Kenya’s election dispute ignites decades-old resentments and fears
January 14, 2008 (NAIROBI) — Kenya’s bloody election dispute was a time bomb decades in the making; its main components poverty, frustration and neglect.
And although the explosion of anger and bloodletting in one of Africa’s most stable countries has eased, opposition calls for more rallies this week and the government’s resistance to mediation are keeping tensions high.
Almost since independence from Britain in 1963, Kenya’s leaders have favored their own tribes at the expense of others among the 42 that make up the East African nation’s 38 million people.
The deep-seated resentment this creates springs to life at election time — though never with the fury seen since President Mwai Kibaki was declared winner of Dec. 27 presidential elections. Foreign observers say the vote count was rigged.
More than 600 people were killed as neighbor attacked neighbor with machetes, burned homes, and even a church.
Hoping to break a deadlock since international mediation efforts failed, opposition leader Raila Odinga has called for three days of protest in hopes of paralyzing the nation. Police who have fired live bullets at protesters say they won’t allow the demonstrations, setting the stage for more violent clashes.
The rallies are to start Wednesday, the day after former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was due to arrive for further mediation — a mission criticized Monday by Kibaki’s government.
For more than 40 years most Kenyans have felt shortchanged and neglected by politicians whose priority was lining their own pockets.
Among the most deprived are the slumdwellers for whom survival is a daily challenge in dangerous, sprawling shantytowns that house 65 percent of the estimated 3 million people in the capital, Nairobi. Overall, more than half the population struggles to get by on less than US$2 a day.
Marginalized Kenyans voted in huge numbers for Odinga’s party, pinning their hopes on its promises of a more equitable distribution of resources.
“It’s our turn to eat” was the campaign rallying cry of many opposition politicians.
For Kibaki’s Kikuyus, whose dominance of business and politics was entrenched after independence under 15 years of government by Jomo Kenyatta, being in power means government jobs that provide space for corrupt enrichment, lucrative government contracts and other business opportunities.
When land settled by British colonizers in the lush central Rift Valley was returned to Kenyans at independence, Kenyatta swamped the area native to Kalenjin and Luo ethnic groups with his Kikuyu people — planting the seeds for some of the worst attacks in the recent violence.
Half the 255,000 people forced from their homes in the violence that followed this month’s elections are Kikuyus in the Rift Valley.
“We never thought this could happen to us,” is the bewildered refrain of many Kenyans appalled by the ugly ethnic twist to the bloodletting. Kenya was considered a beacon for democracy and stability in a region ravaged by civil war and tribal conflict. Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Uganda are on Kenya’s doorstep, and not far away is Rwanda, a fearsome lesson as politicians here trade charges of “ethnic cleansing.”
In addition, Kenya serves as a stable base for hundreds of U.N. and foreign relief agencies, businesses that account for 20 percent of foreign exchange receipts.
In the war on terror, Kenya has been considered a vital partner since the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. Kenya allows the United States and Britain to conduct military exercises and has handed over dozens of suspected terrorists in a region where Islamic extremism is rife.
Politicians long have played the tribal card. And in a political arena bereft of ideologies and strong democratic institutions, Kenyans are left to vote largely on tribal lines.
Twice in recent history the two groups at the heart of Kenya’s current woes — Kibaki’s Kikuyus and Odinga’s Luo — have united to fight for a political ideal. The Kikuyus are the biggest group with an estimated 22 million people, while the Luo are the second or third largest.
Odinga’s father, Oginga Odinga, teamed up with Kenyatta in an alliance that forced an end to colonialism. The British tried to entice Oginga Odinga with promises he would become prime minister if he abandoned Kenyatta, an imperial tactic of divide and rule. But the elder Odinga refused to succumb and the British freed Kenyatta from detention.
At independence, Odinga became Kenyatta’s deputy. The alliance was short-lived. In 1966 the two fell out over ideology — Kenyatta favored capitalism and Odinga was a socialist — but the rift that formed became an ethnic divide that has widened and deepened.
Kenyatta made Kenya a one-party state and detained Odinga for 15 months after he formed an opposition party.
The Kikuyus lost some influence with Kenyatta’s death in 1978. Daniel arap Moi, from the minority Kalenjin, assumed power and hung on to it for more than two decades. Moi’s corrupt and dictatorial rule came to repel Kenyans and he finally was forced to hold multiparty elections in 1992.
Moi won then and again in 1997, mainly because the elder Odinga’s efforts to reconcile the two main opposition parties failed. Odinga died shortly afterward.
It took another Kikuyu-Luo alliance to get rid of Moi. In the run-up to 2002 elections, Raila Odinga joined forces with Kibaki, who owed his victory largely to Odinga’s vigorous campaigning.
The united opposition promised a fair distribution of wealth, a power-sharing, inclusive government and a tough fight to weed out corrupt politicians.
Kibaki threw away that chance to resolve old hurts. He reneged on the agreement, giving Odinga some minor Cabinet posts and quickly entrenching his Kikuyu cronies. Initial efforts to rout corruption faltered as Kibaki became embroiled in old-style tribal patronage politics.
That betrayal accounts for the suspicion and distrust that pervades the current deadlock, with Odinga refusing to deal directly with Kibaki and demanding a mediator who can deliver an internationally guaranteed agreement.
It also explains why the opposition is cautious of calls from Britain, the United States and the European Union for a coalition government — they already have gone that route.
Results from legislative elections held the same day as the presidential ballot would favor Odinga’s claim that he won. Odinga’s party won 99 of the 210 elected seats to 43 for Kibaki’s. Half Kibaki’s Cabinet was thrown out of Parliament.
That’s why the opposition wants a re-count of the votes or, if tampering has left it impossible to tell who won, a new election.
In the meantime, Kibaki appears to have won the first round of the standoff. He had himself sworn in hastily and named a coterie of old cronies to the most powerful Cabinet positions even while mediators were in town. Kibaki has dug in his heels and appears ready to wait it out.
Odinga’s party has little recourse but to try to make the country ungovernable — in Parliament and, a much riskier move, by calling people out onto the streets.
(AP)