Kenyans vote accross tribal lines than they get credit for

[Kichwa]

• Tweet

The conventional wisdom is that Kenyans vote strictly along tribal lines in presidential elections.  I have tried to dismiss this untruth for years but this wisdom is so engrained in Kenyans political psyche that they stop listening to you as soon as you utter those words.  Its totally contrary to evidence.  In 2002 there were two kikuyu presidential candidates and they both got votes from all tribes.  Then in 2007, although the final vote tally was manipulated, both Raila and Kibaki got votes from all tribes.  In 2013, if you take away the "ghost votes", both Raila and Ouru got their votes from others who are not luos or Kikuyus.  Why do insist that Kenyans vote along tribal lines and yet the overwhelming evidence is that they vote across tribal lines all the time for the two top contenders. The tribal coalitions are not permanent and keep on changing every presidential elections.  in 2002 Kikuyus and Luos were on the same side, then in 2007 Luos, Kalenjins, luhyias were on the same side, and in 2013 kikuyus and Kalenjins were on the same same side.  I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.  I think god blessed us with a country where no tribe can dominate if the elections are free and fair.  This is why I believe that we should do everything in power and spend as much resources as we can on ensuring that the elections are free and fair.  If the elections are not free and fair, then we should not have them.   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

[Kichwa]

People world over vote their interest and Kenyans are not different other than that we have tribes.  If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns.  The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe.    In 2008 African Americans came out for Obama in huge numbers for Obama because they had an interest in having their children see a black man who identified with them became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for president on the Republican party, you would have seen the same amount of black people come out to vote for him.    I believe that Joho would get more luo votes than Miguna  if they both ran for president in 2022.  Kidero got a lot of non-luo votes in Nairobi in 2013 to win the governorship.  There are many more incidents of Kenyans voting across tribal lines than along tribal lines and  yet we focus so much  on the few occasions when Kenyans  vote along tribal lines.  In 2002 although luos voted for Kibaki because of Raila but it was more than just because Raila was a luo-it also had something to do with Raila's political beliefs.  I think it is an insult to Kenyans to say that we only vote for our tribesmates because they are our tribesmates and nothing else.  Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.

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

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

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

[Omollo]

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.

[MOON Ki]

The conventional wisdom is that Kenyans vote strictly along tribal lines in presidential elections.  I have tried to dismiss this untruth for years but this wisdom is so engrained in Kenyans political psyche that they stop listening to you as soon as you utter those words.  Its totally contrary to evidence.  In 2002 there were two kikuyu presidential candidates and they both got votes from all tribes.  Then in 2007, although the final vote tally was manipulated, both Raila and Kibaki got votes from all tribes.  In 2013, if you take away the "ghost votes", both Raila and Ouru got their votes from others who are not luos or Kikuyus.  Why do insist that Kenyans vote along tribal lines and yet the overwhelming evidence is that they vote across tribal lines all the time for the two top contenders. The tribal coalitions are not permanent and keep on changing every presidential elections.  in 2002 Kikuyus and Luos were on the same side, then in 2007 Luos, Kalenjins, luhyias were on the same side, and in 2013 kikuyus and Kalenjins were on the same same side.  I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.  I think god blessed us with a country where no tribe can dominate if the elections are free and fair.  This is why I believe that we should do everything in power and spend as much resources as we can on ensuring that the elections are free and fair.  If the elections are not free and fair, then we should not have them.   

Voting "on tribal lines" should be be understood in more than just in the narrow sense of "no (or little) cross-tribe voting".  One has to consider what occurs, when, why,  how, and to what extent.    For example, if members of Tribe X vote for a candidate of Tribe Y because they have been told to do so by their tribal lord, they are voting on a tribal basis.   On extent: You say that both Uhuru and Raila got votes from other tribes.   Obviously true, but how many votes did Uhuru get from Luos, and how many did Raila get from Kalenjins and Kikuyus?  And in 2002, Kibaki did very well across all tribes because a lesson had been learned in the earlier attempt to get out Moi, a guy who had beaten the crap out of them for years and years, and being "toshaed" didn't hurt either.. And so on, and so forth.   

