Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kichwa on January 07, 2017, 10:25:53 PM
-
The conventional wisdom is that Kenyans vote strictly along tribal lines in presidential elections. I have tried to dismiss this untruth for years but this wisdom is so engrained in Kenyans political psyche that they stop listening to you as soon as you utter those words. Its totally contrary to evidence. In 2002 there were two kikuyu presidential candidates and they both got votes from all tribes. Then in 2007, although the final vote tally was manipulated, both Raila and Kibaki got votes from all tribes. In 2013, if you take away the "ghost votes", both Raila and Ouru got their votes from others who are not luos or Kikuyus. Why do insist that Kenyans vote along tribal lines and yet the overwhelming evidence is that they vote across tribal lines all the time for the two top contenders. The tribal coalitions are not permanent and keep on changing every presidential elections. in 2002 Kikuyus and Luos were on the same side, then in 2007 Luos, Kalenjins, luhyias were on the same side, and in 2013 kikuyus and Kalenjins were on the same same side. I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013. I think god blessed us with a country where no tribe can dominate if the elections are free and fair. This is why I believe that we should do everything in power and spend as much resources as we can on ensuring that the elections are free and fair. If the elections are not free and fair, then we should not have them.
-
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
-
People world over vote their interest and Kenyans are not different other than that we have tribes. If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns. The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe. In 2008 African Americans came out for Obama in huge numbers for Obama because they had an interest in having their children see a black man who identified with them became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for president on the Republican party, you would have seen the same amount of black people come out to vote for him. I believe that Joho would get more luo votes than Miguna if they both ran for president in 2022. Kidero got a lot of non-luo votes in Nairobi in 2013 to win the governorship. There are many more incidents of Kenyans voting across tribal lines than along tribal lines and yet we focus so much on the few occasions when Kenyans vote along tribal lines. In 2002 although luos voted for Kibaki because of Raila but it was more than just because Raila was a luo-it also had something to do with Raila's political beliefs. I think it is an insult to Kenyans to say that we only vote for our tribesmates because they are our tribesmates and nothing else. Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
-
Termie
Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:
1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
- Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
- Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
Both sides (Kibaki - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.
Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:
- As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
- Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
- A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
- Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre
I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
-
The conventional wisdom is that Kenyans vote strictly along tribal lines in presidential elections. I have tried to dismiss this untruth for years but this wisdom is so engrained in Kenyans political psyche that they stop listening to you as soon as you utter those words. Its totally contrary to evidence. In 2002 there were two kikuyu presidential candidates and they both got votes from all tribes. Then in 2007, although the final vote tally was manipulated, both Raila and Kibaki got votes from all tribes. In 2013, if you take away the "ghost votes", both Raila and Ouru got their votes from others who are not luos or Kikuyus. Why do insist that Kenyans vote along tribal lines and yet the overwhelming evidence is that they vote across tribal lines all the time for the two top contenders. The tribal coalitions are not permanent and keep on changing every presidential elections. in 2002 Kikuyus and Luos were on the same side, then in 2007 Luos, Kalenjins, luhyias were on the same side, and in 2013 kikuyus and Kalenjins were on the same same side. I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013. I think god blessed us with a country where no tribe can dominate if the elections are free and fair. This is why I believe that we should do everything in power and spend as much resources as we can on ensuring that the elections are free and fair. If the elections are not free and fair, then we should not have them.
Voting "on tribal lines" should be be understood in more than just in the narrow sense of "no (or little) cross-tribe voting". One has to consider what occurs, when, why, how, and to what extent. For example, if members of Tribe X vote for a candidate of Tribe Y because they have been told to do so by their tribal lord, they are voting on a tribal basis. On extent: You say that both Uhuru and Raila got votes from other tribes. Obviously true, but how many votes did Uhuru get from Luos, and how many did Raila get from Kalenjins and Kikuyus? And in 2002, Kibaki did very well across all tribes because a lesson had been learned in the earlier attempt to get out Moi, a guy who had beaten the crap out of them for years and years, and being "toshaed" didn't hurt either.. And so on, and so forth.
I could go on and on, but the real "fault" in your analysis can be seen its red conclusion. Actually, the tribal coalitions for 2017 are already set and have been for quite some time. There are some small groups on the "borders", and some tribal chieftains will attempt to sell their "our people", but not much will change. It might be comforting to think otherwise, but reality is a bi*tch.
I note your comment on USA elections. One thing you do not take into account is the fact that most blacks would for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. (You should consider that when you comment on Clarence Thomas running as a Republican.) So while Obama certainly benefited from them by virtue of being black, one cannot say that Obama's race was the key factor. There is also another very curious thing in this statement:
If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns. The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe.
....
While supposedly arguing that Kenyans do not vote on a tribal basis, you have also put forward a sub-argument to the effect that voting along "tribal" lines is in fact "natural" and that such behaviour occurs elsewhere (if in a somewhat different form) and that Kenya is no different!
It is not an insult to Kenyans to observe that they are tribal sheep; that is simply a statement of fact. Indeed, I find it peculiar that even as we wail 24/7 about tribalism in Kenya, it is somehow to be believed that politics is free from tribal tendencies.
-
Termie
Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:
1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
Huh? I don't know where you were back then. The MOU itself was not made public, but that aspect of it was no secret. I was in Kenya just before the elections, and the agreement that Raila would be PM was common knowledge that I regularly heard of in the streets.
-
The real question is where were you? Read the following to free yourself from propaganda: :D
There are always to be heard rumors in Kenya. This was never confirmed and KANU made a tactical error not to raise it. NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.
By MURITHI MUTIGA
It is a little-remarked fact that during the 2002 campaigns, the National Rainbow Coalition’s leaders hardly mentioned the existence of a pre-election pact between them.
There had been a public signing ceremony of a Memorandum of Understanding at the Hilton Hotel, Nairobi. but the version signed before the cameras did not offer details of how power would be shared between leaders when they clinched power. The real MoU was signed a few hours after the Hilton function, when the Narc heavyweights retreated to Nairobi Club.
