on the minority tribe; Luo in Kikuyu areas and Kikuyu in Luo areas. Americans simply do not seem to understand what tribalism means in an African context. Tribalism is racism just like the Klu Klux Klan was. Kikuyu “know” the Luo are stupid and dirty, and since they are not “cut’ (the males circumcised in their early teens), they are not really people. The Luo “know” the Kikuyu are greedy and treacherous. And it goes on, with each tribe “knowing” the subhuman traits of its neighbors. Ascendancy in political office has always been seen in a tribal sense in Kenya and is viewed as the chance for the tribe in office to “eat” (cronyism, patronage, bribery and corruption). The Kikuyu have had their turn under Kenyatta and Kibaki, and the Luo now believe it is their turn to “eat”. This said, it is also true that the sort of confusion Kenya has seen recently brings out the thieves and opportunists in any country. Looting and private score-settling are certainly happening–though sorting the thievery out from genuine outrage over a stolen election and a sense of entitlement betrayed is going to be a matter for history.

What is going to happen next? The two protagonists do not make for hopeful predictions. Odinga leads the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), an alliance of the Luo and other minority tribes. In fact, it is a one-man show. Odinga acts as the glue holding together the many factions that want to boot the Kikuyu from power. Odinga sees himself as both a politician and a revolutionary. (He was educated in East Germany and named his son after Fidel Castro.) In the past, Odinga has allegedly been associated with several half-baked coup plans, including the 1982 Air Force revolt, though there has never been any concrete proof of his involvement. Odinga has ample reason to distrust Kibaki and his advisers simply because they have repeatedly lied to him in the past. Unfortunately, taking Odinga’s claims to court is simply a non-starter in Kenya. While I would not want to say that any Kenyan judge could be bought, they can certainly be rented for very reasonable rates. Kibaki, with the resources of the presidency, has a much bigger wallet than Odinga.

For Kibaki, this is the last hurrah. He has spent his adult life striving for the presidency and is unlikely to relinquish his second term to an upstart Luo like Odinga, no matter how much the Western aid donors or the Kenyan public howls. He has corrupt but capable advisers (the “Mt. Kenya Mafia”) around him and a firm grip, at least so far, on all the levers of power. There is some question about Kibaki’s health, both mental and physical. He has had some health scares in the past and has been strangely uncommunicative to all parties since the election. At this distance, it is impossible to tell whether this isolation is a problem of some sort or a political tactic. Any compromise Kibaki would entertain will almost certainly be unacceptable to Odinga, and at the moment, Kibaki has stated there will be no discussion with anyone until the protests stop. Odinga is unlikely to abandon his only weapon, street protest, and Kibaki is not going to make a gracious exit for the sake of the nation.

With meaningful negotiations unlikely and outside diplomatic actors either unwilling or unable to shift Kibaki, the current violence can only continue. Odinga will not back down and Kibaki will not give in. The violence will not stop until Kibaki either jails Odinga or drives him into exile. (Odinga had several bouts of exile during Moi’s presidency, and he was singularly ineffectual as an outside agitator.) But while Odinga’s arrest or exile would temporarily calm the situation, in the end it would simply set the stage for escalating inter-tribal violence.

There is some precedent in Kenyan politics for having your political opponents “poisoned while trying to escape”; such an act would set off even worse violence. We can hope something better will happen; the country certainly deserves better.

Names, places, and people to know

Tribal Breakdown by Candidate

(not all-inclusive— there are many minor tribes in Kenya)

  • Kibaki – Kikuyu, Meru, Kamba
  • Odinga – Luo, Luhya, Kalenjin, Coast Swahili/Muslim
  • Eldoret – town in western Kenya located in the Rift Valley, majority population Kalenjin and associated tribes, site of the reported church burning with Kikuyu victims.
  • Kisumu – western Kenya Luo heartland

Regions

  • Mombassa – coastal port city, majority Swahili/ Muslim population, site of Swahili on Kikuyu violence.
  • Mt. Kenya – central Kenya, Kikuyu heartland.
  • Nairobi – capital and a Kikuyu city, slums around the city are a mix of all tribes now engaged in a free-for all.
  • Nairobi slums (Mathare, Kibera, and Kamakunja) – These shantytowns ring Nairobi and are of mixed tribal populations. They are without exception dirt poor, lacking any infrastructure such as sewer or water supplies. They are flashpoints for violence and at the height of tensions are “no-go” areas even for the GSU.

