Kenyans are ambivalent towards tribalism. The demon tormenting their country, it appears, has helpful and useful effects. The personification of this ambivalence towards the demon is the former Subakia MP Koigi wa Wamwere, who is simultaneously against tribalism and is a practicing tribalist.
Mr Koigi practices the opposite of negative ethnicity, which, he says, is his intellectual innovation. He has defined positive tribalism, the brand of tribalism he preaches and practices, as tribal pride (Standard, 6 June 2009). But he has not published a list of the advantages of tribalism. I have been trying to count the supposed benefits, but I have not seen any. And I believe it is because tribalism is a hundred per cent harmful and zero per cent beneficial to Kenya.
The belief in positive tribalism is probably one of the factors preventing us from fighting tribalism. It has at least undermined the eight solutions to tribalism proposed not long ago by Mr Koigi to the extent that Mr Koigi strongly comes across as a mere tribalist (Standard, 6 June 2009).
Mr Koigi suggests that tribes must open their hearts to each other, repent tribal hostilities, beg for forgiveness and accept and trust one another as brother and sister. As a form of consciousness and common-sense knowledge and an instrument of control and exploitation, Kenyan tribalism has taken over 100 years construct. The solution proposed by Mr Koigi can contribute only nothing to its reduction.
Mr Koigi himself is not practicing what he is preaching. He occupies a large place in the media, yet he has not repented tribal hostilities, begged and given forgiveness and accepted and trusted Kenyans from other tribes as brother and sister. He has not repented the tribal hostilities he committed when he was an assistant minister in the first Kibaki presidency. If he is not doing as he is telling Kenyans to do, why should they listen to him? Why should they believe that his, in which he has no confidence, is a workable solution?
The solution is further damaged by the fact that Mr Koigi is a practising tribalist. What he practices is positive tribalism or tribal pride. It is very surprising that a belief such as positive tribalism should be preached and practiced by a man who has for much of his life depended on championing the cause of the poor and oppressed Kenyans for his livelihood. There is of course nothing like positive tribalism, a concept which conveniently serves Mr Koigi well in his rationalisation of his tribalism and the tribalism of his brothers and sisters in tribalism.
The second answer suggested by Mr Koigi is virtually a restatement of the first. Tribes and leaders must undergo a moral, ideological and spiritual conversion, he says. The suggestion sounds as if our elites, who have continued creating tribal boundaries and identities in the post-colony, do not know their evil deeds. Tribalisation was and is never accidental. Would anyone seriously doubt the wisdom of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga and Daniel Arap Moi, the three sons of Kenya who have contributed most to her tribalisation in the post-colonial phase of her life? And do the heirs of these builders of tribalism not know that the institution of tribalism is the most effective protection against the threats to power, wealth and profitable corruption networks, the values which, in our society, we love very much and want to protect? Like the first, this solution also has a preposterous presupposition: That tribes are collectively guilty. As a matter of fact, tribes do not act, individuals do. Since I am not a tribalist, what moral, ideological and spiritual conversion am I to undergo?
It is impossible for moral, ideological and spiritual conversion to occur. The damning confirmation of that is that Mr Koigi, who has admitted being a positive tribalist, has not undergone a moral, ideological and spiritual conversion. He should have shown us the way to the conversion by publicly rejecting the concept of negative tribalism, which is nothing but a pseudo-moral, ideological and spiritual rationalisation of his personal tribalism and the tribalism of his ilk. His concept tells us that if he is a tribalist, it is positive tribalism; otherwise, it is negative tribalism.
Tribes must understand that they are Siamese twins that cannot be separated without blood and death, threatens Mr Koigi. Contrary to the threat, it is possible to bloodlessly let each tribe have its own state. The crucial factor is how a disintegration of the country is organised and managed and whether laws are in place to protect immigrant minority rights.
