Omollo, I agree. The modern tribal Kingpin must prove his national credentials to his tribe before he can be found credible for the position. This is very positive because for them to do this they have to discuss national issues effectively and even reveal their political ideology, reveal their policies and be able to contrast and compare themselves to leaders from other regions. In the tribal Supremo war between Isaac Ruto and William Ruto I think we have seen their national positions on certain contentious issues that makes us like them or not like them. Tribal kingpin battles can therefore be a very good vetting ground for presidential candidates if one of the qualities a kingpin must showcase is his ability to become a national leader.
Let us assume that the "national-outlook requirement" does indeed exist, implicitly or explicitly I would still make a distinction between being able to convince the "our people" that one has it and one actually having. The essence of a good con is being able to sell what one actually doesn't have. Even if one is not running a con and the sheeple are indeed convinced, it would not necessarily follow that one has what is required. That is because different groups might have different ideas of what is of national importance.
Isaac Ruto, Gideon Moi, stands no chance against Ruto Singh. And they know it. What they are doing is "leveraging' (off their little bases), to get a nicer slice of the tribal-bakaed pie, and that is quite different from "challenging": the Big Ruto will appreciate that they are "serious, important" men and share accordingly. A bit more:
"King" is key in "kingpin"; only one person can occupy the thrown at a time; and the throne is only given up through abdication or death, followed by an "inheritance" or a new "anointing". So Ruto is set in the Rift Valley, Raila in Nyanza, Uhuru in Central, Musyoka in Eastern, etc. Nothing that their opponents do, by way of "
national issues, political ideology, policies" etc. will make the slightest difference. (Not that they are doing much of that.) Even a flake like Mudavadi is pretty much assured of a significant role, solely on the basis of "history", because somebody is required to deliver or sell---depending on the side from which it is viewed---the Luhya vote ... and if there is some doubt as to the current kingpin, then, as we just saw, there will be a little circus to resurrect one. No new kingpin if there is a forgotten halfway-useful one that can be warmed up and recycled.
So, I am astonished to read that "
they have to discuss national issues effectively and even reveal their political ideology, reveal their policies and be able to contrast and compare themselves to leaders from other regions". Only the last part is (partially) true, in that one can see some "compare-and-contrast" the daily trade of insults and nonsense, which have absolutely nothing to do with what would improve the lives of Kenyans. But on substance? Perhaps I missed it. Where can one learn more of the tribal kingpins' effective discussions of national issues? Where can one find details of their policies, of comparisons against the policies of their peer kingpins? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Elsewhere, you write that
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.
Are people seeking better lives? Certainly. Are they discussing all those issues? Certainly. Will it make any difference in how they vote later this year? Absolutely not. Kenyan politicians devote a great deal of time to insults and nonsense---rather than how they would make a real difference for Kenyans---precisely because they know that at the end of the day the lemmings, being lemmings, will do the lemming-like thing. To the edge, we go!
In quite a few places charges, or even accusations, of serious criminality would mark the end of a political career; in Kenya, it's only the beginning. Past performance, the potential to deliver in the future, personal character and integrity, etc. never matter. And the "our man" attitude trickles down, much like devolution---our tribe, our clan, our sub-clan, our village, etc.
Kenyans vote, at all levels, on this basis: "
Yes, life is tough. But if we can just get our man in, then we will eat big, and life will be so much better". A year after voting in the "our man", they get disgusted, promise to throw him out, and in most cases actually do. The "exercise" is then repeated. In 50+ years, at the national level, that pattern has been broken only twice: (1) after 24 years of hardcore abuse by one guy, and (2) when the country went up in flames and was about to go the "African Way". That's hardly the promise of real-change-in-the-near-future.
I really wish I could share your optimism, but I'm afraid the Kenyan situation looks like crap all the way---and for quite a bit of time to come. You suggest that: "
Young aspiring Kenyan politicians should start thinking of different ways to win votes.". Who are some of these young-and-aspiring? What would make them deviate from "proven" formulae? Besides, I don' think there has even been a shallower generation of "young Kenyans" than the present one. The internet having delivered all sorts of images to their little phones, this lot wants "the good life, as seen on TV, from abroad-oh" right now. And they are prepared to do whatever it takes .... take a look at surveys on their attitudes on corruption.
Topic: How does one become a tribal kingpin (Read 3168 times)