There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies. The main candidates in the race, Narc’s Mwai Kibaki and Kanu’s Uhuru Kenyatta, were both Kikuyu. Narc strategists feared that if it emerged that Mr Kibaki had signed a deal to share power with Mr Raila Odinga, as the MoU required, Kanu could successfully argue in Kikuyuland that Mr Kibaki would be a puppet serving the whims of Mr Odinga, who hails from the historical rivals of the Kikuyu, the Luo.
Puppet glove
Kanu, in fact, tried this tactic. On the eve of the elections, posters were distributed in parts of Nairobi depicting a giant image of Mr Odinga holding Mr Kibaki essentially in a puppet glove. The attempt at propaganda fell flat, possibly because the MoU had not really featured seriously as an issue in the campaign due in part to the Narc leaders reluctance to talk about it.
Yet, in political circles, the MoU was an open secret. It was a well known fact that Mr Kibaki had agreed to appoint a Prime Minister upon taking power. It was well established that the man to take this post was Mr Odinga. He was the acknowledged leader of the Narc campaign, at the time the sleekest and most effective political operation the nation had seen.
When Mr Kibaki was involved in an accident and was flown to London for treatment, Mr Odinga took charge and energetically led the alliance’s leaders in their campaign swings around the country.
Even when Mr Kibaki returned, Mr Odinga remained the focal point of the Kibaki-for-President team. On October 14, 2002, he delivered what American political analysts would call a game-changing performance. Kibaki tosha (Kibaki is enough), he declared, in a moment that gave the campaign the momentum that swept Kanu out of power after 40 years.
When victory was achieved, there was little doubt that it was the result of a joint effort between Mr Kibaki, Mr Odinga and the other leaders of the alliance’s top organ, the Summit, a multi-ethnic coalition of politicians. But the moment he entered State House, Mr Kibaki’s allies from the Mt Kenya region rallied to exclude Narc leaders who were not Kikuyu or Meru.
Turned away
Rumours surfaced that Mr Odinga had been turned away at the gates of State House. More whispers emerged indicating Mr Odinga’s nominees for Cabinet appointments, which were to be shared 50:50 according to the Nairobi Club MoU, had been disregarded.
The complaints from Mr Odinga’s Liberal Democratic Party were soon reported and it became clear that the Narc leaders were in an unhappy marriage. Mr Odinga and his allies understood they had been short-changed and were considered guests in a government where real power lay in the Mt Kenya circle.
They served in government but were essentially in opposition to Mr Kibaki from the first few weeks of January, 2003. The trashing of the MoU directly led to the divisive constitutional referendum of 2005. It helped create the anti-Kibaki alliance of 2012, which was essentially an anti-Kikuyu coalition.
The MoU debacle set the stage, ironically, for the formation of the grand coalition last year on the basis of the MoU signed at Nairobi Club in 2002. If the MoU had been respected when Narc came to power, it might have saved the nation all the lives and treasure lost in the five years before Mr Kofi Annan emerged from power-sharing talks between Mr Kibaki and Mr Odinga on February 28, 2008 to announce to the nation, “We have a deal”.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/1056-830528-ik3fljz/index.html
Termie
Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:
1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
Huh? I don't know where you were back then. The MOU itself was not made public, but that aspect of it was no secret. I was in Kenya just before the elections, and the agreement that Raila would be PM was common knowledge that I regularly heard of in the streets.
-
I will ignore most of what you write and focus on one thing: The Role of The Tribal Chieftain in Kenya.
1. Why did not Matiba step down for Jaramogi Odinga in 1992 when it was apparent that Matiba was the reigning Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain? Did he fear that rather than listening to him to vote for Jaramogi Kikuyus would instead flock to Kibaki?
2. In 1997 Kibaki became the Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain. Why didn't he support a non Kikuyu candidate - say Kijana Wamalwa - and send Moi packing by asking The Kikuyu to vote outside their tribe? Did he fear they would return to Wanyoike, Koigi wa Wamwere, Munyua Waiyaki,
Godfrey M' Mwereria, Wangari Maathai or David Waweru Ng'ethe?
3. It took Kijana Wamalwa, Ngilu and Raila to forego their ambitions to pave way for Kibaki and get rid of KANU.
I get the insinuation about Luos "obeying" Raila and voting as "ordered". But i miss anything about Kikuyus voting for Matiba, Kibaki and Uhuru as ordered! So there is no contradiction: In 1992 Kikuyus through their so called Elders were ordered to vote for Matiba; In 1997 and 2007 they were ordered to vote for Kibaki. In 2002 There was the strange situation where Mama Ngina Kenyatta supported Kibaki in line with the voting "orders". I believe she then earned her son support for the 2013 Voting Orders.
Luos could well disobey Raila the same way Kikuyus disobeyed Kibaki's instructions to vote for Mudavadi and reverted to Uhuru in 2013. But I i do understand that MoonKi has the desire to denigrate the Luo decision to vote for a non Luo and assuage or mitigate the Tribal Voting patterns of the Kikuyu.
Whether one calls the Luo voting for Kibaki in 2002 "Tribal" or not, the bottom line is that they voted outside their tribe. They had a candidate: James Orengo. They did not vote for him. They voted for a Kikuyu. I would like to see the Kikuyu casting that kind of "Tribal" vote any day.
Voting "on tribal lines" should be be understood in more than just in the narrow sense of "no (or little) cross-tribe voting". One has to consider what occurs, when, why, how, and to what extent. For example, if members of Tribe X vote for a candidate of Tribe Y because they have been told to do so by their tribal lord, they are voting on a tribal basis. On extent: You say that both Uhuru and Raila got votes from other tribes. Obviously true, but how many votes did Uhuru get from Luos, and how many did Raila get from Kalenjins and Kikuyus? And in 2002, Kibaki did very well across all tribes because a lesson had been learned in the earlier attempt to get out Moi, a guy who had beaten the crap out of them for years and years, and being "toshaed" didn't hurt either.. And so on, and so forth.
