Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Globalcitizen12 on June 26, 2017, 05:51:06 AM
-
The silent majority.. . In Kenya the ground has shifted. This is a change election. it is the economy stupid.
There is a genuine concern that the county is not better than it was in 2013.
Kenyans voted for TNA To deliver real tangible change. Transformative change in all sectors.. A new way of thinking.. The young voters wanted to move away from government of cronyism and mediocrity to a government of merit.. When Uhuru appointed Moi age mates to government posts and klepocrat kids everyone knew that the promise has been broken. When the word Tenderprenuer became synonomous with UHuruto regime then no amount of PR could convince Independent and highly educated young Kenyans that the government they voted for had not lost direction.
There is deafening silence among Kikuyu elites they know that they cannot in good conscience defend Uhuru government. The vocal ones defected after NYS saga and started exploring for third way.. When that was thwarted by NIS they decided to support ODM covertly in hope Uhuru and Ruto can be stopped.
The only group that is still vocal is the diehard tribalists and Tenderprenuers who are milking this Jubilee Dying cow one more time before it is slaughtered n\in August
The silent majority especially in Jubilee strongholds have decided to let the ballot talk. My buddy who is non vocal just came back from Kenya and he told me that most people are disappointed by lack of tangible development. The roads that Kibaki did well to recarpet in Kiambu have been damaged and since it easier to tarmac a road in rural Kenya than to maintain it most have become a mess.. The youth those that are no 23 years have come to realize that the lofty manifesto sold to them by Jubilee was just a campaign wishful thinking. They want to send the message to the political class. Most wont be voting and if they do they will cast a protest vote. When my friend asked if they are not concerned of their fate as a tribe they said they only voted for Jubilee to be transformative and since this didn't happen they would care less and their quip to him "uhuru to win will have to rig".
In rural Rift valley there is also tidbits of folks coming out to their friends on their plan to vote for NASA but not openly saying it because they do not want to face backlash.
Young Kikuyus and Kalenjins may have one up their sleeve
like those white males that lined up and pulled the lever for Trump without letting anyone know they would do it..
Ruto and perception that Uhuru cronies have engaged in plundering govt resources is Jubilee Achilles heel.. Up to March Jubilee was overly confident and arrogant but the carpet is getting pulled under their feet and now there is an inkling that the center may not hold
Kenyans over 45 years will vote on MOAS Trend but anyone below 45 will vote on bread and butter issues..
The single important issue in this election is CORRUPTION and how to secure OUR Economy from free fall..
Raila and CO must now tell wanjiku what is wrong with the anemic economy and how they plan to fix it...
They must link the economic turmoil to years of National GOVERNMENT Wanton looting and corruption
They must ask Kenyans are you better than you were in 2013
time is now to show that Githinji, Kabura, Waigurus, ruto, Kiunjuri a billionaire in two decades, of Kenya are the rule in jubilee junta not the exception
It is time of NASA to give the young women and men of all tribes a hope that politics must not be a zero sum game.
It is time to unite Kenyans under the banner that the lives will be transformed despite being away from center of power
NASA must tell the young Kenyans that any money that will be borrowed on their behalf for infrastructure projects like SRG will be done so by their own public participation and vetting. All deals will have a sunshine clause where they will be done in transparent manner. Wanjiku will be able to get every granular detail of any project without having to beg for this information.
NASA government will a government by the people for the people.
It is a dark day in Kenya and it has been a rather depressing 5 years of seeing our hope for a better tomorrow getting destroyed by a cabal of few.
NASA will be a transition government. It will be the government that will give Kenyans a template on how to resist the urge to join cabals but to fight on and win
-
RV's argument is that the majority of Kenyans vote purely along tribal lines and that no issue matters. The argument is based on false premise that Kenyans are not sophisticated enough to vote on issues/ideology. I will not accept that argument no matter how many times his MOAS coincides with a winner. There is really nothing sophisticated about voting on issues/ideology. All human beings old enough to appreciate politics have an ideology. Even voting along tribal lines is based on ideology. A white person in America voting for Trump because he believes only a white male can be president is not more sophisticated than an African voting for his tribesmate. Also, the notion that Africans cannot share a political ideology with someone who is not a member of his tribe is false on its face because there are just too many examples. RV pundits argument is that there maybe a few Kenyans who will vote across tribal lines but they are not enough to make a difference. This is also not true for Kenya because there is truly no dominant tribe. I strongly believe that an issue such as the economy can change tribal votes. Most kikuyus will vote for Ouru but enough may stay home or vote for NASA to change this elections. If Pundit's word was God's word on this issue then Ouru would not bother campaigning in central province. Kenyans will break from this tribal vote phenomenon very soon and it could start with this elections. Every political season is different and all you need is different issues, different times, different candidates and you will get different voting patterns.
-
Kenyans will vote like the tribal sheep that they are and have always been. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.
-
Change only comes through dreamers and therefore its a badge of honor to be labeled a dreamer. I remember when Kibaki made the mugumo tree analogy to those who dared dream for a multiparty state. I also remember the days when Raila used to talk about the virtues of devolution to bored audiences in the US. I have been around the block long enough not to ignore dreams. I am glad this world is full of dreamers.
Kenyans will vote like the tribal sheep that they are and have always been. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.
-
Change only comes through dreamers and therefore its a badge of honor to be labeled a dreamer. I remember when Kibaki made the mugumo tree analogy to those who dared dream for a multiparty state. I also remember the days when Raila used to talk about the virtues of devolution to bored audiences in the US. I have been around the block long enough not to ignore dreams. I am glad this world is full of dreamers.
You seem to assume that "dreamer" means the same thing no matter its usage. Not quite so. Consider the difference between the following:
(a) A person who imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (but which is within the realms of possibility) and then goes to work or at least help in bringing it about. For example, Martin Luther King "dreaming of a nation ... " or, as you note, some Kenyans imagining a "multi-party" state.
(b) A person who imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (and which is very unlikely to exist) and who does bugger-all to bring it about. For example, a person whose entire personal financial plans are based on imagined success in the lottery.
I meant dreamer in the latter sense. But regardless of the type of dreaming that one prefers and what one does about it, Kenyan elections in 2017 will be as usual. Best to save for another day any planned transition from (b) to (a).
And, contrary what some hackneyed phrases suggests in song and film, the world could actually do with fewer dreamers: as it is, there are more of Type (b) than of Type (a).
-
The odds that merit will override tribalism is pretty slim indeed. Like Global himself observed a few weeks ago, increased socioenomic development - urbanization, education, integration - will weed out tribalism in time. This time is taunted as 50-100yrs by Pundit. I am a firm believer in DISRUPTION aka rapid transformation, which can be driven by unexpected scenarios such as drought, war, booms. Raila's key talking point is "bei ya maisha imepanda", before proceeding to trump that Jubilee's corruption and incompetence has caused these problems. This nature's opportunity creates a window for Uhuru to fail and Ruto's tribal strategy to be upended. There is no proper reason Kenyans must wait to move to towns, get degrees or intermarry to start picking leaders by merit.
-
The odds that merit will override tribalism is pretty slim indeed. Like Global himself observed a few weeks ago, increased socioenomic development - urbanization, education, integration - will weed out tribalism in time. This time is taunted as 50-100yrs by Pundit. I am a firm believer in DISRUPTION aka rapid transformation, which can be driven by unexpected scenarios such as drought, war, booms. Raila's key talking point is "bei ya maisha imepanda", before proceeding to trump that Jubilee's corruption and incompetence has caused these problems. This nature's opportunity creates a window for Uhuru to fail and Ruto's tribal strategy to be upended. There is proper reason Kenyans must wait to move to towns, get degrees or intermarry to start picking leaders by merit.
Yes, "disruption" does work; and I have noted that elsewhere. But in place like Kenya it has to be savage enough. PEV => New Constitution. But drought? How many of those have we had and with what political effect?
Talking about corruption should be done, but, as things stand, it really won't do much good. Kenyans don't actually object to corruption; what they object to is "those other people" doing the eating. As I have already noted elsewhere, the last "major" anti-corruption demonstration in Nairobi, a city of millions, had about 30 people---half of them Boniface Mwangi and some NGO types doing their day-job. And take a look at the primaries: how many of those candidates would be there if people really cared about corruption, integrity, etc.? The basic attitude doesn't change at the "higher levels". The only thing that changes is the perceived stakes---i.e., "think of what we can get to eat with our person there!". "Our people" will go with "our thief".
-
You used the word "dreaming" to negatively characterize an opinion I expressed. All I did was to use the word "dreamer" to positively defend my long standing position on this matter of tribal voting. Now you are trying too hard to limit my usage of the word and its coming across as very condescending. lets go back to debating the real issues and lets spare each other these silly lectures.
Change only comes through dreamers and therefore its a badge of honor to be labeled a dreamer. I remember when Kibaki made the mugumo tree analogy to those who dared dream for a multiparty state. I also remember the days when Raila used to talk about the virtues of devolution to bored audiences in the US. I have been around the block long enough not to ignore dreams. I am glad this world is full of dreamers.
You seem to assume that "dreamer" means the same thing no matter its usage. Not quite so. Consider the difference between the following:
(a) A person who imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (but which is within the realms of possibility) and then goes to work or at least help in bringing it about. For example, Martin Luther King "dreaming of a nation ... " or, as you note, some Kenyans imagining a "multi-party" state.
(b) A person who imagines something or some situation that does not yet exist (and which is very unlikely to exist) and who does bugger-all to bring it about. For example, a person whose entire personal financial plans are based on imagined success in the lottery.
I meant dreamer in the latter sense. But regardless of the type of dreaming that one prefers and what one does about it, Kenyan elections in 2017 will be as usual. Best to save for another day any planned transition from (b) to (a).
And, contrary what some hackneyed phrases suggests in song and film, the world could actually do with fewer dreamers: as it is, there are more of Type (b) than of Type (a).
-
If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome. Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket. Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate. That leaves us with 38 tribes and maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.
The US presidential elections starts with almost 40% Republican Damu and 40% Democrats Damu. The swing vote is sometimes less than 20% and that is what they fight for.
Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way. The conventional wisdom that "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.