I could go on and on, but the real "fault" in your analysis can be seen its red conclusion.  Actually, the tribal coalitions for 2017 are already set and have been for quite some time.    There are some small groups on the "borders", and some tribal chieftains will attempt to sell their "our people", but not much will change.  It might be comforting to think otherwise, but reality is a bi*tch.

I note your comment on USA elections.   One thing you do not take into account is the fact that most blacks would for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is.   (You should consider that when you comment on Clarence Thomas running as a Republican.) So while Obama certainly benefited from them by virtue of being black, one cannot say that Obama's race was the key factor.    There is also another very curious thing in this statement:

If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns.  The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe.
....

While supposedly arguing that Kenyans do not vote on a tribal basis, you have also put forward a sub-argument to the effect that voting along "tribal" lines is in fact "natural" and that such behaviour occurs elsewhere (if in a somewhat different form) and that Kenya is no different!

It is not an insult to Kenyans to observe that they are tribal sheep; that is simply a statement of fact.    Indeed, I find it peculiar that even as we wail 24/7 about tribalism in Kenya, it is somehow to be believed that politics is free from tribal tendencies.     

[MOON Ki]

Termie

Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:

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

Huh?  I don't know where you were back then.   The MOU itself was not made public, but that aspect of it was no secret.  I was in Kenya just before the elections, and the agreement that Raila would be PM was common knowledge that I regularly heard of in the streets.   

[Omollo]

The real question is where were you? Read the following to free yourself from propaganda:

There are always to be heard rumors in Kenya. This was never confirmed and KANU made a tactical error not to raise it. NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.

Narc strategists feared that if it emerged that Mr Kibaki had signed a deal to share power with Mr Raila Odinga, as the MoU required, Kanu could successfully argue in Kikuyuland that Mr Kibaki would be a puppet serving the whims of Mr Odinga, who hails from the historical rivals of the Kikuyu, the Luo.http://www.nation.co.ke/news/1056-830528-ik3fljz/index.html

Termie

Once more you are spreading propaganda. Here is why:

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

Huh?  I don't know where you were back then.   The MOU itself was not made public, but that aspect of it was no secret.  I was in Kenya just before the elections, and the agreement that Raila would be PM was common knowledge that I regularly heard of in the streets.   

[Omollo]

I will  ignore most of what you write and focus on one thing: The Role of The Tribal Chieftain in Kenya.

1. Why did not Matiba step down for Jaramogi Odinga in 1992 when it was apparent that Matiba was the reigning Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain? Did he fear that rather than listening to him to vote for Jaramogi Kikuyus would instead flock to Kibaki?
2. In 1997 Kibaki became the Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain. Why didn't he support a non Kikuyu candidate - say Kijana Wamalwa - and send Moi packing by asking The Kikuyu to vote outside their tribe? Did he fear they would return to Wanyoike, Koigi wa Wamwere, Munyua Waiyaki,
Godfrey M' Mwereria, Wangari Maathai or David Waweru Ng'ethe?
3. It took Kijana Wamalwa, Ngilu and Raila to forego their ambitions to pave way for Kibaki and get rid of KANU.

I get the insinuation about Luos "obeying" Raila and voting as "ordered". But i miss anything about Kikuyus voting for Matiba, Kibaki and Uhuru as ordered! So there is no contradiction: In 1992 Kikuyus through their so called Elders were ordered to vote for Matiba; In 1997 and 2007 they were ordered to vote for Kibaki. In 2002 There was the strange situation where Mama Ngina Kenyatta supported Kibaki in line with the voting "orders". I believe she then earned her son support for the 2013 Voting Orders.

Luos could well disobey Raila the same way Kikuyus disobeyed Kibaki's instructions to vote for Mudavadi and reverted to Uhuru in 2013. But I i do understand that MoonKi has the desire to denigrate the Luo decision to vote for a non Luo and assuage or mitigate the Tribal Voting patterns of the Kikuyu.

Whether one calls the Luo voting for Kibaki in 2002 "Tribal" or not, the bottom line is that they voted outside their tribe. They had a candidate: James Orengo. They did not vote for him. They voted for a Kikuyu. I would like to see the Kikuyu casting that kind of "Tribal" vote any day.
 