Kenyan Police and Forces

  • Administrative Police – Traffic cops, poorly trained and equipped. Uniform is white shirt and blue trousers.
  • Regular Police – light blue shirt, dark blue pants, day-to-day criminal police, poorly equipped and led, poorly respected because of their constant extortion of bribes from the average Kenyan. Probably responsible for most of the deaths at government hands up to this point. They present the real possibility of committing panic-induced killings when confronted by violent protests. The Kenyan police consider firing live rounds over the heads of protesters a normal and accepted practice.
  • General Service Unit (GSU) – well equipped and trained, generally well led. Camouflage uniform with red beret. The “hard boys” of the Kenyan police. They have a well-deserved reputation for cracking heads. They seem to operate on the unofficial directive “If you make us get off the trucks, someone is going to the hospital.” Despite this, they have excellent fire discipline and experience in handling civil disturbances. Despite their fearsome reputation, they have earned grudging respect by the civilian population. The GSU does not engage in the petty bribery of the average Kenyan police officer. The Kenyans might expect to get their heads cracked by the GSU, but they know they will not be robbed. The GSU also has a history as an equal opportunity riot force. They are recruited across tribal lines and will launch a baton charge at any tribe or socio-economic group with equal enthusiasm.
  • Kenyan Army – Apart from some elite units, which are as good as any in Africa, most of the Army is suitable only for bands and parades. The Kenyan army has no equipment or training to handle civil disturbances. If the Kenyan Army is deployed to the streets in anything other than a support role to the GSU, there is a real possibility of a disaster in the making.
  • National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) – The external/internal intelligence agency of the Kenyan government, highly trained by African standards. During the Moi presidency, they were highly politicized and employed in brutally crushing political dissent. Reforms under Kibaki seem to have eliminated most abusive practices. They have not been heard from in this crisis, though one can assume they are maintaining a watching brief and have a good knowledge of Odinga’s activities.

People

  • Jomo Kenyatta – the first postcolonial president of Kenya, a Kikuyu. Died in office in 1978.
  • Jaramogi Odinga Odinga (Double O) – First postcolonial vice president and father of Raila Odinga. Luo leading politician and patriarch until his death in 1994.

You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety, attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and include our web address (www.fpri.org). If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.

  • http://www.despair.com/sacrifice1.html Smilin’ Jim

    The Carter Center observed the 2002 elections and gave them a clean bill of health.

    What kept them out this time?

  • Detroit Sam

    Perhaps Mwai Kibaki took a page from the Bush/Cheney/Republican playbook.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Thanks for the overview. Raila Odinga has a leggit beef? And was pre-empted? Is there a parallel between Hamas and the PLO?

  • Mr.Murder

    Thanks to Garret Jones and FPRI for the candor.
    Thanks for presenting this here, Larry.

    It would be nice to see the transition occur, but one gets the suspicion too many grudges will be harbored. Blood on blood, etc.

    Are there any legitimate coalitions or dissent groups able to be part of the transition to a level it would mitigate the kind of strong majority rule we’ve seen?

    In effect, is it a Republic or Democracy?

    What kind of legislative balance is there?

    Often we’ve seen the model put out as a cookie cutter, a upper/lower body legislature. One used to concede items and satisfy smaller representations to a point things can run for the vested interest. The other made as a way to impose the patronage of the ruling party and majority ranks.

    I’d suggest the NGO and think tanks try to find a new model. A third legislative body within the model. One that is a system of appointed positions, the name members of major parties will go there. Give it one of the key items from the lower and upper bodies for steering items and endorsing policy. Don’t remove those from the other parties, just give it a new area to cultivate the policy and help keep things together. Have its membership subject to a voting review similar to a vote of confidence. Both of these from the lower body and the civil ranks as a hedge against its over use, and as a way to motivate more broad unity when drastic change is necessary.

    Doubtful the parties in power and major dissent would oppose that since they’d attach name value to the persons appointed. Then lower diplomatic ranks are freed as the positions in the other legislative bodies are freed. This puts increasing pressure on policy change, though old liners will abate change, more secure in their new posts. Thus you can mitigate some reactionary or emotional effect from the pressure of transition.

    The third body would also have a way of accelerating diplomatic functions regionally and strategically. A secure ‘old guard’ with titles of privilege, more symbolic than active, with influence over helping shape the major items tasked legislative bodies. It should help the business as usual money interest, the partisan political ranks find voice through faster vertical promotion in the established ranks and trusted identity voice in the new chapter, and the major issues needed to accelerate change and progress can flow without as much static when the major representative phases break down.