The odds that merit will override tribalism is pretty slim indeed. Like Global himself observed a few weeks ago, increased socioenomic development - urbanization, education, integration - will weed out tribalism in time. This time is taunted as 50-100yrs by Pundit. I am a firm believer in DISRUPTION aka rapid transformation, which can be driven by unexpected scenarios such as drought, war, booms. Raila's key talking point is "bei ya maisha imepanda", before proceeding to trump that Jubilee's corruption and incompetence has caused these problems. This nature's opportunity creates a window for Uhuru to fail and Ruto's tribal strategy to be upended. There is proper reason Kenyans must wait to move to towns, get degrees or intermarry to start picking leaders by merit.
-
If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome. Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket. Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate. That leaves us with 38 tribes and maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.
Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way. The conventional wisdom that "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.
I can't speak for others, but when I talk of Kenya voting along tribal lines, what I mean is that tribe is the most reliable indicator of how Kenyans will vote. The "tribal voting" itself occurs in two ways:
(a) those who have a tribesman in the race will vote to support that tribesman and his friends;
(b) those who don't have a tribesman in the race still vote as a tribe, aligning themselves with one of the big ones.
What I find especially interesting argument is something like red above. What is the basis for your willingness to go along with that assumption.
And when, as you suggest, 60% of the votes can be allocated on a purely tribal basis (a), is that not sufficient reason to say that the country votes on a tribal basis?
P.S. I apologize if the "tone" or my earlier "post" offended you.
-
If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome. Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket. Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate. That leaves us with 38 tribes and maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.
Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way. The conventional wisdom that "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.
I can't speak for others, but when I talk of Kenya voting along tribal lines, what I mean is that tribe is the most reliable indicator of how Kenyans will vote. The "tribal voting" itself occurs in two ways:
(a) those who have a tribesman in the race will vote to support that tribesman and his friends;
(b) those who don't have a tribesman in the race still vote as a tribe, aligning themselves with one of the big ones.
What I find especially interesting argument is something like red above. What is the basis for your willingness to go along with that assumption.
And when, as you suggest, 60% of the votes can be allocated on a purely tribal basis (a), is that not sufficient reason to say that the country votes on a tribal basis?
Even those without a bull in the fight still vote according to tribe. They vote whichever way their tribal leaders tell them to. If Weta suddenly decides he likes the jubilant, the Bukusu portion of the Luhya will, shift without missing a beat or batting an eyelid, to the jubilant side.
The so called battle-ground undecided fights still involve enticing the tribes by promising their respective leaders goodies. Whoever is most convincing in that respect gets the tribal vote. They are not undecided because of some issues(corruption, economic vision, maize etc). But rather because they have not made up their minds which of the main groupings promises are most credible for their tribal leaders.
-
Windy. I truly appreciate your response because its not the usual condescending knee jerk response that I get. The argument is that Kenyans do not vote based on ideology/issues but purely based on tribe.
My argument is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We vote along tribal lines because we believe that its in our political interest to do so. It is a very strong belief based on historical reasons and therefore rational. My argument is that IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not necessarily serve their best political interest or that it is may even be against their political interest to vote for a particular candidate even though he is of their tribe , then I believe that Kenyans are capable of voting against their tribes mate. There are example where Kenyans have voted against their family members or against their clans man and therefore I believe that they are capable of voting against a tribes mate.
Is it true that there is a very strong correlation between the tribe of the candidate and how his/her tribes mate vote, but it is not cause/effect relationship. Some people ask me what is the difference. I say that if its a cause/effect relationship then there is very little we can do about it. However, if it is based on false belief or on a long standing tradition then it should not take 100 years to change.
It defies logic to assert that the Kenyan presidential contest is over as soon as we know the political identities of the candidates and a MOAS is put together. Its been that way more because of the Raila/Kenyatta factors which has more to do with historical facts than even tribe. As soon as these two are out of the way, its going to be very difficult for MOAS to work.
If we agree that this elections is very close-if free and fair- then a very small odd of how people vote may can change the outcome. Kenya has 42 tribes and only only two tribes have a candidate at the top of the ticket. Lets give those two 100% of their tribesmates. Then we have two tribes with their tribesmates running for the deputy president- let us give them 80% of their tribes mate. That leaves us with 38 tribes and maybe 40 percent of the votes that can be swayed either way.
Nobody is claiming that Kenyans will not vote for their tribesmates or party but there is enough swing votes in Kenya that can swing either way. The conventional wisdom that "Kenyans only vote on tribal lines" and that it will take 100 years for that to change is so entrenched that most Kenyans are scared to even open up their minds to a contrary argument.
I can't speak for others, but when I talk of Kenya voting along tribal lines, what I mean is that tribe is the most reliable indicator of how Kenyans will vote. The "tribal voting" itself occurs in two ways:
(a) those who have a tribesman in the race will vote to support that tribesman and his friends;
(b) those who don't have a tribesman in the race still vote as a tribe, aligning themselves with one of the big ones.
What I find especially interesting argument is something like red above. What is the basis for your willingness to go along with that assumption.
And when, as you suggest, 60% of the votes can be allocated on a purely tribal basis (a), is that not sufficient reason to say that the country votes on a tribal basis?
Even those without a bull in the fight still vote according to tribe. They vote whichever way their tribal leaders tell them to. If Weta suddenly decides he likes the jubilant, the Bukusu portion of the Luhya will, shift without missing a beat or batting an eyelid, to the jubilant side.
The so called battle-ground undecided fights still involve enticing the tribes by promising their respective leaders goodies. Whoever is most convincing in that respect gets the tribal vote. They are not undecided because of some issues(corruption, economic vision, maize etc). But rather because they have not made up their minds which of the main groupings promises are most credible for their tribal leaders.
-
Windy. I truly appreciate your response because its not the usual condescending knee jerk response that I get. My argument is usually that Kenyans do not vote based on ideology/issues but purely based on tribe. My argument is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We vote along tribal lines because we strongly believe that its in our political interest to do so-that our tribes mate will favor us politically if they get into office. My argument is that IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not serve their interest or that it is may even be against their interest if their tribes mate win, then I believe that Kenyans can vote against their tribes mate. Is it true that their is a very strong correlation between the tribe of the candidate and how his tribes mate vote, but it is not cause/effect relationship, as others are saying to me its a mere correlation. Some people ask me what is the difference. I say that if its a cause/effect relationship then their is very little you can do about it. However, if it is based on false belief or a long standing tradition that a tribes political interest is better served by a tribes mate then we can change that with the power of persuasion/campaign, not in 100 years because it has been done before. Ouru and Raila campaigns believe that they can sway others with issues and that is why they are spending a lot of time in Kisii, Western province, Northestern and all these other areas which they consider swing votes and not locked into 100% tribal vote.
I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong. Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is. And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.
Perhaps it will change in the future. In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.
-
I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator". Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.
The Jaramogi/Kenyattaa rivalry has survived for a very long because it was originally based on ideology and then tribalized and weaponized to the extent that the ideological differences were completed covered reduced to tribal differences for expediency and effectiveness. (the kikuyu oath taking was very strategic to achieve this goal. Kenyattaa knew he would lose the ideological argument so he tribalized it) The reason why luos belief kikuyus are thieves and kikuyus believe luos lazy/complainers is right out of the capitalism/communism play book but now it is looked upon more of a tribal trait than an ideological argument.
Kikuyus and luos are not neighbors, have no land issues, cattle issues, and other causes of tribal animosities and therefore have no reason to hate each other the way they do if not for the ideological differences between Jaramogi and Kenyattaa. This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest. Its the gift that keeps on giving to the Kenyattaa family and people like Ruto who have tapped into it.
Windy. I truly appreciate your response because its not the usual condescending knee jerk response that I get. My argument is usually that Kenyans do not vote based on ideology/issues but purely based on tribe. My argument is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We vote along tribal lines because we strongly believe that its in our political interest to do so-that our tribes mate will favor us politically if they get into office. My argument is that IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not serve their interest or that it is may even be against their interest if their tribes mate win, then I believe that Kenyans can vote against their tribes mate. Is it true that their is a very strong correlation between the tribe of the candidate and how his tribes mate vote, but it is not cause/effect relationship, as others are saying to me its a mere correlation. Some people ask me what is the difference. I say that if its a cause/effect relationship then their is very little you can do about it. However, if it is based on false belief or a long standing tradition that a tribes political interest is better served by a tribes mate then we can change that with the power of persuasion/campaign, not in 100 years because it has been done before. Ouru and Raila campaigns believe that they can sway others with issues and that is why they are spending a lot of time in Kisii, Western province, Northestern and all these other areas which they consider swing votes and not locked into 100% tribal vote.
I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong. Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is. And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.
Perhaps it will change in the future. In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.
-
Kichwa thanks for reminding us what this whole argument and rivalry is about. It is ideological. Since Pundit is reactionary he can only see the tribal aspect of the rivalry. Kiyuyus vs difference is still ideological. Kikuyus bought the idea that capitalism is the only solution while luos do belief that socialism serves the interests of Kenyans..
ODM idea of providing sanitary pads was mocked by GEMA supporters. I remember Kikuyus in RCB mocking raila on promising something as basic as sanitary pad. To them they saw this a nanny socialist idea. Odinga and ODM knew that this need existed and government was best placed to provide it.. Same thing with free secondary school and devolution.
-
I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator". Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.
The Jaramogi/Kenyattaa rivalry has survived for a very long because it was originally based on ideology and then tribalized and weaponized to the extent that the ideological differences were completed covered reduced to tribal differences for expediency and effectiveness. (the kikuyu oath taking was very strategic to achieve this goal. Kenyattaa knew he would lose the ideological argument so he tribalized it) The reason why luos belief kikuyus are thieves and kikuyus believe luos lazy/complainers is right out of the capitalism/communism play book but now it is looked upon more of a tribal trait than an ideological argument.
Kikuyus and luos are not neighbors, have no land issues, cattle issues, and other causes of tribal animosities and therefore have no reason to hate each other the way they do if not for the ideological differences between Jaramogi and Kenyattaa. This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest. Its the gift that keeps on giving to the Kenyattaa family and people like Ruto who have tapped into it.
I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong. Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is. And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.
Perhaps it will change in the future. In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.
It's not the only indicator. But it's weight is such that for practical purposes the other indicators can be safely ignored. I mean everything else, name it, pales in comparison.
I agree there is a historical explanation to it. But when Mwangi, Cherop, Otieno, etc wakes up at 3 am August 8th, they couldn't care less.
-
I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator".
Actually, I haven't "watered down" anything. Here is what I wrote: most reliable indicator. Just to avoid any possible confusion: it is pretty much the only indicator I consider when I imagine the possible outcomes of the elections.
Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.
Kenyatta certainly did a great deal that explain the role of tribe in today's Kenya. But that role is now firmly entrenched, and both its existence and implications can be observed without reference to Kenyatta and Odinga.
This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest.
I don't follow the reasoning there.
First: Yes, the Luo-Kikuyu "issues" started with the ideological conflict between Kenyatta and Odinga. But even at the time Luos did side Odinga because of ideology, nor did Kikuyus side with Kenyatta because of ideology. They simply acted like tribal sheep and went with the tribal leader. (Or do you wish to argue that Luos, by virtue of genetic makeup or whatever, have an affinity for a particular sort of ideology ... and likewise for Kikuyus.?)
Second: I don't see how the original "ideological conflict" is a satisfactory explanation for the situation today, in a sense that would justify your claim that "an ideological difference and not tribal". What in 2017 is the ideological difference that would lead one to say, with great confidence, to say that Luos will vote for Raila, and Kikuyus will vote for Kenyatta.
In fact, given your accounting, things are worse today. Back then the tribal sheeple were following tribal lords who at least had some deep convictions about certain national issues and could articulate those convictions in a way that people related to in a hopeful way. Today there is not even the slightest hint of "saving grace" in the follow-the-leader.
Third: Earlier you stated that
"IF you can convince Kenyans that their tribes mate will not serve their interest or that it is may even be against their interest if their tribes mate win, then I believe that Kenyans can vote against their tribes mate."
Yet you are now also stating that at the root of all this is stuff that happened 50 years ago. Stuff that most people have either forgotten or just don't even know. It doesn't give much hope in 2017. This is going to be a bit simplistic, but consider these two different scenarios:
* 1970: Someone goes around talking to a bunches of Luos and Kikuyus, explaining that the conflict between the two "lords" are ideological and not tribal. Let's all think of our interests, etc.
* 2017: Someone goes around talking to a bunches of Luos and Kikuyus, explaining that the conflict between the two "lords" are ideological and not tribal. Let's all think of our interests, etc.
(I leave them there without posing any questions.)
Still, in the idea of convincing people to vote according to their interests and regardless of tribe, you bring us to the core of the matter. Actually, let us take it as two cores---a small one and a big one:
(a) The small one: what exactly has Raila put on the table that would, say, convince some average guy in Murang'a that he would be better off voting for Raila instead of Kenyatta. (I don't ask the same of the latter because he has the power that the other is after.)
(b) The big one: You seem to believe in "issue-based" voting and have hopes for it. Who in today's Kenya has any use for that? Has Raila articulated a clear alternative vision for the country---the things he would do, why they are important, why he believes those things would make a difference, how he would go about doing them, etc.? Has Uhuru given his vision---what he would do differently, new things he would do, how he would do them, what positive difference we might see with him there for another 5 years?
As far as I can tell, it is only now that people are beginning to think of "manifestos" ... looks like they have run out of threats and insults.
-
Windy, that supports my theory. My theory is that its easy to predict the tribal votes when a Kenyatta and Jaramogi is running against each other however when as in 2002, the whole tribal mathematics becomes less predictable. In 2022 if the two Ruto's ran, you can end up with very strange bed fellows. My point is what we have been able to predict is a Kenyatta/Jaramogi tribal vote split but not really how Kenyans will vote in general. I can predict that African Ameicans will vote in 2020 but I dare you to predict how Luos will vote in 2022. This is analogous to the dude who mixed mixed coke with different brands of liquor, on different days, had a headache on each ocassion and concluded that coke causes headache because. He mistakenly treated coke as the only constant. In kenya we treat tribe as the only constant and ignore or downplay the glaring Kenyatta/Jaramogi tribalized political war still haunting us.
I am glad you have watered it down to a "reliable indicator". I have no disagreement with that and it is a far cry from previous arguments where it has been taunted as the "only indicator". Personally I think it is only reliable when combined with Kenyatta/jaramogi epic political differences which was strategically made into luo/kikuyu rivalry and which other tribes learned to join and take sides with based on their political interest at any given time.
The Jaramogi/Kenyattaa rivalry has survived for a very long because it was originally based on ideology and then tribalized and weaponized to the extent that the ideological differences were completed covered reduced to tribal differences for expediency and effectiveness. (the kikuyu oath taking was very strategic to achieve this goal. Kenyattaa knew he would lose the ideological argument so he tribalized it) The reason why luos belief kikuyus are thieves and kikuyus believe luos lazy/complainers is right out of the capitalism/communism play book but now it is looked upon more of a tribal trait than an ideological argument.
Kikuyus and luos are not neighbors, have no land issues, cattle issues, and other causes of tribal animosities and therefore have no reason to hate each other the way they do if not for the ideological differences between Jaramogi and Kenyattaa. This is therefore an ideological difference and not tribal although it appears so to a naked eye because that is what it was made to be for it to work to Kenyattaa's interest. Its the gift that keeps on giving to the Kenyattaa family and people like Ruto who have tapped into it.
I, for one, have not stated, or suggested, or implied, that it is a cause-and-effect thing; what I have stated is that tribe is the most reliable indicator, and I have yet to see a convincing argument to prove me wrong. Why that is so is something I cannot readily explain, but that it is how it is. And I will now go beyond that: there is not the slightest indicator that 2017 will be any different.
Perhaps it will change in the future. In order to explore that, perhaps you could tell us when red happened and why.
It's not the only indicator. But it's weight is such that for practical purposes the other indicators can be safely ignored. I mean everything else, name it, pales in comparison.
I agree there is a historical explanation to it. But when Mwangi, Cherop, Otieno, etc wakes up at 3 am August 8th, they couldn't care less.
-
MOON Ki,
I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western. They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered. Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.
Yet in those same rallies, you will see them tell the crowd that demonic Messi and Weta will not be left out of government. That those two will get very serious rewards so to speak. They say this because they know that if either of these two go jubilant, their people will go with them, in-spite of everything in paragraph one. Meaning that the issues can be dismissed at a moment's notice.
-
MOON Ki,
I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western. They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered. Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.
No doubt. They are told that the government is full of incompetents and thieves. Isn't that the standard-issue GoK for the last 50 years? In which elections have Kenyans ever had problems with incompetents and thieves? Just look at the results of the primaries!
-
I think I already addressed that phenomenon. The reason behind that is the belief that a tribes mate will be better suited to care for their political interest. That is not uniquely Kenyan if you substitute tribe with race, regionalism, clan, religion and other groupings in other political theatres. In 2002 we had to Kikuyus at the head of the ticket and we saw some strange political strange bedfellows. 2022 may see ISO Ruto and WSR heading the national tickets then the whole tribal math is no longer as predictable.
MOON Ki,
I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western. They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered. Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.
Yet in those same rallies, you will see them tell the crowd that demonic Messi and Weta will not be left out of government. That those two will get very serious rewards so to speak. They say this because they know that if either of these two go jubilant, their people will go with them, in-spite of everything in paragraph one. Meaning that the issues can be dismissed at a moment's notice.
-
Windy, that supports my theory. My theory is that its easy to predict the tribal votes when a Kenyatta and Jaramogi is running against each other however when as in 2002, the whole tribal mathematics becomes less predictable.
As I have stated a couple of times elsewhere, 2002 was an exceptional election-year in Kenya's history. Moi had beaten the crap out of Kenyans for so long that they simply had to get him out. A well-endorsed goat running against Moi would have won. Kenyans had in fact been ready to get Moi out well before that, but "our man" thinking had always splintered the opposition.
Kibaki's 2002 election actually confirms-the tribal sheep theory. Moi would never have lasted that long had he had to face serious Luo-Kikuyu unity. Once Raila said "Kibaki tosha", Luos were in the bag----and not because they had suddenly discovered Kibaki's hitherto unknown merits---and Moi was going home.
I think the tribal votes are actually quite predictable: just look at your calculations of "60% done, 40% swing". In that regard, I don't see much change relative to 2013. I see only only one issue for the Opposition: did it get enough of its supporters registered and with that can it ensure a sufficient turnout to have a "rig-proof" margin?
There are only two major unpredictable things for 2022: (a) whether Raila will still be in the picture, and (b) whether Ruto's friends will knife him or not. Those might affect where the "collective" votes go, but they does not necessarily change the tribal nature of maths. In fact, the tribal maths gets really hot with Raila's "former votes" up for grabs and Ruto looking for a "big partner". The biggest change I see in 2022 is what auctioneers call the "hammer price".
I might have one more, but I think I'm mostly done with this thread, so I should say this: Kenya need less tribal thinking, better governance, etc. Looking past the coming elections, I hope we can have more discussions here on how it might be possible to really change Kenya in a positive way. For example, one thing that we really need is serious civic education; there is never the slightest interest in that, but I can't think of a better starting point.
-
I think I already addressed that phenomenon. The reason behind that is the belief that a tribes mate will be better suited to care for their political interest. That is not uniquely Kenyan if you substitute tribe with race, regionalism, clan, religion and other groupings in other political theatres. In 2002 we had to Kikuyus at the head of the ticket and we saw some strange political strange bedfellows. 2022 may see ISO Ruto and WSR heading the national tickets then the whole tribal math is no longer as predictable.
MOON Ki,
I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western. They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered. Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.
Yet in those same rallies, you will see them tell the crowd that demonic Messi and Weta will not be left out of government. That those two will get very serious rewards so to speak. They say this because they know that if either of these two go jubilant, their people will go with them, in-spite of everything in paragraph one. Meaning that the issues can be dismissed at a moment's notice.
There is no better(or even other) explanation for the strange bedfellows in 2002 than tribalism. For instance, most(all) Kikuyus I knew were behind Uhuru until Kibaki was toshwad and became the Kikuyu with the best chance. Nothing to do with NARC or KANU.
-
If tribe was a leading reliable indicator on how a Kenyan would vote then you would be able to tell me now, knowing I am a luo, how I will vote in 2022 even without telling me who the candidates are. If Tuju were to ran on Jubilee ticket and Joho ran on NASA in 2022, can you predict with a degree of certainity that Tuju will get more luo votes than Tuju based on their tribal affiliation alone.
The whole theory that Kenyans vote on tribal lines is not sustainable under close examination.