Voting "on tribal lines" should be be understood in more than just in the narrow sense of "no (or little) cross-tribe voting".  One has to consider what occurs, when, why,  how, and to what extent.    For example, if members of Tribe X vote for a candidate of Tribe Y because they have been told to do so by their tribal lord, they are voting on a tribal basis.   On extent: You say that both Uhuru and Raila got votes from other tribes.   Obviously true, but how many votes did Uhuru get from Luos, and how many did Raila get from Kalenjins and Kikuyus?  And in 2002, Kibaki did very well across all tribes because a lesson had been learned in the earlier attempt to get out Moi, a guy who had beaten the crap out of them for years and years, and being "toshaed" didn't hurt either.. And so on, and so forth.   

I could go on and on, but the real "fault" in your analysis can be seen its red conclusion.  Actually, the tribal coalitions for 2017 are already set and have been for quite some time.    There are some small groups on the "borders", and some tribal chieftains will attempt to sell their "our people", but not much will change.  It might be comforting to think otherwise, but reality is a bi*tch.

I note your comment on USA elections.   One thing you do not take into account is the fact that most blacks would for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is.   (You should consider that when you comment on Clarence Thomas running as a Republican.) So while Obama certainly benefited from them by virtue of being black, one cannot say that Obama's race was the key factor.    There is also another very curious thing in this statement:

While supposedly arguing that Kenyans do not vote on a tribal basis, you have also put forward a sub-argument to the effect that voting along "tribal" lines is in fact "natural" and that such behaviour occurs elsewhere (if in a somewhat different form) and that Kenya is no different!

It is not an insult to Kenyans to observe that they are tribal sheep; that is simply a statement of fact.    Indeed, I find it peculiar that even as we wail 24/7 about tribalism in Kenya, it is somehow to be believed that politics is free from tribal tendencies.     

[MOON Ki]

The real question is where were you? Read the following to free yourself from propaganda:

There are always to be heard rumors in Kenya. This was never confirmed and KANU made a tactical error not to raise it. NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.

The "PM Agreement" was given all around as the explanation for why Raila was not running for president.  It was commonly known, regardless of your claims.   It also appears that you are not reading even your own stuff.   First, note that there is a difference between not talking about something in public and that thing being a secret; that is true for many things, even in "everyday life".    Second, you wrote that:

2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
 Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

Now, see blue below, as well as your red.     According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!

There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public ralliesNarc strategists feared that if it emerged that Mr Kibaki had signed a deal to share power with Mr Raila Odinga, as the MoU required, Kanu could successfully argue in Kikuyuland that Mr Kibaki would be a puppet serving the whims of Mr Odinga, who hails from the historical rivals of the Kikuyu, the Luo.

[MOON Ki]

1. Why did not Matiba step down for Jaramogi Odinga in 1992 when it was apparent that Matiba was the reigning Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain? Did he fear that rather than listening to him to vote for Jaramogi Kikuyus would instead flock to Kibaki?
2. In 1997 Kibaki became the Kikuyu Tribal Chieftain. Why didn't he support a non Kikuyu candidate - say Kijana Wamalwa - and send Moi packing by asking The Kikuyu to vote outside their tribe? Did he fear they would return to Wanyoike, Koigi wa Wamwere, Munyua Waiyaki,
Godfrey M' Mwereria, Wangari Maathai or David Waweru Ng'ethe?

I have no idea.   Please enlighten me.

I get the insinuation about Luos "obeying" Raila and voting as "ordered". But i miss anything about Kikuyus voting for Matiba, Kibaki and Uhuru as ordered!

Once again, you are getting carried away with unhelpful emotion; nowhere did I state, or imply, or "insinuate" anything specifically about Luos.   But just to leave no doubt, here it is: the majority of Kenyans---and it's a large majority---across all tribes, and tribal sheep, and nowhere does it show more than in politics.  There.

Just to be double-sure: please go back and re-read red.  Got it?  Excellent.   Let's proceed. 

On "tribal chieftains", right now your own CORD will be cobbling together a leadership on that basis: someone to bring the Kambas, someone to bring the Luhyas, etc., just as Jubilee expects Ruto to bring the Kalenjins and Uhuru to bring the Kikuyus.

Your buddy, "Kichwa ...", has this explanation for you:

Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.

See, it's all just a matter of "tribal trust".   