I could go on and on, but the real "fault" in your analysis can be seen its red conclusion. Actually, the tribal coalitions for 2017 are already set and have been for quite some time. There are some small groups on the "borders", and some tribal chieftains will attempt to sell their "our people", but not much will change. It might be comforting to think otherwise, but reality is a bi*tch.
I note your comment on USA elections. One thing you do not take into account is the fact that most blacks would for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. (You should consider that when you comment on Clarence Thomas running as a Republican.) So while Obama certainly benefited from them by virtue of being black, one cannot say that Obama's race was the key factor. There is also another very curious thing in this statement:
While supposedly arguing that Kenyans do not vote on a tribal basis, you have also put forward a sub-argument to the effect that voting along "tribal" lines is in fact "natural" and that such behaviour occurs elsewhere (if in a somewhat different form) and that Kenya is no different!
It is not an insult to Kenyans to observe that they are tribal sheep; that is simply a statement of fact. Indeed, I find it peculiar that even as we wail 24/7 about tribalism in Kenya, it is somehow to be believed that politics is free from tribal tendencies.
-
The real question is where were you? Read the following to free yourself from propaganda: :D
There are always to be heard rumors in Kenya. This was never confirmed and KANU made a tactical error not to raise it. NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.
The "PM Agreement" was given all around as the explanation for why Raila was not running for president. It was commonly known, regardless of your claims. It also appears that you are not reading even your own stuff. First, note that there is a difference between not talking about something in public and that thing being a secret; that is true for many things, even in "everyday life". Second, you wrote that:
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
Now, see blue below, as well as your red. According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!
There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies. The main candidates in the race, Narc’s Mwai Kibaki and Kanu’s Uhuru Kenyatta, were both Kikuyu. Narc strategists feared that if it emerged that Mr Kibaki had signed a deal to share power with Mr Raila Odinga, as the MoU required, Kanu could successfully argue in Kikuyuland that Mr Kibaki would be a puppet serving the whims of Mr Odinga, who hails from the historical rivals of the Kikuyu, the Luo.
-
1. Why did not Matiba step down for Jaramogi Odinga in 1992 when it was apparent that Matiba was the reigning Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain? Did he fear that rather than listening to him to vote for Jaramogi Kikuyus would instead flock to Kibaki?
2. In 1997 Kibaki became the Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain. Why didn't he support a non Kikuyu candidate - say Kijana Wamalwa - and send Moi packing by asking The Kikuyu to vote outside their tribe? Did he fear they would return to Wanyoike, Koigi wa Wamwere, Munyua Waiyaki,
Godfrey M' Mwereria, Wangari Maathai or David Waweru Ng'ethe?
I have no idea. Please enlighten me.
I get the insinuation about Luos "obeying" Raila and voting as "ordered". But i miss anything about Kikuyus voting for Matiba, Kibaki and Uhuru as ordered!
Once again, you are getting carried away with unhelpful emotion; nowhere did I state, or imply, or "insinuate" anything specifically about Luos. But just to leave no doubt, here it is: the majority of Kenyans---and it's a large majority---across all tribes, and tribal sheep, and nowhere does it show more than in politics. There.
Just to be double-sure: please go back and re-read red. Got it? Excellent. Let's proceed.
On "tribal chieftains", right now your own CORD will be cobbling together a leadership on that basis: someone to bring the Kambas, someone to bring the Luhyas, etc., just as Jubilee expects Ruto to bring the Kalenjins and Uhuru to bring the Kikuyus.
Your buddy, "Kichwa ...", has this explanation for you:
Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.
See, it's all just a matter of "tribal trust". :D
But I i do understand that MoonKi has the desire to denigrate the Luo decision to vote for a non Luo and assuage or mitigate the Tribal Voting patterns of the Kikuyu.
Do you feel better when you make such silly statements?
-
MoonKi
I am still sorry to burst your bubble.
The man who signed the MoU was Mwai Kibaki. On the other side representing LDP was Raila Odinga.
Three MoUs were signed in one day Bro as follows:
1. A secret one between DP (Not NAK) and LDP
2. A second one between LDP and Nyachae (abrogated a few hours later)
3. A public one between NAK and LDP
Take note of that as you split hairs and daw with your blue and red crayons or are they cry-ons :D :D.
The real question is where were you? Read the following to free yourself from propaganda: :D
There are always to be heard rumors in Kenya. This was never confirmed and KANU made a tactical error not to raise it. NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.
The "PM Agreement" was given all around as the explanation for why Raila was not running for president. It was commonly known, regardless of your claims. It also appears that you are not reading even your own stuff. First, note that there is a difference between not talking about something in public and that thing being a secret; that is true for many things, even in "everyday life". Second, you wrote that:
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
Now, see blue below, as well as your red. According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!
There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies. The main candidates in the race, Narc’s Mwai Kibaki and Kanu’s Uhuru Kenyatta, were both Kikuyu. Narc strategists feared that if it emerged that Mr Kibaki had signed a deal to share power with Mr Raila Odinga, as the MoU required, Kanu could successfully argue in Kikuyuland that Mr Kibaki would be a puppet serving the whims of Mr Odinga, who hails from the historical rivals of the Kikuyu, the Luo.
-
MoonKi
I am still sorry to burst your bubble.
The man who signed the MoU was Mwai Kibaki. On the other side representing LDP was Raila Odinga.
Three MoUs were signed in one day Bro as follows:
1. A secret one between DP (Not NAK) and LDP
2. A second one between LDP and Nyachae (abrogated a few hours later)
3. A public one between NAK and LDP
Yes, I know all that; I read most of it in Anyang' Nyong'o's book ... just in case, you think you are toboaring something. Now, pay careful attention to the following two points:
Point A:
The fact that something is not discussed in public does not necessarily make it secret. Think of examples in daily life around you.
Point B:
You wrote that
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows ...Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
and that
NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.
Note the "NARC". For good measure, you quoted a fellow informing us that:
There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies.
So, when, on the basis of information that you yourself have provided, I write that
According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!
you should be able to see that it has nothing to do with DP, LDP, NAK, or any other ABC signing anything, in private or in public or on the moon. It is Logic 101 applied to your claims with regard to NARC.