In 2002, Moi, the professor of politics, had his own tribal math, then Raila did "Kibaki Tosha" and Moi's tribal math went south. Was that election decided by tribe or issues. This is the best illustration that the tribe is not even a reliable indicator otherwise Moi's tribal math would have worked.
The tribe is just a dressing or a weapon to deliver the political message.
I just read an article about how the Kindiki brother's in Taraka Nithi are divided politically and yet they are all GEMA. My brother and I are supporting Raila in 2017, however, I cannot assure you that my brother and I will be voting for the same candidate in 2022 just because we are trbe mates. How my brother and I vote in 2022 will depend on "other factors". These "other factors" hold the key and not our tribal affiliation.
Tribe is therefore not a leading indicator but a lagging indicator and that is why Pundit has to wait until almost two months to elections before he can come up with MOAS. I know he said he was waiting for the IEBC numbers but if he got the IEBC numbers before NASA and Jubilee picked their line up he would not be able to do the MOAS. Tribe is just the dressing but that is all some of us see because we are intellectually lazy.
I think I already addressed that phenomenon. The reason behind that is the belief that a tribes mate will be better suited to care for their political interest. That is not uniquely Kenyan if you substitute tribe with race, regionalism, clan, religion and other groupings in other political theatres. In 2002 we had to Kikuyus at the head of the ticket and we saw some strange political strange bedfellows. 2022 may see ISO Ruto and WSR heading the national tickets then the whole tribal math is no longer as predictable.
MOON Ki,
I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western. They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered. Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.
Yet in those same rallies, you will see them tell the crowd that demonic Messi and Weta will not be left out of government. That those two will get very serious rewards so to speak. They say this because they know that if either of these two go jubilant, their people will go with them, in-spite of everything in paragraph one. Meaning that the issues can be dismissed at a moment's notice.
There is no better(or even other) explanation for the strange bedfellows in 2002 than tribalism. For instance, most(all) Kikuyus I knew were behind Uhuru until Kibaki was toshwad and became the Kikuyu with the best chance. Nothing to do with NARC or KANU.
-
If tribe was a leading reliable indicator on how a Kenyan would vote then you would be able to tell me now, knowing I am a luo, how I will vote in 2022 even without telling me who the candidates are. If Tuju were to ran on Jubilee ticket and Joho ran on NASA in 2022, can you predict with a degree of certainity that Tuju will get more luo votes than Joho based on their tribal affiliation alone and that ideology will not play any role?.
The whole theory that Kenyans reliably vote on tribal lines is not sustainable under close examination.
In 2002, Moi, the professor of politics, had his own tribal math, then Raila did "Kibaki Tosha" and Moi's tribal math went south. Was that election decided by tribe or issues. This is the best illustration that the tribe is not even a reliable indicator otherwise Moi's tribal math would have worked.
The tribe is just a dressing or a weapon to deliver the political message.
I just read an article about how the Kindiki brother's in Taraka Nithi are divided politically and yet they are all GEMA. My brother and I are supporting Raila in 2017, however, I cannot assure you that my brother and I will be voting for the same candidate in 2022 just because we are trbe mates. How my brother and I vote in 2022 will depend on "other factors". These "other factors" hold the key and not our tribal affiliation.
Tribe is therefore not a leading indicator but a lagging indicator and that is why Pundit has to wait until almost two months to elections before he can come up with MOAS. I know he said he was waiting for the IEBC numbers but if he got the IEBC numbers before NASA and Jubilee picked their line up he would not be able to do the MOAS. Tribe is just the dressing but that is all some of us see because we are intellectually lazy.
I think I already addressed that phenomenon. The reason behind that is the belief that a tribes mate will be better suited to care for their political interest. That is not uniquely Kenyan if you substitute tribe with race, regionalism, clan, religion and other groupings in other political theatres. In 2002 we had to Kikuyus at the head of the ticket and we saw some strange political strange bedfellows. 2022 may see ISO Ruto and WSR heading the national tickets then the whole tribal math is no longer as predictable.
MOON Ki,
I'll add that I have seen a few of the NASA rallies in Western. They make generic criticisms of things like failed local industries and poor infrastructure that the jubilant has not delivered. Maybe that is what Kichwa means by issues.
Yet in those same rallies, you will see them tell the crowd that demonic Messi and Weta will not be left out of government. That those two will get very serious rewards so to speak. They say this because they know that if either of these two go jubilant, their people will go with them, in-spite of everything in paragraph one. Meaning that the issues can be dismissed at a moment's notice.
There is no better(or even other) explanation for the strange bedfellows in 2002 than tribalism. For instance, most(all) Kikuyus I knew were behind Uhuru until Kibaki was toshwad and became the Kikuyu with the best chance. Nothing to do with NARC or KANU.
-
@Moon Ki, the way you come across when you are talking to people you disagree with is VEEEERRRY condescending, just to inform you. Ive noticed it when you are talking to Pundit especially, whom you seem to mock rather than disagree with. You are wont to assume this preacher air, like a bible thumper without a bible, honestly. I know this post will come across like it's unfriendly, but it's really not intended to be. Please check the way you talk to people you disagree with. Don't come across like you assume/you just know/its settled you are holier than thou and know so much better. As someone who expresses a sharp dislike of religion, I hope you understand that your manner of communicating disagreements comes across very pharisaical. You sound like you are trying to teach a child or someone you think is childish when you are talking to adults, none of whom are idiots. You did it to me a few weeks ago and I opted not to point it out then but really, I think it's something you need to check. Iyo tu.
-
This is nonsense. The last 4.5yrs has been nothing than transformative. The only issue now is Unga otherwise Jubilee have over-delivered.
-
If tribe is the only indicator then it should not matter whether Jubilee delivered or not. As far as most of you are concerned Kenyans do not care about any issue except the tribe of the candidate.
This is nonsense. The last 4.5yrs has been nothing than transformative. The only issue now is Unga otherwise Jubilee have over-delivered.
-
@Moon Ki, the way you come across when you are talking to people you disagree with is VEEEERRRY condescending, just to inform you. Ive noticed it when you are talking to Pundit especially, whom you seem to mock rather than disagree with.
You think so? Would that be the same Pundit who served me the following in just one recent thread?
There you start with you ignorance. Why not google stuff. Why not do you homework.
Do your homework. Google. That is what we software engineers do. Help ignorant people look smart.
Okay this is just too much foolishness on a friday. You want me to help with English comprehension too?.
Perhaps I should instead be offering him blowjobs?
As for Kichwa, he did get an apology, which Jesus apparently missed in the rush to denounce the Pharisee.
You are wont to assume this preacher air, like a bible thumper without a bible, honestly. I know this post will come across like it's unfriendly, but it's really not intended to be. Please check the way you talk to people you disagree with. Don't come across like you assume/you just know/its settled you are holier than thou and know so much better. As someone who expresses a sharp dislike of religion, I hope you understand that your manner of communicating disagreements comes across very pharisaical. You sound like you are trying to teach a child or someone you think is childish when you are talking to adults, none of whom are idiots. You did it to me a few weeks ago and I opted not to point it out then but really, I think it's something you need to check. Iyo tu.
As you read various comments on nipate.org, try applying the red standard to them. If you come across anyone who seems to assume or just know or ... you should take out your firimbi and do the needful. (Thank you for your valuable services to Nipate.
OK, you've expressed your views, for which just one sentence (or two at the most) would have sufficed. Now run along and find something useful to do.
-
I think you need to understand it more deeply. For Uhuru to win GEMA tribal vote - he has had to win & deliver issues - the same - for Ruto to win against Isaac/Gideon/others in Kalenjin land - he has to talk and deliver issues -that is how they've rose over the years from being MPS to PORK.If you fail to deliver (roads, schools, jobs, electricity, water)- votes will punish you - long before you become a tribal king. So yeah these issues matters to the base. Outside you tribal base - it probably matters only for 2-5% non-tribal kenyans. Whatever UhuRuto will do - Luos will not appreciate it. The same with Raila and say Kalenjin.
We are more nation of tribes. It like Canada and US - a canadian will be patriotic to his country - and doesn't care what Yankee POTUS do or whatever- he'd go to war for Canada - but within Canada -internally - issue-based politics do matter. The same with Kenya small nations.
If tribe is the only indicator then it should not matter whether Jubilee delivered or not. As far as most of you are concerned Kenyans do not care about any issue except the tribe of the candidate.
-
Ahaaa! Now we are talking!!. I thought Kenyans do not care about anything but tribe. Now you are telling me that these tribal kingpins have to deliver something to get tribal votes. What comes first then, the delivery or the tribe? Could it be that Luhyia's will be voting for Raila because they believe he would deliver to them more than Ouru or is it because Mdvd and Weta told them how to vote. According to your admission, it is evident that tribe is not a leading indicator but "delivery" seems to be.
If only tribe matters then Why is Joho and Iso Ruto the darling of NASA crowd and not Kidero or Kalonzo? Why is Duale the darling of Jubilee crowd. Could it be Possibly because of the way they articulate the issues/ideology that resonate with the NASA or Jubilee crowd? Maybe the NASA and Jubilee crowds actually have issues they care about and are not tribal voting machines as the elites perceive them to be.
I think you need to understand it more deeply. For Uhuru to win GEMA tribal vote - he has had to win & deliver issues - the same - for Ruto to win against Isaac/Gideon/others in Kalenjin land - he has to talk and deliver issues -that is how they've rose over the years from being MPS to PORK.If you fail to deliver (roads, schools, jobs, electricity, water)- votes will punish you - long before you become a tribal king. So yeah these issues matters to the base. Outside you tribal base - it probably matters only for 2-5% non-tribal kenyans. Whatever UhuRuto will do - Luos will not appreciate it. The same with Raila and say Kalenjin.
We are more nation of tribes. It like Canada and US - a canadian will be patriotic to his country - and doesn't care what Yankee POTUS do or whatever- he'd go to war for Canada - but within Canada -internally - issue-based politics do matter. The same with Kenya small nations.
If tribe is the only indicator then it should not matter whether Jubilee delivered or not. As far as most of you are concerned Kenyans do not care about any issue except the tribe of the candidate.
-
You desperate to force "issues" again because you've always believed Raila has the best "issues" - when in fact he he has nothing.
The are so many criterias that voters apply depending on the seat. Presidential election is really about tribal alliance. The coalition that craft the largest tribal alliance wins. And you craft it by aligning or buying tribal kings who rule their tribe - Joho is small time tribal king of coast .
