Kenyans vote accross tribal lines than they get credit for

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie

Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:

1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:

• Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
• Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

Both sides (Kibaki  - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.

Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:

• As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
• Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
• A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
• Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre

I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.

They do.  It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.

As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister.  It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.

The same logic applies to the other tribes.  In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone.  They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.

If I am spreading propaganda(I assume you mean Jubilant) then I am pretty useless at it.  Because elsewhere, I have given reasons why Kenyans should vote against the same.

That said, your motivations in part (2) for keeping the MOU secret just confirm my point.  That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe.  What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe.  For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base.  #3 is can broken down some.  Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo?  Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that.  I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.

You are listing the attributes that make him an attractive tribal supremo.  While it is possible that these be the decisive ones, mere possibility does not always mean a conclusion is plausible or even reasonable.  In Kenya's context, all those attributes are useless, if he is not the tribal leader.

[Kichwa]

C'mon windy,  "That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya".  At least you have expanded it from just tribe to "the interest of its leader".  I think you are trying to fit this "truth" into the Raila/Ouru narrative t draw a broad conclusion and its not going to work.  Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son.  We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well.  The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland.  Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu and we need to acknowledge that before we can begin to be serious.  Let us not get stuck into this simplicity that "Kenyans only vote along tribal lines"  Its simplistic and creates intellectual laziness instead of curiosity.  In the US,  Democrats are now doing a serious analysis of why white folks who voted for Obama only 4 years ago voted for Trump who is openly expressing racist remarks.  It would be simplilstic to label white voters who voted for Trump as being irredeemably racists because it is more complex than that.  In Kenya we should not assume that Kenyan voters are irredeemably tribalist. Kikuyus celebrated Raila as "Njamba" not too long ago and Luos voted for Kibaki in droves not too long ago. Let us dig deeper for the reason why all this changed in four years to hatred instead of being lazy with the most convenient answer-tribe.

Termie

Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:

1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:

• Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
• Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

Both sides (Kibaki  - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.

Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:

• As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
• Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
• A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
• Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre

I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.

They do.  It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.

As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister.  It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.

The same logic applies to the other tribes.  In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone.  They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.

If I am spreading propaganda(I assume you mean Jubilant) then I am pretty useless at it.  Because elsewhere, I have given reasons why Kenyans should vote against the same.

That said, your motivations in part (2) for keeping the MOU secret just confirm my point.  That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

C'mon windy,  "That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya".  At least you have expanded it from just tribe to "the interest of its leader".  I think you are trying to fit this "truth" into the Raila/Ouru narrative t draw a broad conclusion and its not going to work.  Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son.  We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well.  The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland.  Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu and we need to acknowledge that before we can begin to be serious.  Let us not get stuck into this simplicity that "Kenyans only vote along tribal lines"  Its simplistic and creates intellectual laziness instead of curiosity.  In the US,  Democrats are now doing a serious analysis of why white folks who voted for Obama only 4 years ago voted for Trump who is openly expressing racist remarks.  It would be simplilstic to label white voters who voted for Trump as being irredeemably racists because it is more complex than that.  In Kenya we should not assume that Kenyan voters are irredeemably tribalist. Kikuyus celebrated Raila as "Njamba" not too long ago and Luos voted for Kibaki in droves not too long ago. Let us dig deeper for the reason why all this changed in four years to hatred instead of being lazy with the most convenient answer-tribe.

Termie

Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:

1. The MoU in which Raila was to be PM was secret and was never publicly known
2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:

• Fear of eliciting negative reactions from Luos and Kikuyus for diametrically opposing reasons
• Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

Both sides (Kibaki  - DP and Raila - LDP) has therefore very strong incentives or motivations to keep this MoU secret.

Luos voted for Kibaki for many reasons among them:

• As a people who had suffered marginalization under the Kenyatta-Moi Regime they had developed political awareness that allowed them to vote strategically
• Moi-KANU had reneged on another MoU with NDP which had saved his government after the 1997 elections
• A genuine desire to see KANU lose power
• Opposition to the person of Uhuru Kenyatta based on what his father wrought in Nyanza and the country as a whole not least The Kisumu Massacre

I find it very strange that you would call the 2002 Luo vote tribal. The truth of the matter is that ALL tribes in Kenya have at some point voted in majority for members of tribes other than their own EXCEPT one: Kikuyu. No amount of spinning can change that fact.