    This could pattern greater work with NGO on the established name value of said leaders, and provide additional diplomatic contacts for our own ambassadors, a line that moves along those of the national Executive’s structure, but one with greater potential to effect real change, in ways that would move results upward. Then you can work change up and down from the executive and legislative aspects. It would fit along the lines of OAS and our Congressional trips, and still enough major political clout from their Executive appointment obligations to work parallel to State’s traditional emphasis and procedure.

    Everyone wants yes/no and black/white answers, we’re saying that can’t work, then why make governments into yes/no models? Add the third channel, give it foreign influence, and then use it as a way to work off the two extremes in the old model to find working middle ground.

    The parties that are considered sponsor states should greatly consider this. We’ve seen multiple power modules accelerate EU development and engagement. Let’s cultivate the ability for major states and players to work along those kind of lines.

  • Mr.Murder

    Have the model draw upon regional solutions for those who replace the people assuming the appointed function, approved by a regional tripartite of districts or precincts, weighted in the first instance and equal in the other two, or to greater degrees by the same proportion.

    That would check an unpopular replacement from within the ranks, and make the parties begin to work with neighbors in deciding who moves up.

    The traditional Constitution of Kenya is in shambles and might not effectively apply to the nature of replacements within traditional means. This new appointment/replacement way could break across standing gerrymanders by including neighboring groups, and play against traditional fractures within parties. I’d suggest going beyond the traditional political map as well, strictly in approving appointments, and selecting replacements or making those the candidates for political race by traditional ballot in the post vacated.

    Approved appointments create a void to replace in traditional ranks, moving from within the structure in place is crucial because reliance on prior models simply brings the same problems to point at later times, or presently. Making local polemics learn to work with neighboring rivals could pattern better, cohesive leadership for the future. Breaking traditional gerrymanders resulting from the current political map can effect change at the entry levels to transform civic models, reinforcing those models makes it more likely that neighborhoods redraw based on ethnic leadership.

    Three parties/districts vote, two largest remain for the final ballot, the one who wins the final ballot has to work from within ranks the of vacated position’s constituency.

    Then traditional leaders can distance selves from results, having taken the new positions, with additional endorsement by the executive selecting from traditional poles. The approval is a new model that loosens the rigid party/post structure involved in appointment, so it is less likely to reinforce continued static emotion from the structure in place now, but still reflects the main influence of accepted leadership, nominatively so.

    In either instance you are looking at ways to ignore standing fractures or punt the problem down the road. Accelerate the item regionally and try to use that as a leapfrog from previous results. That can address the problem and accelerate interactive governmental effectiveness. The old model wants a strong man and a yes/no answer to meet our new decentralized model of business,NGO, and union diplomats. Why not make the government piece of the puzzle we deal with decentralize somewhat to meet the same demands? You’ll find shared interest from groups satisfy the need for continued engagement beyond the whims of whichever empty suits plays little Napoleon for the time being.

    State sponsors have the capital to sweeten such deals and bring all interests into the plan.

    Decentralized models can be penetrated easier from a security standpoint as well, no?

  • http://1boringoldman.com Mickey

    Thanks for posting this. A fine summary of a giant tangle. I was there in November and would add that the massive slum on the outskirts of Nairobi looked to me like a bomb waiting to explode – and it did. With the level of poverty, the intense tribalism, and no real history of a functioning democracy – Kenya seems doomed to a long and bloody struggle. Our friend there writes, “Our country is burning. Pray for us.”

  • teach

    Isn’t Obama somehow related to Odinga?

  • CK

    Bravo, a complete history of Kenya, an explanation of the hows and whys of the current situation.
    Kenya, a land whose history magically begins with the triumphant appearance of Jomo Kenyatta in 1963.
    No mention of a little matter of 8 years of guerilla warfare, of tribe against tribe, the Mau Mau’s never existed, the intertribal and interracial warfare from 52-62 is not a relevant input. The blacks from Kenya who served so dutifully so bravely in India and Burma and elsewhere for Great Britain in WW2 came back to second class human status in Kenya. Those blacks kicked the whites out of Kenya, now their sons and grandsons are fighting to see who gets to collect the bennies.
    I loves me some white fool come to explain the dark continent in 2000 words or less almost as much as I love the fools who try to game the east.
    And not even a mention of the Mt Kenya Safari Club

blog comments powered by Disqus