I have one more thing to say on your story: If, as you claim, Raila and Kibaki signed an agreement that was to be kept secret from some partners ("to avoid alienating them") and from the public, then it is just as well that Kibaki stabbed Raila in the back. And one hopes that the "clever" people involved learned a useful lesson. A position such as that of Prime Minister matters to the whole country and is not something to be obtained through secret agreements between a handful of people who "know best".
-
I think we can go back and forth about why people vote the way they do forever with each of us professing to know why but the bottom line is that it is a very complicated subject that cannot be simplified into the simple statement that "Kenyans vote along tribal lines" because it is not true. I do not believe that luos voted for Kibaki in 2002 or that Kalenjins voted for Raila in 2007 or that Kalenjins voted for Uhuru in 2013, all in large numbers simply because Raila or Ruto ordered them. That is a very simplistic explanation and it says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze. Let us watch closely and see if Ruto will again "order" Kalenjins to vote for Ouru in the same numbers in 2017 or whether Ouru can order kikuyus to vote for Ruto. I am appealing to young politicians in Kenya who intend to run for president or any other national office not to base their political strategy on this simplistic crap.
-
MoonKi
We are engaged in this pedantic and overscrupulous mini game because you said the following:
Huh? I don't know where you were back then. The MOU itself was not made public, but that aspect of it was no secret. I was in Kenya just before the elections, and the agreement that Raila would be PM was common knowledge that I regularly heard of in the streets.
I would like to concede by stating the following:
1. Yes the "secret" MoU was [and has] never [been] made public
2. It is possible people like you heard about its existence and the details in it
3. The veracity of the details therein remain unknown until such a time that the hearsay is backed by a solid original or certified copy of the same.
That said, the FIRST time anybody connected with the MoU stated clearly that there was a secret MoU drawn by Njoki Ndung'u was AFTER the elections and after Kibaki had reneged on it.
Hitherto both the NARC campaign had responded to any mention of MoU by fudging: i.e. pretending it was all about the public MoU.
Clearly we did not keep the secret from you but we succeeded in misleading the Uhuru / KANU campaign until after the elections.
MoonKi
I am still sorry to burst your bubble.
The man who signed the MoU was Mwai Kibaki. On the other side representing LDP was Raila Odinga.
Three MoUs were signed in one day Bro as follows:
1. A secret one between DP (Not NAK) and LDP
2. A second one between LDP and Nyachae (abrogated a few hours later)
3. A public one between NAK and LDP
Yes, I know all that; I read most of it in Anyang' Nyong'o's book ... just in case, you think you are toboaring something. Now, pay careful attention to the following two points:
Point A:
The fact that something is not discussed in public does not necessarily make it secret. Think of examples in daily life around you.
Point B:
You wrote that
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows ...Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
and that
NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.
Note the "NARC". For good measure, you quoted a fellow informing us that:
There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies.
So, when, on the basis of information that you yourself have provided, I write that
According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!
you should be able to see that it has nothing to do with DP, LDP, NAK, or any other ABC signing anything, in private or in public or on the moon. It is Logic 101 applied to your claims with regard to NARC.
-
I think we can go back and forth about why people vote the way they do forever with each of us professing to know why but the bottom line is that it is a very complicated subject that cannot be simplified into the simple statement that "Kenyans vote along tribal lines" because it is not true. I do not believe that luos voted for Kibaki in 2002 or that Kalenjins voted for Raila in 2007 or that Kalenjins voted for Uhuru in 2013, all in large numbers because Raila or Ruto ordered them. That is a very simplistic explanation and it says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.
Yes, we can go back and forth. But if I may ask: Which is more simplistic? A simplistic statement or a simplistic interpretation of a simplistic statement?
You wrote that:
I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.
Perhaps. Am going to bet on this for 2017:
- Most Kalenjin and "kinly" affiliates (all brought by Ruto) and most GEMA (brought by Uhuru) will vote for Jubilee. That will be the core of one tribal coalition. Other, small, contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.
- Most Luos (brought by Raila), Kambas (brought by Musyoka), and Luhyas (delivered by Wetangula, and, if he doesn't misbehave again, Mudavadi) will vote for CORD. That will be the core of another tribal coalition. Other, small, contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.
- Big lots that are up for auction include the Kisii etc., although they might lean one way more than the other. And there are numerous small lots that are to be had for lower prices. Keep an eye out for things like State-House trips for "development" and the like, appointments to government bodies, promises of cabinet office, etc.
- Once the 8 or 9 big tribal chieftains have delivered their "our people", as above, it's all pretty much done. The remaining 30-something are just styrofoam filler, to stop the votes from rattling in the box. These are the smaller lots, to be shepherded into the right direction without the expenditure of much sweat,
Reality is what it is; it can be observed to be what it is; and it can be stated that it is what it is. Given that, this sort of statement
says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.
never works on me.
Stick to reasoned arguments, if you can.
-
Clearly we did not keep the secret from you but we succeeded in misleading the Uhuru / KANU campaign until after the elections.
Today, some people are still wailing about how they were stabbed in the back, and Uhuru is where he is. Good for you.
-
That most Kalenjins and Kikuyus are going to vote for Jubilee does not translate into Kenyans voting solely based on tribe. I agree that most less Kalenjins are going to vote for Ouru in 2017 than they did in 2013. This is because interests have shifted. More Kisii and Luhyias may vote for Raila this time around than they did in 2013. Whether these changes will make a difference in 2013 or not I do not know and neither do you. It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee and that does not make them tribal voting robots.
To run for president of Kenya successfully, one requires a lot of money. Then one needs name recognition, then one needs to have a respectable political base to start with. Name recognition can come from family such as Ouru, Moi or Odinga but that is not enough as Gideon and other children of previous prominent politicians have found out or will find out. One also have to have to be in the "right political" side with his base or tribe (oxymoron), before they can think of forming coalitions. Ouru in 2002 was not in sync with the political thinking of the Kikuyu at that time and he did not get their solid vote.