Obviously when it comes to MP election in Homabay where 98% of people are Luo - then tribe is not a factor - what is a factor will be clannism or regionalism - it could be war btw mawego and kendu bay - and of course local issues(schools, electricity) do matter a lot at that level but people are likely to vote their village mate before voting someone 10kms from their residence.
There is nothing complicated here.
Ahaaa! Now we are talking!!. I thought Kenyans do not care about anything but tribe. Now you are telling me that these tribal kingpins have to deliver something to get tribal votes. What comes first then, the delivery or the tribe? Could it be that Luhyia's will be voting for Raila because they believe he would deliver to them more than Ouru or is it because Mdvd and Weta told them how to vote. According to your admission, it is evident that tribe is not a leading indicator but "delivery" seems to be.
If only tribe matters then Why is Joho and Iso Ruto the darling of NASA crowd and not Kidero or Kalonzo? Why is Duale the darling of Jubilee crowd. Could it be Possibly because of the way they articulate the issues/ideology that resonate with the NASA or Jubilee crowd? Maybe the NASA and Jubilee crowds actually have issues they care about and are not tribal voting machines as the elites perceive them to be.
-
Yes I believe Raila has the best issues but that is not the thrust of this debate and I am going to ignore the unnecessary ad hominems.
Back to the issue. Saying that the coalition that puts together the largest tribal alliance will win is like saying that the team that scores the most goals will win-of course. The issue here is how do you score the goals or how do you win the votes.
In 2002 Moi did not have an issue but he put together what he perceived to be a winning tribal coalition. Raila countered with what he believed to be a winning issue "Moi/KANU must Go" and the tribal coalition just fell in place.
Luos and other Kenyans voted for Kibaki in 2002 not because the tribal kingpins told them to but because they wanted to get rid of Moi/Kanu and the so called tribal kingpins read the mood of the public and trooped in.
Right now, Mdvd and Wetangula are not telling the Luhyia folks how to vote, but instead they read the mood of the Luyhia people and are following them. Contrast that to Ababu who is sinking because he misread the mood of the Mulembe nation.
The so called tribal kingpins can have a very rough time if their goals are not aligned to the peoples wishes. This is why Kiraitu is going through a rough time and this is what WSR must be prepared for in 2022 if he is around to ran. He may assemble what he believes to be the best tribal kingpins but if he is not a saleable, the tribal kingpins will not help him. They will read the mood and ran. That is what happened to Jubilee in Kisii. They assembled what they believed to be tribal Kingpins but could not sale Ouruto there.
Joho or Duale may come from a small tribes but if they are saleable to the big tribes and if they have money, they will get the tribal kingpins.
My question to you, who is on the driver seat, the people or the tribal kingpins.
You desperate to force "issues" again because you've always believed Raila has the best "issues" - when in fact he he has nothing.
The are so many criterias that voters apply depending on the seat. Presidential election is really about tribal alliance. The coalition that craft the largest tribal alliance wins. And you craft it by aligning or buying tribal kings who rule their tribe - Joho is small time tribal king of coast .
Obviously when it comes to MP election in Homabay where 98% of people are Luo - then tribe is not a factor - what is a factor will be clannism or regionalism - it could be war btw mawego and kendu bay - and of course local issues(schools, electricity) do matter a lot at that level but people are likely to vote their village mate before voting someone 10kms from their residence.
There is nothing complicated here.
Ahaaa! Now we are talking!!. I thought Kenyans do not care about anything but tribe. Now you are telling me that these tribal kingpins have to deliver something to get tribal votes. What comes first then, the delivery or the tribe? Could it be that Luhyia's will be voting for Raila because they believe he would deliver to them more than Ouru or is it because Mdvd and Weta told them how to vote. According to your admission, it is evident that tribe is not a leading indicator but "delivery" seems to be.
If only tribe matters then Why is Joho and Iso Ruto the darling of NASA crowd and not Kidero or Kalonzo? Why is Duale the darling of Jubilee crowd. Could it be Possibly because of the way they articulate the issues/ideology that resonate with the NASA or Jubilee crowd? Maybe the NASA and Jubilee crowds actually have issues they care about and are not tribal voting machines as the elites perceive them to be.
-
Here we go with your never ending debate. You've been proven wrong severally but you continue to lie. Kibaki won because the only way to beat Uhuru was to front another kikuyu to split the GEMA vote. The rest of your theories I no longer have the time or energy to go on and on.
Yes I believe Raila has the best issues but that is not the thrust of this debate and I am going to ignore the unnecessary ad hominems.
Back to the issue. Saying that the coalition that puts together the largest tribal alliance will win is like saying that the team that scores the most goals will win-of course. The issue here is how do you score the goals or how do you win the votes.
In 2002 Moi did not have an issue but he put together what he perceived to be a winning tribal coalition. Raila countered with what he believed to be a winning issue "Moi/KANU must Go" and the tribal coalition just fell in place.
Luos and other Kenyans voted for Kibaki in 2002 not because the tribal kingpins told them to but because they wanted to get rid of Moi/Kanu and the so called tribal kingpins read the mood of the public and trooped in.
Right now, Mdvd and Wetangula are not telling the Luhyia folks how to vote, but instead they read the mood of the Luyhia people and are following them. Contrast that to Ababu who is sinking because he misread the mood of the Mulembe nation.
The so called tribal kingpins can have a very rough time if their goals are not aligned to the peoples wishes. This is why Kiraitu is going through a rough time and this is what WSR must be prepared for in 2022 if he is around to ran. He may assemble what he believes to be the best tribal kingpins but if he is not a saleable, the tribal kingpins will not help him. They will read the mood and ran. That is what happened to Jubilee in Kisii. They assembled what they believed to be tribal Kingpins but could not sale Ouruto there.
Joho or Duale may come from a small tribes but if they are saleable to the big tribes and if they have money, they will get the tribal kingpins.
My question to you, who is on the driver seat, the people or the tribal kingpins.
You desperate to force "issues" again because you've always believed Raila has the best "issues" - when in fact he he has nothing.
The are so many criterias that voters apply depending on the seat. Presidential election is really about tribal alliance. The coalition that craft the largest tribal alliance wins. And you craft it by aligning or buying tribal kings who rule their tribe - Joho is small time tribal king of coast .
Obviously when it comes to MP election in Homabay where 98% of people are Luo - then tribe is not a factor - what is a factor will be clannism or regionalism - it could be war btw mawego and kendu bay - and of course local issues(schools, electricity) do matter a lot at that level but people are likely to vote their village mate before voting someone 10kms from their residence.
There is nothing complicated here.
Ahaaa! Now we are talking!!. I thought Kenyans do not care about anything but tribe. Now you are telling me that these tribal kingpins have to deliver something to get tribal votes. What comes first then, the delivery or the tribe? Could it be that Luhyia's will be voting for Raila because they believe he would deliver to them more than Ouru or is it because Mdvd and Weta told them how to vote. According to your admission, it is evident that tribe is not a leading indicator but "delivery" seems to be.
If only tribe matters then Why is Joho and Iso Ruto the darling of NASA crowd and not Kidero or Kalonzo? Why is Duale the darling of Jubilee crowd. Could it be Possibly because of the way they articulate the issues/ideology that resonate with the NASA or Jubilee crowd? Maybe the NASA and Jubilee crowds actually have issues they care about and are not tribal voting machines as the elites perceive them to be.
-
Kichwa,
I notice you will continue wriggle and twist to fit a simple explanation into your narrative. The fact is that Kenyans care about issues. They don't enjoy starving or struggling to survive. I am not aware of anyone disputing that fact.
The point about tribe is simply that it overwhelms the other issues. If I am Gitau, I might love some ideas that Raila suggests. I might even prefer his platform. But on August 8th, I am voting for my man. That outcome might be different if Raila were Kikuyu with a strong chance of making it.
By your own and other explanations on this thread, tribe is irrelevant when it cannot be a consideration such as when considering two candidates from the same tribe. Even then it's still in play as in 2002.
Even at MP level, you first need to know the tribe of the candidate, and then the issues. Most people at this level are simply non-starters because they are not part of the local tribe. In cosmopolitan areas like Nairobi, the MPs tend to win based on where there are large concentrations of their tribe. Luos in Kibra, Luhyas in Kangemi etc.
I noticed you keep bringing up other examples of why it's no different than the US. But it is. If Ben Carson or even John Lewis ran on a Republican ticket, he has no chance of bringing African Americans with him. If it were like Kenya, they would decamp en masse and vote Republican for that election because of his tribe.
-
In 2002 Raila had an issue to split GEMA- namely "KANU/MOI Fatigue". Kibaki was just an icing on the cake. Kibaki was not even that popular among the kikuyu but Moi/Kanu fatigue was a winning issue. Ignore ISSUE and focus on tribe at your own peril.
Here we go with your never ending debate. You've been proven wrong severally but you continue to lie. Kibaki won because the only way to beat Uhuru was to front another kikuyu to split the GEMA vote. The rest of your theories I no longer have the time or energy to go on and on.
Yes I believe Raila has the best issues but that is not the thrust of this debate and I am going to ignore the unnecessary ad hominems.
Back to the issue. Saying that the coalition that puts together the largest tribal alliance will win is like saying that the team that scores the most goals will win-of course. The issue here is how do you score the goals or how do you win the votes.
In 2002 Moi did not have an issue but he put together what he perceived to be a winning tribal coalition. Raila countered with what he believed to be a winning issue "Moi/KANU must Go" and the tribal coalition just fell in place.
Luos and other Kenyans voted for Kibaki in 2002 not because the tribal kingpins told them to but because they wanted to get rid of Moi/Kanu and the so called tribal kingpins read the mood of the public and trooped in.
Right now, Mdvd and Wetangula are not telling the Luhyia folks how to vote, but instead they read the mood of the Luyhia people and are following them. Contrast that to Ababu who is sinking because he misread the mood of the Mulembe nation.
The so called tribal kingpins can have a very rough time if their goals are not aligned to the peoples wishes. This is why Kiraitu is going through a rough time and this is what WSR must be prepared for in 2022 if he is around to ran. He may assemble what he believes to be the best tribal kingpins but if he is not a saleable, the tribal kingpins will not help him. They will read the mood and ran. That is what happened to Jubilee in Kisii. They assembled what they believed to be tribal Kingpins but could not sale Ouruto there.
Joho or Duale may come from a small tribes but if they are saleable to the big tribes and if they have money, they will get the tribal kingpins.
