what is tabulation of voter registration by Tribe

[Globalcitizen12]

• Tweet

It is round 8 of 9. I wonder how Kalenjin and Kiyuyu (KAKI) alliance did versu the rest of kenya.. Issues in kenya be damned. With all the corruption and inepitude of this criminal government the voting is basis is 95% tribal  5% issues. Only outliers in the major 5 communities vote on issues. Less than 2% of kenyans vote for issues.

[Kichwa]

That Kenyans vote overwhelmingly only on tribal lines is a lie that has been repeated so many times it is now the conventional wisdom.  The reality is that there is no evidence that Kenyans vote for their tribes mates purely because the person happens to be their tribesman.   I do not believe that Kikuyus voted for Ouru purely because he was their tribesmate but because they believed he was more likely to deliver on their issues than Raila.  Kalenjins voted for Ouru because Ruto was his vice president and therefore Ouruto's government was  more likely deliver on the issues which concern them than CORD.  So, in essense, Kenyans were voting for their interest and not the mere fact that ouru or Ruto was their tribesmate.    Kenyans believe this because dictators Jomo, Moi and then Kibaki to some extent practiced tribalism so blatantly which convinced Kenyans that the tribal interest is better served by a tribesmate.

As we move away from this historical period into the new political dispensation under the new Katiba, specifically, devolution, and a less powerful presidency,  we will see less and less people believing that a tribesmate is more likely to cater for their interest than a candidate from another tribe.  We are already noticing Kalenjins and even some kikuyus realizing that the presidency or the vice presidency does not necessarily translate into economic advantage like it used to during the Jomo/Moi era.

This election in particular presents a rare opportunity for Kenya to move away from the tribal voting because we are faced with serious issues such as alarmingly rising poverty levels, high cost of living, corruption, and mismanagement of the economy that cut across tribal lines.

I believe Kenyans are voting for issues  but they trust their tribesmates more to deliver, however, reality is starting to set in that a candidate from another tribe may be able to do a better. Candidates for president should not give up in trying to convince Kenyans who are not their tribesmates that they can do a better job.  A candidate will always get more votes from his tribe or region but this should not make us believe that we are irredeemably tribal voters. Presidential candidates will have no choice but get votes all over the country in order to win.

It is round 8 of 9. I wonder how Kalenjin and Kiyuyu (KAKI) alliance did versu the rest of kenya.. Issues in kenya be damned. With all the corruption and inepitude of this criminal government the voting is basis is 95% tribal  5% issues. Only outliers in the major 5 communities vote on issues. Less than 2% of kenyans vote for issues.

[MOON Ki]

I believe Kenyans are voting for issues  but they trust their tribesmates more to deliver, however, reality is starting to set in that a candidate from another tribe may be able to do a better. Candidates for president should not give up in trying to convince Kenyans who are not their tribesmates that they can do a better job.

Here's a scenario for you: You are at a job interview, and the person on the other side of the desk is a mzungu guy.   He says, "We are selecting strictly on the basis of performance and the ability to deliver.  But we have more faith in our fellow whites to do what is required.  So, thank you and blah-blah-blah".  Think about that, feel free to replace "trust' with other words and phrases---e.g. "more comfortable with", "know them better", "easier to understand", etc.---and apply apply the results of  your thinking to any other *ism.   Key point: whatever the proffered reason, ask for the objectivity.   

Excellent point.   And which candidate is even trying to do that?    Is there any candidate for President who is out there articulating a different vision for the country?   Is any candidate clearly stating what they would do that would make a difference for the citizens if said candidate got into power or retained power?  Is anyone even saying much about the fact that so may Kenyans---slowly approaching 10% of the population---are starving?

Would Kenya be a better place if people did not just  "trust their tribesmates more to deliver"?   Undoubtedly.  But here we are today, in the real world of real realities ... so to speak, or something, or whatever.  So we'll just dish it up without too much dancing-around:   Kalenjins and Kikuyus are not going to vote for Raila/CORD in numbers that would make any difference; why would they do otherwise when their "our man" has the butchery under control? Similarly, Luos are not going to vote for Uhuru/JAP in numbers that would make any difference ... historical reasons that go all the way to Uhuru's dad beating the crap out of them.   And the other tribal sheeple and their chieftains will go with the most promising wind: do they come any more fickle that Mudavadi and Kalonzo?

Yes, it sucks; but there it is.    Wake me up when both the sheeple and their "leaders" start to focus on real issues.