In conclusion, tribe alone is not enough, money alone is not enough, and definitely name recognition alone is not even. It is more complicated and must be analyzed differently during each election period and therefore that "Kenyana vote along tribal lines" is a is too simplistic. If it were true then if one substituted Ouru and Raila with any luo or Kikuyu then those substitutes would get the same votes. If something changes based on circumstances then it cannot be true. Reminds me of the dude who mixed coke with different alcoholic drinks on several different occasions and had a hangover each time then concluded that coke causes hangover.
I think we can go back and forth about why people vote the way they do forever with each of us professing to know why but the bottom line is that it is a very complicated subject that cannot be simplified into the simple statement that "Kenyans vote along tribal lines" because it is not true. I do not believe that luos voted for Kibaki in 2002 or that Kalenjins voted for Raila in 2007 or that Kalenjins voted for Uhuru in 2013, all in large numbers because Raila or Ruto ordered them. That is a very simplistic explanation and it says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.
Yes, we can go back and forth. But we need not.
You wrote that:
I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.
Perhaps. Am going to bet on this for 2017:
- Most Kalenjin (brought by Ruto) and most Kikuyu (brought by Uhuru) will vote for Jubilee. That will be the core of one tribal coalition. Other, small, contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.
- Most Luos (brought by Raila), Kambas (brought by Musyoka), and Luhyas (Wetangula, and, if he doesn't misbehave again, Mudavadi) will vote for CORD. That will be the core of another tribal coalition. Other, small, contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.
- Big lots that are up for auction include the Kisii etc., although they might lean one way more than the other. And there are numerous small lots that are to be had for lower prices. Keep an eye out for things like State-House trips for "development" and the like, appointments to government bodies, promises of cabinet office, etc.
- Once the 8 or 9 big tribal chieftains have delivered there people, as above, it's all pretty much done. The remaining 30-something are just styrofoam fillers, to stop the votes from rattling in the box. These are the smaller lots, to be shepherded into the right direction without the expenditure of much sweat,
Reality is what it is; it can be observed to be what it is; and it can be stated that it is what it is. So, let's not get carried away, with things like "trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze".
-
People world over vote their interest and Kenyans are not different other than that we have tribes. If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns. The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe. In 2008 African Americans came out for Obama in huge numbers for Obama because they had an interest in having their children see a black man who identified with them became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for president on the Republican party, you would have seen the same amount of black people come out to vote for him. I believe that Joho would get more luo votes than Miguna if they both ran for president in 2022. Kidero got a lot of non-luo votes in Nairobi in 2013 to win the governorship. There are many more incidents of Kenyans voting across tribal lines than along tribal lines and yet we focus so much on the few occasions when Kenyans vote along tribal lines. In 2002 although luos voted for Kibaki because of Raila but it was more than just because Raila was a luo-it also had something to do with Raila's political beliefs. I think it is an insult to Kenyans to say that we only vote for our tribesmates because they are our tribesmates and nothing else. Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
You are giving some reasons why people can vote on tribal lines. You are not negating the fact that they do. American blacks may not have voted Obama primarily for his race, but that is America.
Miguna has no chance of being elected President. Even villagers know that. They won't vote for him against Jogo because:
1) Joho is pro-Raila.
2) Miguna has zero chance of succeeding.
3) Miguna is generally regarded as a traitor against Luo interests personified by Raila. Something that might even be worse than belonging to another tribe.
You might as well replace Miguna in your argument with Malik Obama without making it any weaker.
Kidero won Nairobi because Luos, Luhya and others were succesfully herded into his basket by the charisma of their tribal supremos. The Luo portion of the vote was underwritten by his membership of Raila's ODM. The Luhya and Kamba by ODM's relationship with the respective tribal supremos.
There can be other reasons, including long histories of struggle and suffering. Yet, such histories failed Orengo in 2002 in favor of a figure that only quit the establishment at the eleventh hour. For the other reasons to matter, they must always somehow ultimately align with current preference of the tribal supremo.
It's ugly. But it's also true. Tribalism is the simplest and most consistent explanation for voting patterns in Kenya.
-
That most Kalenjins and Kikuyus are going to vote for Jubilee does not translate into Kenyans voting solely based on tribe.
I was giving my view of 2017, in light of the statement that:
I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.
As I see it, almost nothing will change from 2013.
It is in their interest to vote that way ...
Why and how is it in their interest? Perhaps that will guide is understanding the "non-tribal" voting that you claim.
In conclusion, tribe alone is not enough, money alone is not enough, and definitely name recognition alone is not even. It is more complicated and must be analyzed differently at each election and therefore that "Kenyan vote along tribal lines" is a big lie being repeated as if it were the bible truth. If it were true then if you substituted Ouru and Raila with any luo or Kikuyu then you would get the same vote casted by their tribesmates to those people as Ouru and Raila would get. If something changes all the time then it cannot be true.
I have given you my breakdown for 2017, on the basis of a "tribal" analysis. Perhaps the groupings I have given will form ,as given, but for other reasons---"interest" that so far has not been explained. Or perhaps I am completely wrong, and it will a "different tribal coalition", as you suggest; we'll see.
-
Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe. What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe. For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base. #3 is can broken down some. Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo? Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that. I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.
People world over vote their interest and Kenyans are not different other than that we have tribes. If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns. The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe. In 2008 African Americans came out for Obama in huge numbers for Obama because they had an interest in having their children see a black man who identified with them became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for president on the Republican party, you would have seen the same amount of black people come out to vote for him. I believe that Joho would get more luo votes than Miguna if they both ran for president in 2022. Kidero got a lot of non-luo votes in Nairobi in 2013 to win the governorship. There are many more incidents of Kenyans voting across tribal lines than along tribal lines and yet we focus so much on the few occasions when Kenyans vote along tribal lines. In 2002 although luos voted for Kibaki because of Raila but it was more than just because Raila was a luo-it also had something to do with Raila's political beliefs. I think it is an insult to Kenyans to say that we only vote for our tribesmates because they are our tribesmates and nothing else. Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
You are giving some reasons why people can vote on tribal lines. You are not negating the fact that they do. American blacks may not have voted Obama primarily for his race, but that is America.