They do.  It's important to recognize that this is not the same thing as voting directly for your tribesman.

As an example, even though Luos voted for Kibaki instead of Orengo in 2002, it was a tribal vote, because they did it on the assumption that Raila would become Prime Minister.  It was obvious a vote for Orengo was a wasted vote.

The same logic applies to the other tribes.  In 2016, it's obvious no one tribe can go it alone.  They vote for whoever promises rewards to their tribal kingpin and has a realistic chance of attaining power.

If I am spreading propaganda(I assume you mean Jubilant) then I am pretty useless at it.  Because elsewhere, I have given reasons why Kenyans should vote against the same. 

That said, your motivations in part (2) for keeping the MOU secret just confirm my point.  That the tribe, specifically the interests of its leader, is the most important political consideration in Kenya.

The case of Ouru is an interesting one.  What is the primary reason Kikuyus support him?  I have already explained why Miguna and Orengo do not make good candidates for a tribal leader.  There is a reason Raila would never displace Masinde Muliro as a Bukusu spokesman, regardless of his other non-tribal attributes - his tribe.

I know you have ideals and I admire that.  But we cannot pretend that these are in play, because people are better than what our lying eyes are telling us.

[Kichwa]

Windy, I think you are limiting your ability to analyze properly how Kenyans vote by insisting that "tribe" must be the overriding factor.  Let us stipulate that tribe is a factor, and then let us analyze the other factors and provide them fair assessment.  Let us start with money.  Money alone does not make one a "tribal supremo".  Let us then talk about name recognition- This alone does not do it either and that is why Oburu or Muhoho are not as powerful as their two siblings.  Let us then examine political ideology or activity or leaning-whatever you want to call it.  I believe this is the bigger factor but even this alone is not enough.  Ouru and Raila are very unique in that they have been able to put together the right combination of factors to make them "tribal supremos".  This does not mean that everybody can and therefore future politicians must look for other ways to win the presidency of Kenya and not rely on the Raila/Ouru factors.  Those who think that it is all about tribe will fail miserably.

Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe.  What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe.  For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base.  #3 is can broken down some.  Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo?  Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that.  I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.

You are listing the attributes that make him an attractive tribal supremo.  While it is possible that these be the decisive ones, mere possibility does not always mean a conclusion is plausible or even reasonable.  In Kenya's context, all those attributes are useless, if he is not the tribal leader.

[MOON Ki]

Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son.  We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well.  The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland.  Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu.

All that is just pointing out that there are "good reasons" for why Raila is at the top in Luoland and Uhuru is at the top in Kikuyuland.    But that is no more that the observation that in a group of broadly similar people, one person will, for a variety of reasons, rise to the top.    If you take any tribe in Kenya, you will be able to find "good reasons" for why the current tribal chieftain is where he is.   But all that is quite a different matter from how the "our people" then follow the chieftain.

Kikuyus celebrated Raila as "Njamba" not too long ago.

That was very nice of them.   And how many votes did they then give him?

Luos voted for Kibaki in droves not too long ago.

Was that in 2002 (when Raila was tosharing Kibaki),  or was it in 2007 (when Raila was running against Kibaki)?

Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu and we need to acknowledge that before we can begin to be serious.

And what might be?   I have some ideas on Raila---2nd liberation struggle etc.---but what exactly is Uhuru's "something bigger".

Let us dig deeper ...

That is an excellent suggestion.  Let's start here:

It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee and that does not make them tribal voting robots.

Why is it in their interest?   What interests are those?   

[Kichwa]

Moonki- I think that you are at this point too married to the conventional narrative that Kenyans vote a long tribal lines. The rest of your answers/points are based  cynicism and sarcasm not conducive to a serious exchange of ideas.  I believe that even after Ouru and Raila have left the political scene and the resultant square peg does not fit the tribal round hole you have created,  you  will still try fit it in.