[RV Pundit]

You cannot expect our politics to be more advanced than say our economic/social stature. Kenya politics will over time transform into issue-based politics. I am thinking in 50-100 yrs time.

[Gumzo]

That Kenyans vote overwhelmingly only on tribal lines is a lie that has been repeated so many times it is now the conventional wisdom.  The reality is that there is no evidence that Kenyans vote for their tribes mates purely because the person happens to be their tribesman.   I do not believe that Kikuyus voted for Ouru purely because he was their tribesmate but because they believed he was more likely to deliver on their issues than Raila.  Kalenjins voted for Ouru because Ruto was his vice president and therefore Ouruto's government was  more likely deliver on the issues which concern them than CORD.  So, in essense, Kenyans were voting for their interest and not the mere fact that ouru or Ruto was their tribesmate.    Kenyans believe this because dictators Jomo, Moi and then Kibaki to some extent practiced tribalism so blatantly which convinced Kenyans that the tribal interest is better served by a tribesmate.

As we move away from this historical period into the new political dispensation under the new Katiba, specifically, devolution, and a less powerful presidency,  we will see less and less people believing that a tribesmate is more likely to cater for their interest than a candidate from another tribe.  We are already noticing Kalenjins and even some kikuyus realizing that the presidency or the vice presidency does not necessarily translate into economic advantage like it used to during the Jomo/Moi era.

This election in particular presents a rare opportunity for Kenya to move away from the tribal voting because we are faced with serious issues such as alarmingly rising poverty levels, high cost of living, corruption, and mismanagement of the economy that cut across tribal lines.

I believe Kenyans are voting for issues  but they trust their tribesmates more to deliver, however, reality is starting to set in that a candidate from another tribe may be able to do a better. Candidates for president should not give up in trying to convince Kenyans who are not their tribesmates that they can do a better job.  A candidate will always get more votes from his tribe or region but this should not make us believe that we are irredeemably tribal voters. Presidential candidates will have no choice but get votes all over the country in order to win.

You left out the whole issue of fear mongering
Majority Kikuyu will vote for their tribes mate because they have been lied to that Raila and his Jaluos will take Kikuyu shambas and marginalize the whole Kikuyu tribe like the Kikuyu has marginalized Luos since 1963

[Kadudu]

There you have a point. We have a long way to go and maybe our grandkids will get it right.

You cannot expect our politics to be more advanced than say our economic/social stature. Kenya politics will over time transform into issue-based politics. I am thinking in 50-100 yrs time.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kichwa's claims are as Orwellian as it gets.  When you reject evidence, you do it with a straight face.

[Globalcitizen12]

Kichwa is a lawyer he been spinning all his life he does not know when to stop and face reality.. He is living in an alternative universe

[Kichwa]

I hear you loud and clear and I get it. However, please acknowledge the fact that Kenyans have voted across tribal lines. In 2013, although Raila and Kalonzo were running mates from Kamba and luo tribes, they received a lot of votes from none-Kamba and None Luo voters who believed they would be better served by them.  I am sure the same was true on ouruto's side.  There is a difference between 1) a person who votes for a candidate purely because the candidate is their tribes mate and 2) a person who votes for a candidate  from his tribe because he trust his/her tribe mate will  better serve his interest.  The  2nd voter is voting for her interest and therefore persuadable and the 1st voter is what Hilary described as irredeemable. 

Pundit seems to agree with me except he thinks it will take 100 years. I believe it will take much shorter time than that. I am boldly predicting that we will see a candidate like that in our life time'

Raila and ouru candidacies makes it much more difficult  to envisage such a Kenya because of historical associations, however, very soon we will have presidential candidates who are not connected to that epic tribal political rivalry and changes will take place very quickly.  Let us also accept the fact that changes comes in waves and  things can change very much in five years. 1n 2008 when Obama ran many Americans believed that a black person could not be elected president that came to pass. In 2015 many Americans believed that a racist idiot could not be elected president. That also came to pass.

I believe Kenyans are voting for issues  but they trust their tribesmates more to deliver, however, reality is starting to set in that a candidate from another tribe may be able to do a better. Candidates for president should not give up in trying to convince Kenyans who are not their tribesmates that they can do a better job.

Here's a scenario for you: You are at a job interview, and the person on the other side of the desk is a mzungu guy.   He says, "We are selecting strictly on the basis of performance and the ability to deliver.  But we have more faith in our fellow whites to do what is required.  So, thank you and blah-blah-blah".  Think about that, feel free to replace "trust' with other words and phrases---e.g. "more comfortable with", "know them better", "easier to understand", etc.---and apply apply the results of  your thinking to any other *ism.   Key point: whatever the proffered reason, ask for the objectivity.   