Miguna has no chance of being elected President. Even villagers know that. They won't vote for him against Jogo because:
1) Joho is pro-Raila.
2) Miguna has zero chance of succeeding.
3) Miguna is generally regarded as a traitor against Luo interests personified by Raila. Something that might even be worse than belonging to another tribe.
You might as well replace Miguna in your argument with Malik Obama without making it any weaker.
Kidero won Nairobi because Luos, Luhya and others were succesfully herded into his basket by the charisma of their tribal supremos. The Luo portion of the vote was underwritten by his membership of Raila's ODM. The Luhya and Kamba by ODM's relationship with the respective tribal supremos.
There can be other reasons, including long histories of struggle and suffering. Yet, such histories failed Orengo in 2002 in favor of a figure that only quit the establishment at the eleventh hour. For the other reasons to matter, they must always somehow ultimately align with current preference of the tribal supremo.
It's ugly. But it's also true. Tribalism is the simplest and most consistent explanation for voting patterns in Kenya.
-
Termie
Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:
1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
- Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
- Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
Both sides (Kibaki - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.
Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:
- As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
- Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
- A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
- Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre
I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
If I am spreading propaganda(I assume you mean Jubilant) then I am pretty useless at it. Because elsewhere, I have given reasons why Kenyans should vote against the same.
That said, your motivations in part (2) for keeping the MOU secret just confirm my point. That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya.
-
Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe. What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe. For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base. #3 is can broken down some. Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo? Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that. I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.
You are listing the attributes that make him an attractive tribal supremo. While it is possible that these be the decisive ones, mere possibility does not always mean a conclusion is plausible or even reasonable. In Kenya's context, all those attributes are useless, if he is not the tribal leader.
-
C'mon windy, "That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya". At least you have expanded it from just tribe to "the interest of its leader". I think you are trying to fit this "truth" into the Raila/Ouru narrative t draw a broad conclusion and its not going to work. Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son. We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well. The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland. Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu and we need to acknowledge that before we can begin to be serious. Let us not get stuck into this simplicity that "Kenyans only vote along tribal lines" Its simplistic and creates intellectual laziness instead of curiosity. In the US, Democrats are now doing a serious analysis of why white folks who voted for Obama only 4 years ago voted for Trump who is openly expressing racist remarks. It would be simplilstic to label white voters who voted for Trump as being irredeemably racists because it is more complex than that. In Kenya we should not assume that Kenyan voters are irredeemably tribalist. Kikuyus celebrated Raila as "Njamba" not too long ago and Luos voted for Kibaki in droves not too long ago. Let us dig deeper for the reason why all this changed in four years to hatred instead of being lazy with the most convenient answer-tribe.
Termie
Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:
1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
- Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
- Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
Both sides (Kibaki - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.
Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:
- As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
- Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
- A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
- Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre
I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
If I am spreading propaganda(I assume you mean Jubilant) then I am pretty useless at it. Because elsewhere, I have given reasons why Kenyans should vote against the same.
That said, your motivations in part (2) for keeping the MOU secret just confirm my point. That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya.
-
C'mon windy, "That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya". At least you have expanded it from just tribe to "the interest of its leader". I think you are trying to fit this "truth" into the Raila/Ouru narrative t draw a broad conclusion and its not going to work. Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son. We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well. The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland. Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu and we need to acknowledge that before we can begin to be serious. Let us not get stuck into this simplicity that "Kenyans only vote along tribal lines" Its simplistic and creates intellectual laziness instead of curiosity. In the US, Democrats are now doing a serious analysis of why white folks who voted for Obama only 4 years ago voted for Trump who is openly expressing racist remarks. It would be simplilstic to label white voters who voted for Trump as being irredeemably racists because it is more complex than that. In Kenya we should not assume that Kenyan voters are irredeemably tribalist. Kikuyus celebrated Raila as "Njamba" not too long ago and Luos voted for Kibaki in droves not too long ago. Let us dig deeper for the reason why all this changed in four years to hatred instead of being lazy with the most convenient answer-tribe.
Termie
Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:
1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
- Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
- Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa
Both sides (Kibaki - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.
Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:
- As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
- Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
- A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
- Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre
I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.
They do. It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.
As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister. It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.
The same logic applies to the other tribes. In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone. They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.
If I am spreading propaganda(I assume you mean Jubilant) then I am pretty useless at it. Because elsewhere, I have given reasons why Kenyans should vote against the same.
That said, your motivations in part (2) for keeping the MOU secret just confirm my point. That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya.
The case of Ouru is an interesting one. What is the primary reason Kikuyus support him? I have already explained why Miguna and Orengo do not make good candidates for a tribal leader. There is a reason Raila would never displace Masinde Muliro as a Bukusu spokesman, regardless of his other non-tribal attributes - his tribe.
I know you have ideals and I admire that. But we cannot pretend that these are in play, because people are better than what our lying eyes are telling us.
-
Windy, I think you are limiting your ability to analyze properly how Kenyans vote by insisting that "tribe" must be the overriding factor. Let us stipulate that tribe is a factor, and then let us analyze the other factors and provide them fair assessment. Let us start with money. Money alone does not make one a "tribal supremo". Let us then talk about name recognition- This alone does not do it either and that is why Oburu or Muhoho are not as powerful as their two siblings. Let us then examine political ideology or activity or leaning-whatever you want to call it. I believe this is the bigger factor but even this alone is not enough. Ouru and Raila are very unique in that they have been able to put together the right combination of factors to make them "tribal supremos". This does not mean that everybody can and therefore future politicians must look for other ways to win the presidency of Kenya and not rely on the Raila/Ouru factors. Those who think that it is all about tribe will fail miserably.
Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe. What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe. For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base. #3 is can broken down some. Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo? Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that. I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.
You are listing the attributes that make him an attractive tribal supremo. While it is possible that these be the decisive ones, mere possibility does not always mean a conclusion is plausible or even reasonable. In Kenya's context, all those attributes are useless, if he is not the tribal leader.
-
Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son. We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well. The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland. Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu.