But I i do understand that MoonKi has the desire to denigrate the Luo decision to vote for a non Luo and assuage or mitigate the Tribal Voting patterns of the Kikuyu.

Do you feel better when you make such silly statements?

[Omollo]

MoonKi

I am still sorry to burst your bubble.

The man who signed the MoU was Mwai Kibaki. On the other side representing LDP was Raila Odinga.

Three MoUs were signed in one day Bro as follows:
1. A secret one between DP (Not NAK) and LDP
2. A second one between LDP and Nyachae (abrogated a few hours later)
3. A public one between NAK and LDP

Take note of that as you split hairs and daw with your blue and red crayons or are they cry-ons .

The real question is where were you? Read the following to free yourself from propaganda:

There are always to be heard rumors in Kenya. This was never confirmed and KANU made a tactical error not to raise it. NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.

The "PM Agreement" was given all around as the explanation for why Raila was not running for president.  It was commonly known, regardless of your claims.   It also appears that you are not reading even your own stuff.   First, note that there is a difference between not talking about something in public and that thing being a secret; that is true for many things, even in "everyday life".    Second, you wrote that:

2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows:
 Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

Now, see blue below, as well as your red.     According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!

There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public ralliesNarc strategists feared that if it emerged that Mr Kibaki had signed a deal to share power with Mr Raila Odinga, as the MoU required, Kanu could successfully argue in Kikuyuland that Mr Kibaki would be a puppet serving the whims of Mr Odinga, who hails from the historical rivals of the Kikuyu, the Luo.

[MOON Ki]

MoonKi

I am still sorry to burst your bubble.

The man who signed the MoU was Mwai Kibaki. On the other side representing LDP was Raila Odinga.

Three MoUs were signed in one day Bro as follows:
1. A secret one between DP (Not NAK) and LDP
2. A second one between LDP and Nyachae (abrogated a few hours later)
3. A public one between NAK and LDP

Yes, I know all that; I read most of it in Anyang' Nyong'o's book ... just in case, you think you are toboaring something.     Now, pay careful attention to the following two points:

Point A:

The fact that something is not discussed in public does not necessarily make it  secret.     Think of examples in daily life around you.

Point B:

You wrote that

2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows ...Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

and that

NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.

Note the "NARC".    For good measure, you quoted a fellow informing us that:

There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies.   

So, when, on the basis of information that you yourself have provided,  I write that

According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!

you should be able to see that it has nothing to do with DP, LDP, NAK, or any other ABC signing anything, in private or in public or on the moon. It is Logic 101 applied to your claims with regard to NARC.

I have one more thing to say on your story: If, as you claim, Raila and Kibaki signed an agreement that was to be kept secret from some partners ("to avoid alienating them") and from the public, then it is just as well that Kibaki stabbed Raila in the back.   And one hopes that the "clever" people involved learned a useful lesson.  A position such as that of Prime Minister matters to the whole country and is not something to be obtained through secret agreements between a handful of people who "know best".   

[Kichwa]

I think we can go back and forth about why people vote the way they do forever with each of us professing to know why but the bottom line is that it is a very complicated subject that cannot be simplified  into the simple statement that "Kenyans vote along tribal lines" because it is not true.  I do not believe that luos voted for Kibaki  in 2002 or that Kalenjins  voted for Raila in 2007 or that Kalenjins voted for Uhuru in 2013, all in large numbers simply because Raila or Ruto ordered them.  That is a very simplistic explanation and it says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.  Let us watch closely and see if Ruto will again "order" Kalenjins to vote for Ouru in the same numbers in 2017 or whether Ouru can order kikuyus to vote for Ruto.  I am appealing to young politicians in Kenya who intend to run for president  or any other national office not to base their political strategy on this simplistic crap.

[Omollo]

MoonKi

We are engaged in this pedantic and overscrupulous mini game because you said the following:

Huh?  I don't know where you were back then.   The MOU itself was not made public, but that aspect of it was no secret.  I was in Kenya just before the elections, and the agreement that Raila would be PM was common knowledge that I regularly heard of in the streets.

I would like to concede by stating the following:

1. Yes the "secret" MoU was [and has] never [been] made public
2. It is possible people like you heard about its existence and the details in it
3. The veracity of the details therein remain unknown until such a time that the hearsay is backed by a solid original or certified copy of the same.