Excellent point.   And which candidate is even trying to do that?    Is there any candidate for President who is out there articulating a different vision for the country?   Is any candidate clearly stating what they would do that would make a difference for the citizens if said candidate got into power or retained power?  Is anyone even saying much about the fact that so may Kenyans---slowly approaching 10% of the population---are starving?

Would Kenya be a better place if people did not just  "trust their tribesmates more to deliver"?   Undoubtedly.  But here we are today, in the real world of real realities ... so to speak, or something, or whatever.  So we'll just dish it up without too much dancing-around:   Kalenjins and Kikuyus are not going to vote for Raila/CORD in numbers that would make any difference; why would they do otherwise when their "our man" has the butchery under control? Similarly, Luos are not going to vote for Uhuru/JAP in numbers that would make any difference ... historical reasons that go all the way to Uhuru's dad beating the crap out of them.   And the other tribal sheeple and their chieftains will go with the most promising wind: do they come any more fickle that Mudavadi and Kalonzo?

Yes, it sucks; but there it is.    Wake me up when both the sheeple and their "leaders" start to focus on real issues.

[MOON Ki]

I hear you loud and clear and I get it, but here is the point you are missing. However.  please accept the that Kenyans have voted across tribal lines.

First, you fail to understand something something very basic. "Tribal voting" is not limited to just voting for one's tribesman; it also includes following tribal chieftains on how and whom to vote for.     You should reflect a bit more on the latter part.

There is a difference between 1) a person who votes for a candidate purely because the candidate is their tribes mate and 2) a person who votes for a candidate  from his tribe because he trust his/her tribe mate will  better serve his interest.

I see that you did not get my red point above, and you are still focusing on non-existent differences.    How can you tell the difference between  (1) and (2)?  On the basis that the people involved tell you so?   As I have noted above, tribalism/racism/sexism/etc. tend to have all sorts of "explanations", rather than plain admission, and the weakest of such explanations are "trust more"/"more comfortable with"/"understand better:/etc.

Let us now suppose that you have a magic device that can clearly distinguish between  (1) and (2).    Then:

* (1) is voting on the basis of some emotion that is connected to tribe; so is (2), trust being just another emotion.    Is there any reason to believe that the emotion in (2) is somehow superior than that in (1)?

* (2) is not voting on some objective criteria---e.g. that the person in question is a capable performer, or has articulated a vision and plan that will be beneficial, etc.   The trust, and, therefore the subsequent vote, is based solely on tribe.   So there is no basis to claim that (2) is in any way less tribal than (1).   

Raila and ouru candidacies makes it much more difficult  to envisage such a Kenya because of historical associations, however, very soon we will have presidential candidates who are not connected to that epic tribal political rivalry and changes will take place very quickly.

I see very little to support your optimism.      Take our political parties for example.     Does anyone know what they stand for?    Are any of their leaders out there explaining what distinguishes their parties from others?    We are now in the Season of Defections.   Have you heard of anyone "defecting" on the basis that one party's platform is better than that of another, or it just about maximizing opportunities? The reality is that the basic political foundations are of tribal outfits (parties or coalitions of those, formed for expediency), and the roots are all historical.     

[Kichwa]

I mean it when I say I get your argument.  The problem is that we seem to have different definition of "tribal voting". Yours seems to be expanding each time. Lastly,  I actually differentiated 1 and 2 quite clearly.  What gives me hope is that most Kenyans fall under 2.  There interests come first except they believe that their tribes mates can do a better job. There is actually a historical justification of this belief.  Since their interest come first, these people can therefore be persuaded across tribal lines.  This was one of the reasons for devolution-to make people less dependent on the presidency to deliver their interest.  Let us give the new constitutional dispensation a chance to convince the people that they are NOT dead without the presidency or that they will be living in heaven if they get the presidency.

[MOON Ki]

I mean it when I say I get your argument.  The problem is that we seem to have different definition of "tribal voting". Yours seems to be expanding each time.

Nop.   It is not.    The point I made is one I have already made in another thread in which you and I had a similar exchange.   Please go to this thread:   http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=3785.0

There, you will find me writing that:

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 don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

You state that:

Lastly,  I actually differentiated 1 and 2 quite clearly.  What gives me hope is that most Kenyans fall under 2.  There interests come first except they believe that there tribes mates can do a better job.