[MOON Ki]

Moonki- I think that you are at this point too married to the conventional narrative that Kenyans vote a long tribal lines. The rest of your answers/points are based  cynicism and sarcasm not conducive to a serious exchange of ideas. 

My answers/points are based a serious application of reason  the line you are offering and how it is detached from reality.    I believe objective people can see that.

I believe that even after Ouru and Raila have left the political scene and the resultant square peg does not fit the tribal round hole you have created,  you  will still try fit it in.

Kenyan will one day move to a more "progressive" level.     Until then, we know what we have, and the problem with holes and pegs is expressed in one of your more interesting, if somewhat questionable,  lines:

It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee and that does not make them tribal voting robots.

Presumably that's how they too see it, whence the lack of concrete support for the "njamba".    And the same goes for other tribes, with respect to their "our man".  Which is exactly why we have the situation we have.   So when you talk about a different "tribal coalition", you are assuming that people will be foolish enough to go against their "interests", which even you can, apparently, see.     

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Windy, I think you are limiting your ability to analyze properly how Kenyans vote by insisting that "tribe" must be the overriding factor.  Let us stipulate that tribe is a factor, and then let us analyze the other factors and provide them fair assessment.  Let us start with money.  Money alone does not make one a "tribal supremo".  Let us then talk about name recognition- This alone does not do it either and that is why Oburu or Muhoho are not as powerful as their two siblings.  Let us then examine political ideology or activity or leaning-whatever you want to call it.  I believe this is the bigger factor but even this alone is not enough.  Ouru and Raila are very unique in that they have been able to put together the right combination of factors to make them "tribal supremos".  This does not mean that everybody can and therefore future politicians must look for other ways to win the presidency of Kenya and not rely on the Raila/Ouru factors.  Those who think that it is all about tribe will fail miserably.

Windy, I think you are making my point-Its more than tribe.  What we have not figured out is that there are so many other factors and I do not know what percentage to assign tribe.  For example for one to run for president one has to have (1) a lot of money (2) name recognition (3) likeability (3) identify with a certain political interest, ideology or tribe which gives them a big base.  #3 is can broken down some.  Now let us take Raila-how much percentage of luos vote for him just because he is a luo?  Then take the fact that he has a lot of money-how many luos vote for him soley because of that, then take the fact that he is the son of Jaramogi, how many luo votes does he get because of that, then take the fact that he has been prominently engaged in the 2nd liberation struggle for a long time and spent 8 yrs in detention without trial-what percentage of luo votes does he get because of that.  I would bet that Raila gets more votes from luos on the other factors than the mere fact that he is a luo.

You are listing the attributes that make him an attractive tribal supremo.  While it is possible that these be the decisive ones, mere possibility does not always mean a conclusion is plausible or even reasonable.  In Kenya's context, all those attributes are useless, if he is not the tribal leader.

If politics is the biggest factor as you allege.  Then the tribal support ought to change with change in political positions of the supremo.  But this is not what Raila's political history suggests.  He has had rock solid support from that one group regardless of who he pals around with.  Be it a saint or a well known thug. 

They were with him when he was with Kibaki a well known conservative.  When he left Kibaki's camp, Tuju who benefitted from his association with the supremo's party, suffered politically because he failed to move with the herd.  They instead wound up with a former Moi protegee.  If this is not a clear sign of personality trumping political ideas, then I don't know what is.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Do luos vote for Raila because he is a luo or because of his political ideology or beliefs over a long period of time or because he is Jaramogi's son.  We have established that another luo- say miguna- would not fare as well, we also saw how dismal orengo did in 2002, and we also know that Oburu-another Jaramogi son, would not do as well.  The same is true for Ouru in Kikuyuland.  Both Ouru and Raila have something going bigger than just being a luo or a kikuyu.

All that is just pointing out that there are "good reasons" for why Raila is at the top in Luoland and Uhuru is at the top in Kikuyuland.    But that is no more that the observation that in a group of broadly similar people, one person will, for a variety of reasons, rise to the top.    If you take any tribe in Kenya, you will be able to find "good reasons" for why the current tribal chieftain is where he is.   But all that is quite a different matter from how the "our people" then follow the chieftain.