My question to you, who is on the driver seat, the people or the tribal kingpins.
You desperate to force "issues" again because you've always believed Raila has the best "issues" - when in fact he he has nothing.
The are so many criterias that voters apply depending on the seat. Presidential election is really about tribal alliance. The coalition that craft the largest tribal alliance wins. And you craft it by aligning or buying tribal kings who rule their tribe - Joho is small time tribal king of coast .
Obviously when it comes to MP election in Homabay where 98% of people are Luo - then tribe is not a factor - what is a factor will be clannism or regionalism - it could be war btw mawego and kendu bay - and of course local issues(schools, electricity) do matter a lot at that level but people are likely to vote their village mate before voting someone 10kms from their residence.
There is nothing complicated here.
Ahaaa! Now we are talking!!. I thought Kenyans do not care about anything but tribe. Now you are telling me that these tribal kingpins have to deliver something to get tribal votes. What comes first then, the delivery or the tribe? Could it be that Luhyia's will be voting for Raila because they believe he would deliver to them more than Ouru or is it because Mdvd and Weta told them how to vote. According to your admission, it is evident that tribe is not a leading indicator but "delivery" seems to be.
If only tribe matters then Why is Joho and Iso Ruto the darling of NASA crowd and not Kidero or Kalonzo? Why is Duale the darling of Jubilee crowd. Could it be Possibly because of the way they articulate the issues/ideology that resonate with the NASA or Jubilee crowd? Maybe the NASA and Jubilee crowds actually have issues they care about and are not tribal voting machines as the elites perceive them to be.
-
I come from "scientific" kind of field where theories need to be backed by empirical data. There is a strong correlation that our voting is tribal. But as we know correlation doesn't mean causality. Good luck with that.
In 2002 Raila had an issue to split GEMA- namely "KANU/MOI Fatigue". Kibaki was just an icing on the cake. Kibaki was not even that popular among the kikuyu but Moi/Kanu fatigue was a winning issue. Ignore ISSUE and focus on tribe at your own peril.
-
Windy, How do you explain a poor uninsured republican in Texas who votes against Obama care and for tax cuts to the wealthy and yet he does not have healthcare or is not wealthy enough to benefit from the proposed taxes. This Texan will tell you that he believes in the capitalist system and that Obama care is socialism and cutting taxes is consistent with his capitalist beliefs. I bet you will take this Texan at his words. Now what if a Kikuyu tells you that he will vote for Ouru because he believes ouru did a good job and deserves a second term, will you dismiss this person as only voting for ouru because of his tribe. What about a luo who believes that ouru did a horrible job and must go-is he saying this just because he is a luo. I think we are too quick to use the tribal label as an explanation for everything. I personally think ouru did a horrible job and I do not think my tribe influenced me but I believe my ideology has something to do with it.
Kichwa,
I notice you will continue wriggle and twist to fit a simple explanation into your narrative. The fact is that Kenyans care about issues. They don't enjoy starving or struggling to survive. I am not aware of anyone disputing that fact.
The point about tribe is simply that it overwhelms the other issues. If I am Gitau, I might love some ideas that Raila suggests. I might even prefer his platform. But on August 8th, I am voting for my man. That outcome might be different if Raila were Kikuyu with a strong chance of making it.
By your own and other explanations on this thread, tribe is irrelevant when it cannot be a consideration such as when considering two candidates from the same tribe. Even then it's still in play as in 2002.
Even at MP level, you first need to know the tribe of the candidate, and then the issues. Most people at this level are simply non-starters because they are not part of the local tribe. In cosmopolitan areas like Nairobi, the MPs tend to win based on where there are large concentrations of their tribe. Luos in Kibra, Luhyas in Kangemi etc.
I noticed you keep bringing up other examples of why it's no different than the US. But it is. If Ben Carson or even John Lewis ran on a Republican ticket, he has no chance of bringing African Americans with him. If it were like Kenya, they would decamp en masse and vote Republican for that election because of his tribe.
-
I will accept that observation.
My theory is that you need to have an issue then you need the tribal infrastructure for it to grow and spread.
We always cite the successful stories like that of Ouru, Raila, Ruto, but we fail to study them in depth enough to know why they have been successful. Its much easier to just lazily credit tribe for their successful mobilization of votes across the country.
There is more lessons to be learned from those who have tried to use the tribe as a vehicle and failed. The reason why they have failed is that they only had tribe to go with and no issue.
Those who want to influence policy by winning elections cannot just go around complaining that Kenyans vote along tribal lines or came up with lazy answers and refuse to study exactly how this phenomenon works.
I come from "scientific" kind of field where theories need to be backed by empirical data. There is a strong correlation that our voting is tribal. But as we know correlation doesn't mean causality. Good luck with that.
In 2002 Raila had an issue to split GEMA- namely "KANU/MOI Fatigue". Kibaki was just an icing on the cake. Kibaki was not even that popular among the kikuyu but Moi/Kanu fatigue was a winning issue. Ignore ISSUE and focus on tribe at your own peril.
-
That make sense.
I will accept that observation.
My theory is that you need to have an issue then you need the tribal infrastructure for it to grow and spread.
We always cite the successful stories like that of Ouru, Raila, Ruto, but we fail to study them in depth enough to know why they have been successful. Its much easier to just lazily credit tribe for their successful mobilization of votes across the country.
There is more lessons to be learned from those who have tried to use the tribe as a vehicle and failed. The reason why they have failed is that they only had tribe to go with and no issue.
Those who want to influence policy by winning elections cannot just go around complaining that Kenyans vote along tribal lines or came up with lazy answers and refuse to study exactly how this phenomenon works.
-
I will accept that observation.
My theory is that you need to have an issue then you need the tribal infrastructure for it to grow and spread.
We always cite the successful stories like that of Ouru, Raila, Ruto, but we fail to study them in depth enough to know why they have been successful. Its much easier to just lazily credit tribe for their successful mobilization of votes across the country.
There is more lessons to be learned from those who have tried to use the tribe as a vehicle and failed. The reason why they have failed is that they only had tribe to go with and no issue.
Those who want to influence policy by winning elections cannot just go around complaining that Kenyans vote along tribal lines or came up with lazy answers and refuse to study exactly how this phenomenon works.
I come from "scientific" kind of field where theories need to be backed by empirical data. There is a strong correlation that our voting is tribal. But as we know correlation doesn't mean causality. Good luck with that.
In 2002 Raila had an issue to split GEMA- namely "KANU/MOI Fatigue". Kibaki was just an icing on the cake. Kibaki was not even that popular among the kikuyu but Moi/Kanu fatigue was a winning issue. Ignore ISSUE and focus on tribe at your own peril.
That would merely tell you how one becomes a tribal kingpin. Those are details. But you are trying to sell them as negations of the tribal configuration of Kenyan politics.
-
Windy, How do you explain a poor uninsured republican in Texas who votes against Obama care and for tax cuts to the wealthy and yet he does not have healthcare or is not wealthy enough to benefit from the proposed taxes. This Texan will tell you that he believes in the capitalist system and that Obama care is socialism and cutting taxes is consistent with his capitalist beliefs. I bet you will take this Texan at his words. Now what if a Kikuyu tells you that he will vote for Ouru because he believes ouru did a good job and deserves a second term, will you dismiss this person as only voting for ouru because of his tribe. What about a luo who believes that ouru did a horrible job and must go-is he saying this just because he is a luo. I think we are too quick to use the tribal label as an explanation for everything. I personally think ouru did a horrible job and I do not think my tribe influenced me but I believe my ideology has something to do with it.
Kichwa,
I notice you will continue wriggle and twist to fit a simple explanation into your narrative. The fact is that Kenyans care about issues. They don't enjoy starving or struggling to survive. I am not aware of anyone disputing that fact.
The point about tribe is simply that it overwhelms the other issues. If I am Gitau, I might love some ideas that Raila suggests. I might even prefer his platform. But on August 8th, I am voting for my man. That outcome might be different if Raila were Kikuyu with a strong chance of making it.
By your own and other explanations on this thread, tribe is irrelevant when it cannot be a consideration such as when considering two candidates from the same tribe. Even then it's still in play as in 2002.
Even at MP level, you first need to know the tribe of the candidate, and then the issues. Most people at this level are simply non-starters because they are not part of the local tribe. In cosmopolitan areas like Nairobi, the MPs tend to win based on where there are large concentrations of their tribe. Luos in Kibra, Luhyas in Kangemi etc.
I noticed you keep bringing up other examples of why it's no different than the US. But it is. If Ben Carson or even John Lewis ran on a Republican ticket, he has no chance of bringing African Americans with him. If it were like Kenya, they would decamp en masse and vote Republican for that election because of his tribe.
This Texan in all likelihood has always voted Republican. You could argue his tribe is the party. If the Republicans pick a Cuban American like Marco Rubio, he would still likely vote for him even though he might not be happy about the darkie usurping his party platform. Put another way, the fucker might be voting like an idiot, but he is not glued to the genetics of who he votes for.
-
Kichwa himself has never supported anybody not supported by his Luo tribes men. I don't eve know if he understands what he's talking about. At least I support DP & NARC in 90s & early 2000s thanks to my father.
This Texan in all likelihood has always voted Republican. You could argue his tribe is the party. If the Republicans pick a Cuban American like Marco Rubio, he would still likely vote for him even though he might not be happy about the darkie usurping his party platform. Put another way, the fucker might be voting like an idiot, but he is not glued to the genetics of who he votes for.
-
Kenya is still a very young democracy and 2002 was the first truly democratic elections and I supported Kibaki. In 2007 and 2013 I supported Raila and will do the same in 2017. Raila is not running from there henceforth. I am a progressive even here in the US and therefore its a no-brainer that I support Raila. I for one will not be surprised if in the very near future you will see a split in tribal votes where Kenyan tribes no longer vote as a block. What you saw with the Kindiki brothers in Taraka Nithi will be common place very soon. Brothers and sisters will be rooting for different presidential candidates. Its coming sooner than you think. Like most things, the tribal voting blocks is not going to be here for ever. This maybe your last MOAS. Its going to be the end of an era and a new unknown and exiting political era for Kenya begins.
Kichwa himself has never supported anybody not supported by his Luo tribes men. I don't eve know if he understands what he's talking about. At least I support DP & NARC in 90s & early 2000s thanks to my father.