No, you have not.  They believe that their tribes-mates can do a better job on what basis?   That they are from the same tribe?    That makes it tribal voting.     But, here, let's end the back-and-forth: tell us exactly how you would distinguish, in practice, between a person of Type 1 and a person of Type 2?   

Since there interest comes first, these people can therefore be persuaded. 

And I have already pointed out that you can't actually distinguish between (1) and (2).   If you can, tell me how, and we can continue the discussion on that basis.  The point here is that (a) there can be no persuading people if we can't even tell who they are, and (b) it is never easy to persuade people when their actions and choices are not based on anything objective.

On the matter, of interest, I again refer you to this thread:   http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=3785.0

There, you wrote that:

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

I asked you what those interests were, but I never got an answer ... the point I was heading for is that to persuade people to change one would have to be very clear on what the interests are.   

You have stated that "It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee".   They too think so, and so do others with respect to their tribal outfits.   So, remind me again: what is the exact point of your distinctions and comments on persuasion?   Specifically, what, for example, would you persuade Kikuyus and Kalenjins to do differently when you yourself have stated that they are acting in accord with their interests?

Look, the most important point is this: Whether you choose to believe that some tribal voting is just mindless and some is "interest-based", the end result is the same---the voting will be tribal, this year and in 2022 and even beyond that.   

As it is, you anti-reality stance is very puzzling.   What exactly is the rationale for it?   I think a much more fruitful approach would be to start with accepting reality, agree that it is unsatisfactory and that we should change, and  then discuss how we might go about making the necessary changes.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I mean it when I say I get your argument.  The problem is that we seem to have different definition of "tribal voting". Yours seems to be expanding each time. Lastly,  I actually differentiated 1 and 2 quite clearly.  What gives me hope is that most Kenyans fall under 2.  There interests come first except they believe that their tribes mates can do a better job. There is actually a historical justification of this belief.  Since their interest come first, these people can therefore be persuaded across tribal lines.  This was one of the reasons for devolution-to make people less dependent on the presidency to deliver their interest.  Let us give the new constitutional dispensation a chance to convince the people that they are NOT dead without the presidency or that they will be living in heaven if they get the presidency.

The difference between reason number 1 and 2 is contrived and meaningless.

[Kichwa]

I mean it when I say I get your argument.  The problem is that we seem to have different definition of "tribal voting". Yours seems to be expanding each time.

Nop.   It is not.    The point I made is one I have already made in another thread in which you and I had a similar exchange.   Please go to this thread:   http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=3785.0

There, you will find me writing that:

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 don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

You state that:

Lastly,  I actually differentiated 1 and 2 quite clearly.  What gives me hope is that most Kenyans fall under 2.  There interests come first except they believe that there tribes mates can do a better job.

No, you have not.  They believe that their tribes-mates can do a better job on what basis?   That they are from the same tribe?    That makes it tribal voting.     But, here, let's end the back-and-forth: tell us exactly how you would distinguish, in practice, between a person of Type 1 and a person of Type 2?   

Since there interest comes first, these people can therefore be persuaded. 

And I have already pointed out that you can't actually distinguish between (1) and (2).   If you can, tell me how, and we can continue the discussion on that basis.  The point here is that (a) there can be no persuading people if we can't even tell who they are, and (b) it is never easy to persuade people when their actions and choices are not based on anything objective.

On the matter, of interest, I again refer you to this thread:   http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=3785.0

There, you wrote that:

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

I asked you what those interests were, but I never got an answer ... the point I was heading for is that to persuade people to change one would have to be very clear on what the interests are.   

You have stated that "It is in the interest of most kikuyus and Kalenjins to vote for Jubilee".   They too think so, and so do others with respect to their tribal outfits.   So, remind me again: what is the exact point of your distinctions and comments on persuasion?   Specifically, what, for example, would you persuade Kikuyus and Kalenjins to do differently when you yourself have stated that they are acting in accord with their interests?

Look, the most important point is this: Whether you choose to believe that some tribal voting is just mindless and some is "interest-based", the end result is the same---the voting will be tribal, this year and in 2022 and even beyond that.   

As it is, you anti-reality stance is very puzzling.   What exactly is the rationale for it?   I think a much more fruitful approach would be to start with accepting reality, agree that it is unsatisfactory and that we should change, and  then discuss how we might go about making the necessary changes.