All that is just pointing out that there are "good reasons" for why Raila is at the top in Luoland and Uhuru is at the top in Kikuyuland. But that is no more that the observation that in a group of broadly similar people, one person will, for a variety of reasons, rise to the top. If you take any tribe in Kenya, you will be able to find "good reasons" for why the current tribal chieftain is where he is. But all that is quite a different matter from how the "our people" then follow the chieftain.
Kikuyus celebrated Raila as "Njamba" not too long ago.
That was very nice of them. And how many votes did they then give him?
Luos voted for Kibaki in droves not too long ago.
Was that in 2002 (when Raila was tosharing Kibaki), or was it in 2007 (when Raila was running against Kibaki)?
Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu and we need to acknowledge that before we can begin to be serious.
And what might be? I have some ideas on Raila---2nd liberation struggle etc.---but what exactly is Uhuru's "something bigger".
Let us dig deeper ...
That is an excellent suggestion. Let's start here:
It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee and that does not make them tribal voting robots.
Why is it in their interest? What interests are those?
-
Moonki- I think that you are at this point too married to the conventional narrative that Kenyans vote a long tribal lines. The rest of your answers/points are based cynicism and sarcasm not conducive to a serious exchange of ideas. I believe that even after Ouru and Raila have left the political scene and the resultant square peg does not fit the tribal round hole you have created, you will still try fit it in.
-
Moonki- I think that you are at this point too married to the conventional narrative that Kenyans vote a long tribal lines. The rest of your answers/points are based cynicism and sarcasm not conducive to a serious exchange of ideas.
My answers/points are based a serious application of reason the line you are offering and how it is detached from reality. I believe objective people can see that.
I believe that even after Ouru and Raila have left the political scene and the resultant square peg does not fit the tribal round hole you have created, you will still try fit it in.
Kenyan will one day move to a more "progressive" level. Until then, we know what we have, and the problem with holes and pegs is expressed in one of your more interesting, if somewhat questionable, lines:
It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee and that does not make them tribal voting robots.
Presumably that's how they too see it, whence the lack of concrete support for the "njamba". And the same goes for other tribes, with respect to their "our man". Which is exactly why we have the situation we have. So when you talk about a different "tribal coalition", you are assuming that people will be foolish enough to go against their "interests", which even you can, apparently, see.
-
Windy, I think you are limiting your ability to analyze properly how Kenyans vote by insisting that "tribe" must be the overriding factor. Let us stipulate that tribe is a factor, and then let us analyze the other factors and provide them fair assessment. Let us start with money. Money alone does not make one a "tribal supremo". Let us then talk about name recognition- This alone does not do it either and that is why Oburu or Muhoho are not as powerful as their two siblings. Let us then examine political ideology or activity or leaning-whatever you want to call it. I believe this is the bigger factor but even this alone is not enough. Ouru and Raila are very unique in that they have been able to put together the right combination of factors to make them "tribal supremos". This does not mean that everybody can and therefore future politicians must look for other ways to win the presidency of Kenya and not rely on the Raila/Ouru factors. Those who think that it is all about tribe will fail miserably.
Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe. What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe. For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base. #3 is can broken down some. Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo? Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that. I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.
You are listing the attributes that make him an attractive tribal supremo. While it is possible that these be the decisive ones, mere possibility does not always mean a conclusion is plausible or even reasonable. In Kenya's context, all those attributes are useless, if he is not the tribal leader.
If politics is the biggest factor as you allege. Then the tribal support ought to change with change in political positions of the supremo. But this is not what Raila's political history suggests. He has had rock solid support from that one group regardless of who he pals around with. Be it a saint or a well known thug.
They were with him when he was with Kibaki a well known conservative. When he left Kibaki's camp, Tuju who benefitted from his association with the supremo's party, suffered politically because he failed to move with the herd. They instead wound up with a former Moi protegee. If this is not a clear sign of personality trumping political ideas, then I don't know what is.
-
Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son. We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well. The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland. Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu.
All that is just pointing out that there are "good reasons" for why Raila is at the top in Luoland and Uhuru is at the top in Kikuyuland. But that is no more that the observation that in a group of broadly similar people, one person will, for a variety of reasons, rise to the top. If you take any tribe in Kenya, you will be able to find "good reasons" for why the current tribal chieftain is where he is. But all that is quite a different matter from how the "our people" then follow the chieftain.
Exactly. There is a reason Peter Kenneth's well touted "development agenda" cannot allow him to hack into the apex of Kikuyu leadership. It's not that kamwana has better ideas or track record. Kamwana is the muthamaki - that's all there is to it. It's replicated as many times as one can extract an ethnic identity from any place in Kenya. The mechanics can be elaborate and complicated. But the underlying principle is very basic.
-
And how did Ouru become the Muthamaki and not Peter Kenneth. Imagine you were a political consultant and a young Kikuyu of 15 years old approached you and asked you what s/ he should do to become a Muthamaki just like Ouru, what would you tell this young person to do? I am sure you will have a list of things for her to do and also hope you remind him that being a kikuyu alone is not enough.
RV Pundit once made a list of what one needs to do to become a serious presidential contender in Kenya and the list looked like the life of one William Ruto. Its like looking at the recent election of Trump and telling a young person in the USA that its all about the "rust belt", and that if they wanted to become president of the USA they must insult Mexican immigrants, disparage women, and praise Russian presidents.
We tend to rely too much on the Kibaki/Ouru/Raila success or failures to reach broad conclusion like "Kenyans vote along tribal lines". Its like someone who has only seen two cows which happen to be black, then brazenly concludes that all cows are black.
-
And how did Ouru become the Muthamaki and not Peter Kenneth. Ain't they both Kikuyus? Tell me the things one needs to do to become a tribal kingpin and then tell me why only very few make it. Imagine you were a political consultant and a young Kikuyu of 15 years old approached you and asked you what he should do to become a Muthamaki just like Ouru, what would you tell the young person to do? I am sure you will tell him that being a kikuyu alone is not enough and that he needs to do a few things to get the attention of the kikuyu people. You will also tell the young lady that she needs to also needs to do certain things to get the votes from the other tribes because the kikuyu vote is not going to be enough. Once you list all the things that in your opinion this young kikuyu should do, it will dawn on you that its not tribe alone and that it is more complex than the conventional wisdom suggest.
