Antony Otieno Ong'ayo
3 July 2009
(Page 2 of 4)
It is undoubtedly true that it is the same elite that owns the major investments in Kenya, the skyscrapers in Nairobi, posh beach hotels in Mombasa and large swathes of farm land in different agriculturally viable areas in Kenya. Yet it is surprising that the same class has failed to secure their long-term interests by ensuring that other Kenyans get their share in the form of small projects such as health centres, roads and funds to start one's own business. The Kenyan elite could therefore have more space for their accumulation and protection of the same. The history of the developed countries in Europe points to a paradigm shift by those who were in charge of capital (the 'old money'), who saw the sense in allowing the welfare system to be introduced, reasons that have been captured in political science and historical analyses of socio-economic and political development in Europe. In the current state in Kenya one might even say that they need this strategy in order to have space to keep eating or looting without much fury from the masses or diplomats and development agencies who oversee their interests in Kenya. However, here too lies the problem of deep slumber, ignorance and lethargy in the Kenyan masses that have been pacified for too long, to such an extent that within their different communities today, they would still kill a neighbour for reasons that they cannot explain.
THE LAND QUESTION
The truth with regard to the land question - in Central province, for instance - is that there is no Luo, Somali, Ogiek, Digo, Rendile, Borana, Abagusi or Kenyan Indian who grabbed land in that province when the British settlers partially left the region. The fact is that land did not revert to its original owners, some of whom were killed in the numerous massacres and atrocities by the British forces operating in the region, or later displaced by the new colonialists who are sons of Central Province. Jomo Kenyatta in this context betrayed the Mau Mau and the landless freedom fighters through such conspiracies as willing seller-buyer in order to buy back land which was stolen by settlers.
The draconian land laws based upon the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915 are also what underpin the outrageous grants of agricultural leases for such periods as 99 or 999 years for settlers, whilst local populations went without even space to grow food. The Ndungu report on illegal and irregular allocation of public land provides an insight into this episode of the struggles over 'land' and 'graft' in Kenya, and anyone who might not want to face this truth is being ignorant of real issues that upset Kenyan society, some of which underpin the recurrent land clashes during elections and the restitution demanded by the victims of land grabbing in Kenya. As long as no one wants to face the truth that the rightful owners of land taken by the British settlers and Kenyan elite from Central, Rift Valley and Coast provinces, are those who bore the brunt of such annihilation, either as dead souls or grandchildren still languishing in various schemes as squatters in different parts of Kenya, long-lasting peace and coexistence in some parts of Kenya and even in the country as whole might just be an illusion.
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC MARGINALISATION
Marginalisation in Kenya has taken many forms. however, the two major ones are economic and political. The two are key in that they go hand-in-hand as far as who partakes in the process and resource allocation is concerned. These two factors have shaped what is available or not in any region in Kenya in terms of basic services such as schools infrastructure and finance for small enterprises and local production in terms of the development of different agricultural and natural resources in regions whose inhabitants are seen as enemies or members of the opposition. There are several examples of the exclusionary characteristics of Kenyan politics if seen within the context of political and economic marginalisation. Culturally, the constant references to physical markings and initiation rights to justify exclusion and marginalisation is common knowledge, yet even those who share the same traditional practices often fall out when the politically expedient use of such characterisation has been realised. For instance the Masaai, Turkana, Ogieks, Luhya, Samburu, Kamba, Somali and the Mijikenda who go through the same rituals have been some of the most marginalised in all spheres since Kenya's independence, so where is the argument for their man and womanhood informed by the nature of rituals they have gone through?
Discrimination and internal marginalisation also exist within the same communities, contrary to claims that if one of their own is in power then his co-ethnics stand to benefit. Furthermore, politicians from the same region or ethnic groups are often used against their own or against other communities through political patronage, which has been one tool used in controlling communities. The politics of use-and-dump in its extreme form in Kenya has often culminated in the deaths of prominent members of some communities that are assumed unlikely to revenge or revolt. It has been the main tool for bringing down opponents, or propping up individuals and the manipulation of their communities, to toe the line, if one of their own is on board. But appointment to the cabinet does not translate into any communal benefit, yet Kenyans are always made to believe in this myth, to the detriment of their community development which a right and not a privilege.
The other area of marginalisation and one which is critical is in the distribution of resources, often in the form of development projects, infrastructure and the provision of basic services such as schools, health centres and nursery schools. With many communities deprived of these fundamental developmental inputs, there is a high degree of vulnerability, especially in terms of poverty levels, and disease, as shown in the case of North Eastern and Nyanza provinces, where such services have never existed or ceased to exist four decades ago. These skewed allocations can be traced to the government departments and ministry budgetary allocations meant for infrastructure development in different parts of the country. It is an issue which has been highly politicised and linked to the protest votes in 2002 and 2007 against community or elites from the ruling community, yet not given much attention.
Another example of political and economic marginalisation is the intentional stifling of the economies of certain regions, especially those that have been perceived as enemies or in the opposition. To toe the line as demanded by the politics of patronage in Kenya meant that whole communities and their leaders had to align themselves with the ruling elite or party in order to access the very basic services which are their rightful claims as Kenyan citizens.
Here we have seen the demise of the fishing industry in Lake Victoria as women sit for whole days waiting for trucks from Nairobi and Thika to buy their fish at throwaway prices due to lack of cold storage facilities. The same applies to fishing on Lake Turkana and along the Kenyan coast from Lamu to Shimoni. There is also the strangling of sugar farmers in Nyanza and western provinces through imports of the crop by elites and the death of sugar farming in Ramisi in Coast Province. Cotton production in Nyanza died 30 years ago, yet an activity which could have spurred economic growth in the region and urban areas where textile industries such as Rivatex and KICOMI were located.
In Coast Province, the cashew nut and salt industries have not been developed that much to uplift the living conditions of its inhabitants. While in areas where tea, coffee and pyrethrum are grown and dairy farming takes place, farmers received STABEX funding and loans were written off in 2003 to the tune of millions, yet their counterparts in Nyanza, North Eastern, Eastern and Coast provinces never had those subsidies. Close scrutiny of which regions have been served by National, Kenya Commercial Bank and the Agriculture Finance Corporation in terms of loans made available to local communities in different parts of Kenya will show that these lending institutions are more active in some regions that others. Whether this is a policy choice or intentional omission is yet to be explained, even in parliament. Therefore arguments that some communities are either lazy or incapable of effective economic engagement are all baseless and largely intended to spread the notion that only certain communities are hardworking and thus a justification for the status quo. Were there an equal playing field in which loans were made available to all farmers, business-men and -women, juakali artisans and other small enterprises from all parts of Kenya, who were supported by equal infrastructure for intensive production yet who nonetheless failed to make use of such opportunities, only then would there be the justification that some communities are more hardworking than others.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