That said, the FIRST time anybody connected with the MoU stated clearly that there was a secret MoU drawn by Njoki Ndung'u was AFTER the elections and after Kibaki had reneged on it.

Hitherto both the NARC campaign had responded to any mention of MoU by fudging: i.e. pretending it was all about the public MoU.

Clearly we did not keep the secret from you but we succeeded in misleading the Uhuru / KANU campaign until after the elections.

MoonKi

I am still sorry to burst your bubble.

The man who signed the MoU was Mwai Kibaki. On the other side representing LDP was Raila Odinga.

Three MoUs were signed in one day Bro as follows:
1. A secret one between DP (Not NAK) and LDP
2. A second one between LDP and Nyachae (abrogated a few hours later)
3. A public one between NAK and LDP

Yes, I know all that; I read most of it in Anyang' Nyong'o's book ... just in case, you think you are toboaring something.     Now, pay careful attention to the following two points:

Point A:

The fact that something is not discussed in public does not necessarily make it  secret.     Think of examples in daily life around you.

Point B:

You wrote that

2. The reasons for its remaining secret were as follows ...Fear of alienating NAK partners Ngilu and Wamalwa

and that

NARC succeeded in burying it every time it was mentioned by simply displaying the public MoU that was signed in public.

Note the "NARC".    For good measure, you quoted a fellow informing us that:

There were good reasons why Narc leaders avoided talk of an MOU in all their public rallies.   

So, when, on the basis of information that you yourself have provided,  I write that

According to you, the agreement was kept secret to avoid alienating some NARC leaders who nevertheless knew about it and took good care not to talk about it!

you should be able to see that it has nothing to do with DP, LDP, NAK, or any other ABC signing anything, in private or in public or on the moon. It is Logic 101 applied to your claims with regard to NARC.

[MOON Ki]

I think we can go back and forth about why people vote the way they do forever with each of us professing to know why but the bottom line is that it is a very complicated subject that cannot be simplified  into the simple statement that "Kenyans vote along tribal lines" because it is not true.  I do not believe that luos voted for Kibaki  in 2002 or that Kalenjins  voted for Raila in 2007 or that Kalenjins voted for Uhuru in 2013, all in large numbers because Raila or Ruto ordered them. That is a very simplistic explanation and it says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.

Yes, we can go back and forth.     But if I may ask: Which is more simplistic?   A simplistic statement or a simplistic interpretation of a simplistic statement?

You wrote  that:

I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.

Perhaps.   Am going to bet on this for 2017: 

- Most Kalenjin and "kinly" affiliates (all brought by Ruto) and most GEMA (brought by Uhuru) will vote for Jubilee.   That will be the core of one tribal coalition.   Other, small,  contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.

- Most Luos (brought by Raila), Kambas (brought by Musyoka), and Luhyas (delivered by Wetangula, and, if he doesn't misbehave again, Mudavadi) will vote for CORD.  That will be the core of another tribal coalition.   Other, small,  contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.

- Big lots that are up for auction include the Kisii etc., although they might lean one way more than the other.  And there are numerous small lots that are to be had for lower prices.   Keep an eye out for things like State-House trips for "development" and the like, appointments to government bodies, promises of cabinet office, etc. 

- Once the 8 or 9 big tribal chieftains have delivered their "our people", as above, it's all pretty much done.   The remaining 30-something are just styrofoam filler, to stop the votes from rattling in the box.   These are the smaller lots, to be shepherded into the right direction without the expenditure of much sweat,

Reality is what it is; it can be observed to be what it is; and it can be stated that it is what it is.  Given that, this sort of statement

says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.

never works on me.

Stick to reasoned arguments, if you can.

[MOON Ki]

Clearly we did not keep the secret from you but we succeeded in misleading the Uhuru / KANU campaign until after the elections.

Today, some people are still wailing about how they were stabbed in the back, and Uhuru is where he is.  Good for you.

[Kichwa]

That most Kalenjins and Kikuyus are going to vote for Jubilee does not translate into Kenyans voting solely based on tribe. I agree that most less Kalenjins are going to vote for Ouru in 2017 than they did in 2013.  This is because interests have shifted.  More Kisii and Luhyias may vote for Raila this time around than they did in 2013.  Whether these changes will make a difference in 2013 or not I do not know and neither do you.   It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee and that does not make them tribal voting robots.