Mr Koigi urges that Kenyans place country first and tribe second. This is an insult to Kenyans, but not a solution to tribalism. The greater attachment we Kenyans have for our tribes than country is no fault of ours. It is the fault of our state and its elites. The Kenyan state has been alien, remote, oppressive, parasitic, suspect and grotesque right from the beginning in 1895. It does not have a contract with us. It has no legitimate obligations to us. And we have no legitimate obligations to it. We are primarily citizens of our tribes, and we are so till death. From our point of view, state citizenship is almost non-existent. The Kenyan state elites, of which Mr Koigi is a member, should have removed this absurdity of the structure of our citizenship. And instead of just ringing a hollow bell here also, Mr Koigi should have shown the much vaunted leadership of his by publicly denouncing tribal pride.
The fifth solution put forward by Mr Koigi is that Kenyans must construct one culture. The new thing in this answer is that Mr Koigi, who has appropriated it, is a worshiper of tribal pride. And what is more, he does not tell us how one culture can be constructed. And the reason he does not is that he does not believe at all that Kenyans can construct a national culture.
Whoever is deeply in love with tribal pride cannot accept the ways in which a national culture can be constructed. For example, for us to construct a national culture, the state should have a monopoly of the upbringing of our children, with the express purpose of moulding them into a standard Kenyan product. But a man of tribal pride cannot accept such a way, for it would eliminate ways of the tribe like tribal rights of passage.
Mr Koigi suggests that Kenyans must firmly say yes to devolution and no to majimbo. That is of course a contrived contradiction in terms. Devolution was corrupted by tribalism long ago. Whatever its definition by the Bomas draft, what our politicians and their constituents mean when making proposals to devolve power is federalism, which is brought about through devolution, which is the process of transferring power from central government to the provinces and the districts, which mainly correspond to tribal units.
Had Mr Koigi told us what he means by devolution and majimboism, we would have perhaps figured out by what inch his policy proposals would pull us out of the depths of the sea of darkness in which we are .
We must abolish impunity for the propagation of tribal hate, speech and ideology, says Mr Koigi, adding that whoever propagates tribalism must pay for it. But what we have here is staggering vagueness. The details and specificities are unusually sparse. What punishment, for example, would have deterrent effect on tribal hate, speech, ideology and tribalism? Community service? A fine? A short jail term? A long jail sentence? Life imprisonment? The death penalty? And why is tribal pride he preaches and practices not tribal ideology? How does one distinguish tribal pride from tribal hate?
One can legitimately accuse Mr Koigi of self-serving intolerance in the suggestion. He who preaches positive tribalism is suggesting that people be punished for tribal hate and ideology. Does he not merely want to suppress freedoms of speech, expression, etc., and arrogate to himself the exclusive right to preach and practice tribalism, in the name of fighting tribalism? What does he preach in darkness, if he preaches tribal pride in broad day light?
Charity begins at home, Mr Koigi reminds us. We must begin fighting war against tribalism at home, he tells us. And we must see the logs in our eyes before we point to the one in his. We could not agree more. But the trouble is that he has not been fighting positive tribalism or tribal pride and has therefore not a whit of qualification to offer Kenyans that advice. He has seen the logs in the eyes of his compatriots, but has failed to see the mountains in his eyes. Also, to claim that all Kenyans have logs in their eyes is outrageous beyond measure.
The most outstanding feature of the solutions to the problem of tribalism proposed by Mr Koigi is not their impracticability and tribalism. It is absence of redistribution that is most striking about them. They are essentially pseudo-ideological posturing without any reference to the economy, the ground on which our politics stand. This is not surprising at all. Elites, he says, collectively exploit all tribes; he is a prominent elite; therefore, he exploits all tribes. And since tribalism is an instrument of mental control of the people by the elites, he cannot not fight tribalism. And his ambivalence towards tribalism is not in the least unique. It is common among the elites, who bemoan negative tribalism (negative ethnicity) without bothering even to give us a list of the benefits of positive tribalism (positive ethnicity).