Exactly.  There is a reason Peter Kenneth's well touted "development agenda" cannot allow him to hack into the apex of Kikuyu leadership.  It's not that kamwana has better ideas or track record.  Kamwana is the muthamaki - that's all there is to it.  It's replicated as many times as one can extract an ethnic identity from any place in Kenya.  The mechanics can be elaborate and complicated.  But the underlying principle is very basic.

[Kichwa]

And how did Ouru become the Muthamaki and not  Peter Kenneth.   Imagine you were a political consultant and a young Kikuyu of 15 years old approached you and asked you what s/ he should do to become a  Muthamaki just like Ouru, what would you tell this young person  to do?  I am sure you will have a list of things for her to do and also hope you remind him that being a kikuyu alone is not enough.

RV Pundit once made a list of what one needs to do to become a serious presidential contender in Kenya and the list looked like  the life of one William Ruto.  Its like looking at the recent election of Trump and telling a young person in the USA that its all about the "rust belt",  and  that if they wanted to become president of the USA they must insult Mexican immigrants, disparage women, and praise Russian presidents.

We tend to rely too much on the Kibaki/Ouru/Raila success or failures to reach broad  conclusion like "Kenyans vote along tribal lines".  Its like someone who has only seen two cows which happen to be black, then brazenly concludes that all cows are black.

[MOON Ki]

And how did Ouru become the Muthamaki and not  Peter Kenneth.  Ain't they both Kikuyus? Tell me the things one needs to do to become a tribal kingpin and then tell me why only very few make it. Imagine you were a political consultant and a young Kikuyu of 15 years old approached you and asked you what he should do to become a  Muthamaki just like Ouru, what would you tell the young person  to do?  I am sure you will tell him that being a kikuyu alone is not enough and that he needs to do a few things to get the attention of the kikuyu people.  You will also tell the young lady that she needs to also needs to do certain things to get the votes from the other tribes because the kikuyu vote is not going to be enough.  Once you list all the things that in your opinion this young kikuyu should do, it will dawn on you that its not tribe alone and that it is more complex than the conventional wisdom suggest.   

Blue: First, from the very definition of "tribal kingpin", and "kingpin" being singular, it follows that there can only be one per tribe.

Red: From that, it necessarily follows that even though both are Kikuyus, only one can be the kingpin.   

So, it is not necessary to explain why "only few can make it".  Because the answer is right there in the question: only few can make it.

Green: It also follows that to be a tribal kingpin, one must belong to the tribe in question. So, there is not much to be said for the observation that "they are from the same tribe!".

(Try to appreciate the difference between "necessary prerequisite" and "sufficient condition", and see my earlier comment, on how in any given group one will rise to the top.)

Purple: Indeed.   You stated  that Uhuru has "something bigger".   If you care to state what that something is--and perhaps you will do that before demanding that others give advice to your lady---I'll be happy to discuss what the tribal-kingpin requirements are.   In the meantime, I have my own "theory", and it is this: Uhuru is seen as having come to the rescue of his "our people" in "desperate times", i.e. during the PEV.   He seems to have done that by actively sponsoring and directing atrocities against others.  Before that, he was seen as just a bottle-loving KANU project.   The most important aspect of that is that it is all purely tribal: yes, he was nasty, but he saved our people!   (What's Peter Kenneth got to compete?) That's not path I would recommend to your young lady.   

I would also point out to your young lady friend that Uhuru is not relying on just the Kikuyu; he has his buddy, Ruto, who will bring to the table a sizable number of his "our sheeple".     That gives them a pretty good head start, which you can confirm by going here and doing the sums: https://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/2015-01-15-11-10-24/downloads/item/voters-register-statistics-per-county?category_id=56 What they then have to do is purchase some of the smaller groups of other "our sheeple".

Look, here is how it is for 2017: Whatever "something bigger" Raila has, it's not big enough to be seen in Central; practically no votes there for the "njamba".    And whatever "something big" Uhuru has, it's not big enough to be seen in Nyanza; no   votes there for the bottle-loving "omera".     