Blue: First, from the very definition of "tribal kingpin", and "kingpin" being singular, it follows that there can only be one per tribe.
Red: From that, it necessarily follows that even though both are Kikuyus, only one can be the kingpin.
So, it is not necessary to explain why "only few can make it". Because the answer is right there in the question: only few can make it.
Green: It also follows that to be a tribal kingpin, one must belong to the tribe in question. So, there is not much to be said for the observation that "they are from the same tribe!".
(Try to appreciate the difference between "necessary prerequisite" and "sufficient condition", and see my earlier comment, on how in any given group one will rise to the top.)
Purple: Indeed. You stated that Uhuru has "something bigger". If you care to state what that something is--and perhaps you will do that before demanding that others give advice to your lady---I'll be happy to discuss what the tribal-kingpin requirements are. In the meantime, I have my own "theory", and it is this: Uhuru is seen as having come to the rescue of his "our people" in "desperate times", i.e. during the PEV. He seems to have done that by actively sponsoring and directing atrocities against others. Before that, he was seen as just a bottle-loving KANU project. The most important aspect of that is that it is all purely tribal: yes, he was nasty, but he saved our people! (What's Peter Kenneth got to compete?) That's not path I would recommend to your young lady.
I would also point out to your young lady friend that Uhuru is not relying on just the Kikuyu; he has his buddy, Ruto, who will bring to the table a sizable number of his "our sheeple". That gives them a pretty good head start, which you can confirm by going here and doing the sums: https://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/2015-01-15-11-10-24/downloads/item/voters-register-statistics-per-county?category_id=56 What they then have to do is purchase some of the smaller groups of other "our sheeple".
Look, here is how it is for 2017: Whatever "something bigger" Raila has, it's not big enough to be seen in Central; practically no votes there for the "njamba". And whatever "something big" Uhuru has, it's not big enough to be seen in Nyanza; no votes there for the bottle-loving "omera".
There's also been plenty of hopeful noise here (and elsewhere) on Moi+KANU and Rutto+CCM. That's just leveraging for a position at the eating table. If you want the reality, take a look at how Moi et al voted in the recent elections-bill circus.
Kenya needs: to move away from tribal voting. But that's not going to happen by denying the reality. (See next comment.)
-
A broader comment on the nature of tribal voting in Kenya (and any comparisons with others): The real reason that it matters is that it is of a sort which means that "issues" are never really relevant in a Kenyan election; what matters is herding the tribal sheep in the direction of power.
People will talk and write endlessly about politics, but what one hardly gets is this: What are the main policies of this and that party on the economy, law and order, health, education, and anything else that really matters to the citizens. What will the party do differently that will make life better for Kenyans? One never hears about such things, nor it it even clear where one would find such information.
Example 1: Here is ODM's webpage: http://www.odm.co.ke/ It has an odd selection of "platform issues". Clicking on each link shows a well-maintained and indefinite "coming soon" status.
Example 2: Here is Jubilee party's webpage: https://jubileepamoja.co.ke/ Clicking on the "Building a better Kenya" link brings up a sad one-page .pdf file.
And so on, and so forth. And those are just the "more advanced" ones. Most political parties in Kenya don't even make the slightest attempt to explain what they are about. "Political ideas"? That's a good one. Kenya politics are all about getting into office so as to be able to rob the public. If you can't do it yourself, do it vicariously: your "interests" are best served by voting---non-tribally, of course---for your "our man".
(If there are links to better information that is readily available to the public, I'd be grateful to know of them.)
Yes, CORD has a "manifesto" from 2013, as does Jubilee. No more than vague bullet points: we will do this or that great thing, with no accompanying details elsewhere on how said great thing will be done.
A concrete example: CORD has done quite a job in highlighting corruption, and, on behalf of Jubilee, Uhuru has done his "ngai! nitafanya nini!". What one will never hear is what CORD would do if it were in power or what Jubilee plans to do that is different from what it has done. And they can get away with it because, at the end of the day, it's not going to make a difference in the voting.
Take a look at the Kenyan media, in any form, and look at the discussions on politics. (If you don't have the time, you can restrict yourself to, say, just the "Politics" section of the DAILY NATION.). You will find all sorts of stuff. Mostly an exchange of insults and some bureaucratic stuff. What you will almost-never find is what anything to do with making things better for the average Kenyan.
"Kichwa ..." made a reference to the case of Trump in America. Some of us might not like the guy or care for his ideas---I certainly don't---but the fact is that he spent a great deal of time, energy, money, etc. into articulating an alternative that managed to attract enough people: You don't care for South-of-The-Border types? I'll build a Great Wall to stop them. Obamacare was a creation of Obama? I'll repeal it. You think you are losing your jobs because of outsourcing and trade agreements? I'll nip all that in the bud. And so on, and so forth..
If you look at what's been happening in Kenya, campaigns for the 2017 elections have actually been going on for some time. But what is anybody actually offering the Kenyan people? Nothing. Because, at the end of the day, "issues" have nothing to do with the voting. Wherever you look, it's different groups trying to get, or keep their hands in the till. THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. And it will, once there has been---again, after Moi---enough pain or the tribal sheeple stop caring about their "interests" and instead focus on their interests.
-
Moon ki. Ouru and Raila are unique in that they are probably the last tribal kingpins as we know it today. Ruto is already getting a serious challenge from Rutto and Man Giddy. Luhyias cannot agree on one. Kalonzo has always had serious challenge and the political rearrangement in Kissi is not complete but interesting to watch. Kenya is very restless right now and one cannot dismiss the undercurrents so cavalierly. People are seeking to better their lives and the tribal kingpin battles are being used to debate serious issues like corruption, free and fair elections, poverty, high cost of living, unemployment and even tribalism itself. We will never get rid of tribal pride and sense of belonging but we can find a common ground where tribal interest converge and then devolution governments can take care of local interests.