This Texan in all likelihood has always voted Republican. You could argue his tribe is the party. If the Republicans pick a Cuban American like Marco Rubio, he would still likely vote for him even though he might not be happy about the darkie usurping his party platform. Put another way, the fucker might be voting like an idiot, but he is not glued to the genetics of who he votes for.
-
And why is this Texan voting Republican party no matter who the candidate? Is it because he is an idiot, brainwashed, white, male or an ideologue? Back to Kenya, do we have an equivalent. Can you predict who a kikuyu will vote for with the same certainty as this Texan? You cannot say that a luo or a kikuyu will predictably vote for a luo/kikuyu presidential candidate no matter what the issues are or no matter who the person is.
Windy, How do you explain a poor uninsured republican in Texas who votes against Obama care and for tax cuts to the wealthy and yet he does not have healthcare or is not wealthy enough to benefit from the proposed taxes. This Texan will tell you that he believes in the capitalist system and that Obama care is socialism and cutting taxes is consistent with his capitalist beliefs. I bet you will take this Texan at his words. Now what if a Kikuyu tells you that he will vote for Ouru because he believes ouru did a good job and deserves a second term, will you dismiss this person as only voting for ouru because of his tribe. What about a luo who believes that ouru did a horrible job and must go-is he saying this just because he is a luo. I think we are too quick to use the tribal label as an explanation for everything. I personally think ouru did a horrible job and I do not think my tribe influenced me but I believe my ideology has something to do with it.
Kichwa,
I notice you will continue wriggle and twist to fit a simple explanation into your narrative. The fact is that Kenyans care about issues. They don't enjoy starving or struggling to survive. I am not aware of anyone disputing that fact.
The point about tribe is simply that it overwhelms the other issues. If I am Gitau, I might love some ideas that Raila suggests. I might even prefer his platform. But on August 8th, I am voting for my man. That outcome might be different if Raila were Kikuyu with a strong chance of making it.
By your own and other explanations on this thread, tribe is irrelevant when it cannot be a consideration such as when considering two candidates from the same tribe. Even then it's still in play as in 2002.
Even at MP level, you first need to know the tribe of the candidate, and then the issues. Most people at this level are simply non-starters because they are not part of the local tribe. In cosmopolitan areas like Nairobi, the MPs tend to win based on where there are large concentrations of their tribe. Luos in Kibra, Luhyas in Kangemi etc.
I noticed you keep bringing up other examples of why it's no different than the US. But it is. If Ben Carson or even John Lewis ran on a Republican ticket, he has no chance of bringing African Americans with him. If it were like Kenya, they would decamp en masse and vote Republican for that election because of his tribe.
This Texan in all likelihood has always voted Republican. You could argue his tribe is the party. If the Republicans pick a Cuban American like Marco Rubio, he would still likely vote for him even though he might not be happy about the darkie usurping his party platform. Put another way, the fucker might be voting like an idiot, but he is not glued to the genetics of who he votes for.
-
I for one will not be surprised if in the very near future you will see a split in tribal votes where Kenyan tribes no longer vote as a block.
I think such a "split" will happen at some point, but we most likely disagree on how near the "very near future" is. At any rate, I doubt that it will be in 2017 or 2022.
You also appear to have finally acknowledged that Kenyan tribes vote as block. That's pretty much one half of what I mean by "tribal voting" in Kenya. (The other half has to do with who they vote for in a given election.)
It also means that Pundit's "tribe-driven" MOAS for 2017 starts on a "reasonable" basis, and one should not object to it on the basis of "tribe". The fundamental disagreement is in probably in the details---assumptions on turnout, how a particular tribe*** will be herded into a particular direction, etc.
*** This is one of the "small 38"/"40%". As you have already indicated, 60% of the prizes are determined (on a tribal basis) even before the starting gates go up.
-
The split has always been there and will continue to be more pronounced after the Kenyattaa/Jaramogi political divides fade. Other than the kikuyus, Luos and Kalenjins, other tribes have always experienced some significant or even substantial levels of split. The Kisii come to mind but I am sure if we review the statistics closer we will find more. What I am saying is that we will see more significant splits amongs the major tribes beginning 2022.
I never denied that there is a pattern of block voting but I have argued that its not a cause/effect relationship. In other words its the same pattern as African Americans, Hispanics, young people and people in the major urban centers voting Democratic party. In other words, its issue driven and not tribe driven. I guess this is where we disagree and we probably at this point should agree to part ways on this matter. Its easier for a rich kikuyu and a poor kikuyu to vote for Ouru just as it is easier for a poor white and a billionaire white to vote for Trump. This does not necessarily mean that they are tribalists or racist. Its just easier for people who share the same tribe, race, religion, geographic region, and other social identifications to also share the same political ideology, however, these issues are not written is stone and therefore they shift/change because of time, education and events. This is why politicians campaign, to change those voting patterns or to maintain them.
I for one will not be surprised if in the very near future you will see a split in tribal votes where Kenyan tribes no longer vote as a block.
I think such a "split" will happen at some point, but we most likely disagree on how near the "very near future" is. At any rate, I doubt that it will be in 2017 or 2022.
You also appear to have finally acknowledged that Kenyan tribes vote as block. That's pretty much one half of what I mean by "tribal voting" in Kenya. (The other half has to do with who they vote for in a given election.)
It also means that Pundit's "tribe-driven" MOAS for 2017 starts on a "reasonable" basis, and one should not object to it on the basis of "tribe". The fundamental disagreement is in probably in the details---assumptions on turnout, how a particular tribe*** will be herded into a particular direction, etc.
*** This is one of the "small 38"/"40%". As you have already indicated, 60% of the prizes are determined (on a tribal basis) even before the starting gates go up.
-
In other words, its issue driven and not tribe driven. I guess this is where we disagree and we probably at this point should agree to part ways on this matter. Its easier for a rich kikuyu and a poor kikuyu to vote for Ouru just as it is easier for a poor white and a billionaire white to vote for Trump. This does not necessarily mean that they are tribalists or racist. Its just easier for people who share the same tribe, race, religion, geographic region, and other social identifications to also share the same political ideology, however, these issues are not written is stone and therefore they shift/change because of time, education and events. This is why politicians campaign, to change those voting patterns or to maintain them.
OK, probably my last on this one:
I really can't come up with detailed "social science" explanation of why Kenyans vote the way they do. Nor can I give any objective figures about the extent to which they care about "issues". But to my mind that doesn't matter in terms of predicting results, because "tribe" suffices for that. In particular, you yourself have already given us an "accounting" in which 60% of the vote is already determined by tribal voting among the Big 4.
Maybe those in the 60% care deeply about the "issues", maybe they don't. I really can't tell. But that doesn't matter to me, because I already have a pretty good idea of how Luos, Kalenjins, Kikuyus, and Kambaas will vote in 2017; and I have seen nothing to suggest that a non-trivial number in the Big-4/60% will budge because of a "manifesto" put forth, a clearer articulation on "issues/ideology", etc. I also have a pretty good idea on how the "Tier 2" ones (Luhyas etc.) will vote. Things get tricky only at the El -Molo level, which is 0.000...%?
SIDE NOTE: I disagree with your view (explicit or implicit) that if people succeed in Kenyan politics (or politics anywhere, for that matter) it must be because of their excellent articulation of issues and ideology. As an example, by definition, a demagogue succeeds simply by appealing to the basest instincts of the masses. Now, let's consider one of the "big ones" you have offered us. You stated that
Now what if a Kikuyu tells you that he will vote for Ouru because he believes ouru did a good job and deserves a second term, will you dismiss this person as only voting for ouru because of his tribe.
...
We always cite the successful stories like that of Ouru, Raila, Ruto, but we fail to study them in depth enough to know why they have been successful.
So, then. Before the PEV, Uhuru was just a drunken "also-ran", with a Daddy who .... Sponsoring atrocities against others (especially Luos)---thus convincing Kikuyus that he was their saviour---indulging in and supporting "tribal" calumny, ... , were those the issues and ideology that propelled him into the Muthamaki seat? (Your example; you tell us.) And if, say, Uhuru suffered liver failure today, died, and got replaced with Peter Kenneth or maybe even Moses Kuria, would the votes of those "our people" suddenly become transferable? .............. END OF SIDE NOTE.
My thoughts on this elections were that for the Opposition to they would have to:
(a) ensure that their supporters---whether categorized by "tribe" or by "issues"---registered in massive numbers;
(b) do a better job on turnout than they did in 2013;
(c) the combination of (a) and (b) sufficient to ensure a "rig-proof" majority.
I wrote quite a bit on (a), and you, Omollo, and I exchanged views on the same. I'm not sure that they did (a), but I haven't seen the official numbers, so I can't comment any further. I don't know what the strategy and situation are with regard to (b), but I hope it does not revolve on the assumption (proven wrong in the past) that huge crowds at rallies mean so many votes in the bag.
I have no great expertise in politics, but after the last elections, I did a "project-management exercise" on how the Opposition might go about winning the next elections---what they would have to do, when it have to be done, who would do what, where, plans for contingencies for missed deadlines and "non-deliverables", when to start (right after the last elections!), etc. I have seen little of that. Yes, mine was an "amateur project plan", but still.
I don't see the Opposition offering Kenyans much of a serious alternative. To the extent that it might be considered a selling point, theirs is that since Kenyans don't seem to really mind incompetents and thieves in charge of the country, there should at least be a new set of incompetents and thieves. Variety is the spice of life. Or something. On that basis, my support is NASA-51% and Jubilee-49%. New spice of life. Or something.
-
@Moon Ki, the way you come across when you are talking to people you disagree with is VEEEERRRY condescending, just to inform you. Ive noticed it when you are talking to Pundit especially, whom you seem to mock rather than disagree with.
You think so? Would that be the same Pundit who served me the following in just one recent thread?
There you start with you ignorance. Why not google stuff. Why not do you homework.
Do your homework. Google. That is what we software engineers do. Help ignorant people look smart.
Okay this is just too much foolishness on a friday. You want me to help with English comprehension too?.
Perhaps I should instead be offering him blowjobs?
As for Kichwa, he did get an apology, which Jesus apparently missed in the rush to denounce the Pharisee.