There's also been plenty of hopeful noise here (and elsewhere) on Moi+KANU and Rutto+CCM.   That's just leveraging for a position at the eating table.   If you want the reality, take a look at how Moi et al voted in the recent elections-bill circus.

Kenya needs: to move away from tribal voting.    But that's not going to happen by denying the reality.   (See next comment.)

[MOON Ki]

A broader comment on the nature of tribal voting in Kenya (and any comparisons with others): The real reason that it matters is that it is of a sort which means that "issues" are never really relevant in a Kenyan election; what matters is herding the tribal sheep in the direction of power.   

People will talk and write endlessly about politics, but what one hardly gets is this: What are the main policies of this and that party on the economy, law and order, health, education, and anything else that really matters to the citizens.   What will the party do differently that will make life better for Kenyans? One never hears about such things, nor it it even clear where one would find such information. 

Example 1: Here is ODM's webpage: http://www.odm.co.ke/  It has an odd selection of "platform issues".    Clicking on each link shows a well-maintained and indefinite "coming soon" status.

Example 2: Here is Jubilee party's webpage: https://jubileepamoja.co.ke/  Clicking on the "Building a better Kenya" link brings up a sad one-page .pdf file.

And so on, and so forth.   And those are just the "more advanced" ones.   Most political parties in Kenya don't even make the slightest attempt to explain what they are about.   "Political ideas"?   That's a good one.  Kenya politics are all about getting into office so as to be able to rob the public.  If you can't do it yourself, do it vicariously: your "interests"  are best served by voting---non-tribally,  of course---for your "our man".

(If there are links to better information that is readily available to the public, I'd be grateful to know of them.)

Yes, CORD has a "manifesto" from 2013, as does Jubilee.   No more than vague bullet points: we will do this or that great thing, with no accompanying details elsewhere on how said great thing will be done.

A concrete example:  CORD has done quite a job in highlighting corruption, and, on behalf of Jubilee, Uhuru has done his "ngai! nitafanya nini!".  What one will never hear is what CORD would do if it were in power or what Jubilee plans to do that is different from what it has done.      And they can get away with it because, at the end of the day, it's not going to make a difference in the voting.

Take a look at the Kenyan media, in any form, and look at the discussions on politics.   (If you don't have the time, you can restrict yourself to, say, just the "Politics" section of the DAILY NATION.).   You will find all sorts of stuff.  Mostly an exchange of insults and some bureaucratic stuff.   What you will almost-never find is what anything to do with making things better for the average Kenyan.

"Kichwa ..." made a reference to the case of Trump in America.   Some of us might not like the guy or care for his ideas---I certainly don't---but the fact is that he spent a great deal of time, energy, money, etc. into articulating an alternative that managed to attract enough people: You don't care for South-of-The-Border types? I'll build a Great Wall to stop them. Obamacare was a creation of Obama? I'll repeal it.  You think you are losing your jobs because of outsourcing and trade agreements?  I'll nip all that in the bud.   And so on, and so forth..

If you look at what's been happening in Kenya, campaigns for the 2017 elections have actually been going on for some time.   But what is anybody actually offering the Kenyan people?  Nothing.  Because, at the end of the day, "issues" have nothing to do with the voting.  Wherever you look, it's different groups trying to get, or keep their hands in the till.  THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. And it will, once there has been---again, after Moi---enough pain or the tribal sheeple stop caring about their "interests" and instead focus on their interests.

[Kichwa]

Moon ki. Ouru and Raila are unique in that they are probably the last tribal kingpins as we know it today.  Ruto is already getting a serious challenge from Rutto and Man Giddy. Luhyias cannot agree on one. Kalonzo has always had serious challenge and the political rearrangement in Kissi is not complete but interesting to watch. Kenya is very restless right now and one cannot dismiss the undercurrents so cavalierly. People are seeking to better their lives and the tribal kingpin battles are being used to debate serious issues like corruption, free and fair elections, poverty, high cost of living, unemployment and even tribalism itself. We will never get rid of tribal pride and sense of belonging but we can find a common ground where tribal interest converge and then devolution governments can take care of local interests.