To run for president of Kenya successfully, one requires a lot of money.  Then one needs name recognition, then one needs to have a respectable political base to start with.  Name recognition can come from family such as Ouru, Moi or Odinga but that is not enough as Gideon and other children of previous prominent politicians have found out or will find out.  One also have to have to be in the "right political" side with his base or tribe (oxymoron), before they can think of forming coalitions. Ouru in 2002 was not in sync with the political thinking of the Kikuyu at that time and he did not get their solid vote.

In conclusion, tribe alone is not enough, money alone is not enough, and definitely name recognition alone is not even. It is more complicated and must be analyzed differently during  each election period and therefore that "Kenyana vote along tribal lines" is a is too simplistic.  If it were true then if one substituted Ouru and Raila with any luo or Kikuyu then those substitutes would get the same votes. If something changes based on circumstances then it cannot be true. Reminds me of the dude who mixed coke with different alcoholic drinks on several different occasions and had a hangover each time then concluded that coke causes hangover.

I think we can go back and forth about why people vote the way they do forever with each of us professing to know why but the bottom line is that it is a very complicated subject that cannot be simplified  into the simple statement that "Kenyans vote along tribal lines" because it is not true.  I do not believe that luos voted for Kibaki  in 2002 or that Kalenjins  voted for Raila in 2007 or that Kalenjins voted for Uhuru in 2013, all in large numbers because Raila or Ruto ordered them. That is a very simplistic explanation and it says more about the elites who make such statements than the people they are trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze.

Yes, we can go back and forth.     But we need not.   

You wrote  that:

I have started to see a different pattern forming for 2017 although its not clear yet but I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.

Perhaps.   Am going to bet on this for 2017: 

- Most Kalenjin (brought by Ruto) and most Kikuyu (brought by Uhuru) will vote for Jubilee.   That will be the core of one tribal coalition.   Other, small,  contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.

- Most Luos (brought by Raila), Kambas (brought by Musyoka), and Luhyas (Wetangula, and, if he doesn't misbehave again, Mudavadi) will vote for CORD.  That will be the core of another tribal coalition.   Other, small,  contributors will come in according to tribal purchases made elsewhere.

- Big lots that are up for auction include the Kisii etc., although they might lean one way more than the other.  And there are numerous small lots that are to be had for lower prices.   Keep an eye out for things like State-House trips for "development" and the like, appointments to government bodies, promises of cabinet office, etc. 

- Once the 8 or 9 big tribal chieftains have delivered there people, as above, it's all pretty much done.   The remaining 30-something are just styrofoam fillers, to stop the votes from rattling in the box.   These are the smaller lots, to be shepherded into the right direction without the expenditure of much sweat,

Reality is what it is; it can be observed to be what it is; and it can be stated that it is what it is.  So, let's not get carried away, with things like "trying to denigrate or to psycho-analyze".   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

People world over vote their interest and Kenyans are not different other than that we have tribes.  If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns.  The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe.    In 2008 African Americans came out for Obama in huge numbers for Obama because they had an interest in having their children see a black man who identified with them became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for president on the Republican party, you would have seen the same amount of black people come out to vote for him.    I believe that Joho would get more luo votes than Miguna  if they both ran for president in 2022.  Kidero got a lot of non-luo votes in Nairobi in 2013 to win the governorship.  There are many more incidents of Kenyans voting across tribal lines than along tribal lines and  yet we focus so much  on the few occasions when Kenyans  vote along tribal lines.  In 2002 although luos voted for Kibaki because of Raila but it was more than just because Raila was a luo-it also had something to do with Raila's political beliefs.  I think it is an insult to Kenyans to say that we only vote for our tribesmates because they are our tribesmates and nothing else.  Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.

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

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

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

You are giving some reasons why people can vote on tribal lines.  You are not negating the fact that they do.  American blacks may not have voted Obama primarily for his race, but that is America.

Miguna has no chance of being elected President.  Even villagers know that.  They won't vote for him against Jogo because:

1) Joho is pro-Raila.
2) Miguna has zero chance of succeeding.
3) Miguna is generally regarded as a traitor against Luo interests personified by Raila.  Something that might even be worse than belonging to another tribe.