You are wont to assume this preacher air, like a bible thumper without a bible, honestly. I know this post will come across like it's unfriendly, but it's really not intended to be. Please check the way you talk to people you disagree with. Don't come across like you assume/you just know/its settled you are holier than thou and know so much better. As someone who expresses a sharp dislike of religion, I hope you understand that your manner of communicating disagreements comes across very pharisaical. You sound like you are trying to teach a child or someone you think is childish when you are talking to adults, none of whom are idiots. You did it to me a few weeks ago and I opted not to point it out then but really, I think it's something you need to check. Iyo tu.
As you read various comments on nipate.org, try applying the red standard to them. If you come across anyone who seems to assume or just know or ... you should take out your firimbi and do the needful. (Thank you for your valuable services to Nipate.
OK, you've expressed your views, for which just one sentence (or two at the most) would have sufficed. Now run along and find something useful to do.
OK, you're right. Reading that now, I thought it was much more blunt and wordy than Id imagined it in my head while writing this morning. It's condenscending actually, go figure. Anyway, my apologies.
-
As I explained earlier, the predictability of this tribal voting patterns can be attributed mainly to the effects of the Jaramogi/Kenyattaa epic ideological disagreement/battle which span almost five decades and has greatly influenced Kenya's political landscape. That era will come to an end very soon when a Kenyattaa and Odinga are no longer on the ballot or on the political center stage. Kenya has a growing young population of voters born after 2000 coming of age. They have no emotional attachment to that political era its not going to be easy to predict the tribal votes they way were are used to. There is still going to be a political pattern for post election forensics but is going to be all over the place. Some people are getting too comfortable with this tribal voting patterns that we are used to and I wanted to warn them that it is not written in stone we should prepare for the post 2017 elections where the current tribal voting assumptions may cease to work or even make sense. I rest my case for now.
In other words, its issue driven and not tribe driven. I guess this is where we disagree and we probably at this point should agree to part ways on this matter. Its easier for a rich kikuyu and a poor kikuyu to vote for Ouru just as it is easier for a poor white and a billionaire white to vote for Trump. This does not necessarily mean that they are tribalists or racist. Its just easier for people who share the same tribe, race, religion, geographic region, and other social identifications to also share the same political ideology, however, these issues are not written is stone and therefore they shift/change because of time, education and events. This is why politicians campaign, to change those voting patterns or to maintain them.
OK, probably my last on this one:
I really can't come up with detailed "social science" explanation of why Kenyans vote the way they do. Nor can I give any objective figures about the extent to which they care about "issues". But to my mind that doesn't matter in terms of predicting results, because "tribe" suffices for that. In particular, you yourself have already given us an "accounting" in which 60% of the vote is already determined by tribal voting among the Big 4.
Maybe those in the 60% care deeply about the "issues", maybe they don't. I really can't tell. But that doesn't matter to me, because I already have a pretty good idea of how Luos, Kalenjins, Kikuyus, and Kambaas will vote in 2017; and I have seen nothing to suggest that a non-trivial number in the Big-4/60% will budge because of a "manifesto" put forth, a clearer articulation on "issues/ideology", etc. I also have a pretty good idea on how the "Tier 2" ones (Luhyas etc.) will vote. Things get tricky only at the El -Molo level, which is 0.000...%?
SIDE NOTE: I disagree with your view (explicit or implicit) that if people succeed in Kenyan politics (or politics anywhere, for that matter) it must be because of their excellent articulation of issues and ideology. As an example, by definition, a demagogue succeeds simply by appealing to the basest instincts of the masses. Now, let's consider one of the "big ones" you have offered us. You stated that
Now what if a Kikuyu tells you that he will vote for Ouru because he believes ouru did a good job and deserves a second term, will you dismiss this person as only voting for ouru because of his tribe.
...
We always cite the successful stories like that of Ouru, Raila, Ruto, but we fail to study them in depth enough to know why they have been successful.
So, then. Before the PEV, Uhuru was just a drunken "also-ran", with a Daddy who .... Sponsoring atrocities against others (especially Luos)---thus convincing Kikuyus that he was their saviour---indulging in and supporting "tribal" calumny, ... , were those the issues and ideology that propelled him into the Muthamaki seat? (Your example; you tell us.) And if, say, Uhuru suffered liver failure today, died, and got replaced with Peter Kenneth or maybe even Moses Kuria, would the votes of those "our people" suddenly become transferable? .............. END OF SIDE NOTE.
My thoughts on this elections were that for the Opposition to they would have to:
(a) ensure that their supporters---whether categorized by "tribe" or by "issues"---registered in massive numbers;
(b) do a better job on turnout than they did in 2013;
(c) the combination of (a) and (b) sufficient to ensure a "rig-proof" majority.
I wrote quite a bit on (a), and you, Omollo, and I exchanged views on the same. I'm not sure that they did (a), but I haven't seen the official numbers, so I can't comment any further. I don't know what the strategy and situation are with regard to (b), but I hope it does not revolve on the assumption (proven wrong in the past) that huge crowds at rallies mean so many votes in the bag.
I have no great expertise in politics, but after the last elections, I did a "project-management exercise" on how the Opposition might go about winning the next elections---what they would have to do, when it have to be done, who would do what, where, plans for contingencies for missed deadlines and "non-deliverables", when to start (right after the last elections!), etc. I have seen little of that. Yes, mine was an "amateur project plan", but still.
I don't see the Opposition offering Kenyans much of a serious alternative. To the extent that it might be considered a selling point, theirs is that since Kenyans don't seem to really mind incompetents and thieves in charge of the country, there should at least be a new set of incompetents and thieves. Variety is the spice of life. Or something. On that basis, my support is NASA-51% and Jubilee-49%. New spice of life. Or something.
-
KM
I wish I had enough time to give you a rough overview of the foundations of tribalism in Kenyan politics.
I can refer you to read about the 1966 Pioneer Rigged Elections. The idea was to isolate Odinga and Luos. KPU had more Kikuyu nationalists in its ranks than Luo Mps. Kenyatta was determined to project the nationalists as tribalists and he, a tribalist present himself as a nationalist. he had the entire government machinery to work for him and he did achieve that - eventually. We know there was oathing.
When Moi took over, he was keen to continue the same policy. He appointed a Kikuyu as VP so that the Kalenjin-Luo alliance could proceed. But try as he did, the Kikuyu Clerisy rejected him as they wanted a Kikuyu to be the leader of the alliance.
Moi with the help of Njonjo continued the demonization of jaramogi using every excuse to rekindle the hate between the Luo and Kikuyu. For example when Jaramogi mentioned that he split from Kenyatta because of land grabbing, MKoi siezed on it.
When SM Otieno died, Moi got involved in ensuring that there was a dispute which was carried by every media house and radio with bellicose statements. Jaramogi went on record to counter some of the claims like Luos have no homes in Nairobi by saying a Luo can have a home anywhere on earth. He got fire for it from Moi's Luo sycophants.
The tactic was to practice as much tribalism as possible but keep preaching against "tribalism". Thus people even started thinking saying you are a Pokomo or Kikuyu amounted to tribalism. Anybody who dared to point out the real tribalism like the lack of diversity in public appointments was labeled a tribalist. This still goes on even here.
I do not see people of different tribes voting for different candidates as tribalism. There is no Coastal Kenyan in the pentagon but coast people vote for NASA. There are more tribes without their demagogue in the leadership that vote for a party. Just like I do not expect Corsican nationalists or Bask separatists to vote for mainstream political parties in France and Spain respectively.
we need to embrace diversity and use it rather than condemn it for all the wrong reasons.
-
I actually agree with you. There is an attempt to reduce the voting patterns to mere tribalism, however, as you correctly stated there are serious issues behind the tribal voting patterns. I consider myself educated but my support for Raila has been reduced to tribal voting and the fact that there are people from other tribes who have voted for Raila for the same ideological reasons as I have is ignored. In an expedient attempt to justify that Kenyans do not care about any issue except tribalism, the elitist have reduced the attempt by many Kenyan voters to speak out against social and economic ills to mere tribalism. There are Kenyans who will be voting for NASA because they want change and a better country. They will be voting for NASA because they are tired of the mismanagement of the economy, corruption, tribalism, marginalization, impunity and all the ills that afflict this country but in the end they are all being reduced to sheep following tribal kingpins blindly. There is no distinction made between those knowingly vote to keep incompetent arrogant drunken thieves in power and those voting to remove replace them with better leaders. There is no distinction made between those who exclusively vote for their tribes mates and those who cross tribal lines each election. The voters are all being lamped together as tribal voting machines incapable of formulating an ideology. There is an assumption that an ideology is a very complex thing that only an educated African or people residing in the west are capable of. All we are capable of in Africa is following our tribal leaders like sheep. It is very sad.
KM
I wish I had enough time to give you a rough overview of the foundations of tribalism in Kenyan politics.
I can refer you to read about the 1966 Pioneer Rigged Elections. The idea was to isolate Odinga and Luos. KPU had more Kikuyu nationalists in its ranks than Luo Mps. Kenyatta was determined to project the nationalists as tribalists and he, a tribalist present himself as a nationalist. he had the entire government machinery to work for him and he did achieve that - eventually. We know there was oathing.
When Moi took over, he was keen to continue the same policy. He appointed a Kikuyu as VP so that the Kalenjin-Luo alliance could proceed. But try as he did, the Kikuyu Clerisy rejected him as they wanted a Kikuyu to be the leader of the alliance.
Moi with the help of Njonjo continued the demonization of jaramogi using every excuse to rekindle the hate between the Luo and Kikuyu. For example when Jaramogi mentioned that he split from Kenyatta because of land grabbing, MKoi siezed on it.
When SM Otieno died, Moi got involved in ensuring that there was a dispute which was carried by every media house and radio with bellicose statements. Jaramogi went on record to counter some of the claims like Luos have no homes in Nairobi by saying a Luo can have a home anywhere on earth. He got fire for it from Moi's Luo sycophants.
The tactic was to practice as much tribalism as possible but keep preaching against "tribalism". Thus people even started thinking saying you are a Pokomo or Kikuyu amounted to tribalism. Anybody who dared to point out the real tribalism like the lack of diversity in public appointments was labeled a tribalist. This still goes on even here.
I do not see people of different tribes voting for different candidates as tribalism. There is no Coastal Kenyan in the pentagon but coast people vote for NASA. There are more tribes without their demagogue in the leadership that vote for a party. Just like I do not expect Corsican nationalists or Bask separatists to vote for mainstream political parties in France and Spain respectively.
we need to embrace diversity and use it rather than condemn it for all the wrong reasons.
-
nonsense,
Without Prejudice.