You might as well replace Miguna in your argument with Malik Obama without making it any weaker.

Kidero won Nairobi because Luos, Luhya and others were succesfully herded into his basket by the charisma of their tribal supremos.  The Luo portion of the vote was underwritten by his membership of Raila's ODM.  The Luhya and Kamba by ODM's relationship with the respective tribal supremos.

There can be other reasons, including long histories of struggle and suffering.  Yet, such histories failed Orengo in 2002 in favor of a figure that only quit the establishment at the eleventh hour.  For the other reasons to matter, they must always somehow ultimately align with current preference of the tribal supremo.

It's ugly.  But it's also true.  Tribalism is the simplest and most consistent explanation for voting patterns in Kenya.

[MOON Ki]

That most Kalenjins and Kikuyus are going to vote for Jubilee does not translate into Kenyans voting solely based on tribe.

   

I was giving my view of 2017, in light of the statement that:

I expect a different tribal coalition than 2013.

As I see it, almost nothing will change from 2013.

It is in their interest to vote that way ...

Why and how is it in their interest? Perhaps that will guide is understanding the "non-tribal" voting that you claim.

In conclusion, tribe alone is not enough, money alone is not enough, and definitely name recognition alone is not even. It is more complicated and must be analyzed differently at each election and therefore that "Kenyan vote along tribal lines" is a big lie being repeated as if it were the bible truth.  If it were true then if you substituted Ouru and Raila with any luo or Kikuyu then you would get the same vote casted by their tribesmates to those people as Ouru and Raila would get. If something changes all the time then it cannot be true.

I have given you my breakdown for 2017, on the basis of a "tribal" analysis.    Perhaps the groupings I have given will form ,as given, but for other reasons---"interest" that so far has not been explained.   Or perhaps I am completely wrong, and it will a "different tribal coalition", as you suggest; we'll see.

[Kichwa]

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

People world over vote their interest and Kenyans are not different other than that we have tribes.  If we had tribes in the USA you would see the same voting patterns.  The reason why people vote for their tribesmates is because they believe that their tribemates are more likely to deliver whatever their interest maybe.    In 2008 African Americans came out for Obama in huge numbers for Obama because they had an interest in having their children see a black man who identified with them became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for president on the Republican party, you would have seen the same amount of black people come out to vote for him.    I believe that Joho would get more luo votes than Miguna  if they both ran for president in 2022.  Kidero got a lot of non-luo votes in Nairobi in 2013 to win the governorship.  There are many more incidents of Kenyans voting across tribal lines than along tribal lines and  yet we focus so much  on the few occasions when Kenyans  vote along tribal lines.  In 2002 although luos voted for Kibaki because of Raila but it was more than just because Raila was a luo-it also had something to do with Raila's political beliefs.  I think it is an insult to Kenyans to say that we only vote for our tribesmates because they are our tribesmates and nothing else.  Luos trust Raila because of a long political history which goes beyond being just being at Luo and I am sure Kikuyus too with Ouru.

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

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

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

You are giving some reasons why people can vote on tribal lines.  You are not negating the fact that they do.  American blacks may not have voted Obama primarily for his race, but that is America.

Miguna has no chance of being elected President.  Even villagers know that.  They won't vote for him against Jogo because:

1) Joho is pro-Raila.
2) Miguna has zero chance of succeeding.
3) Miguna is generally regarded as a traitor against Luo interests personified by Raila.  Something that might even be worse than belonging to another tribe.

You might as well replace Miguna in your argument with Malik Obama without making it any weaker.

Kidero won Nairobi because Luos, Luhya and others were succesfully herded into his basket by the charisma of their tribal supremos.  The Luo portion of the vote was underwritten by his membership of Raila's ODM.  The Luhya and Kamba by ODM's relationship with the respective tribal supremos.

There can be other reasons, including long histories of struggle and suffering.  Yet, such histories failed Orengo in 2002 in favor of a figure that only quit the establishment at the eleventh hour.  For the other reasons to matter, they must always somehow ultimately align with current preference of the tribal supremo.

It's ugly.  But it's also true.  Tribalism is the simplest and most consistent explanation for voting patterns in Kenya.