Hardly had the cyber ink on my post about benevolent tribalism dried than Hassan Omar Hassan, the outspoken commissioner of Kenya National Human Rights Commission, had fallen into the trap of ethnocentrism with his op-ed "Why not? A Kikuyu can still be Kenya's next president" (Standard on Sunday, February 20, 2011, p. 13).
To display his non-tribalist credentials, he informs his readers that at the several forums to which he is invited to discuss democracy and governance, he remains "a lone minority" in his "unwavering position that a Kikuyu can still be Kenya's next president." He poetically declares that "ethnicity saddens and pains me!" and then goes on to explain that Kibaki's Kikuyu-centric presidency should not be blamed on other Kikuyus, because "Kibaki does not equal other Kikuyus!" Exclamation marks give way to what I consider rather amusing: a list of the "good Kikuyus" which one would be forgiven to associate with the "good nazis." Those privileged to be on that list include the many "hardworking" Kikuyus "making a living from their sweat and intellect without reference to Kibaki," as well as "the Kiais, Githongos, Kabeberis, Ann Njogus."
Despite his claims, Hassan has not understood that ethnocentrism - which is what we should call it, rather than "ethnicity" - isn't simply about a person's ethnicity. Rather, it is a paradigm of analysis that divides the country into people who are worthy and unworthy, people who deserve democracy and government investment and those who don't deserve it, those who are entitled to rule and those who are not, and those who "merit" becoming leaders and those who do not. It is true that that line has generally followed tribal lines; during Moi's time it divided Kenya into the Kalenjin and non-Kalenjin, under the Kibaki presidency it has reverted to the Kikuyu vs. the rest of Kenya, and with the possibility of a Raila Odinga presidency, it is now shifting to Luo vs. non-Luo, or more crudely, into men who are circumcised and men who are not. However, the problem goes beyond the ethnicity of the various actors to the "our turn to eat" ideology that pervades the Kenyan psyche and that replaces humanity, leadership, innovation and nation building with cannibalism and exploitation. Ethnocentrism simply provides the gate pass into the land of those whose turn it is to eat.
Hassan maintained this division because he failed to challenge this dichotomization of Kenya, the most telling evidence of which lies in his persistent the division between "us" and the Kikuyu, such as in the statement that "the majority of Kikuyus have similar challenges like the rest of us." Although the "us" is not explicitly defined, it is evident that that "us" is everyone else but Kikuyus, since Kikuyus are a contrast to, not part of, that "us." So if the next president is a Kikuyu, it is because the individual qualifies on the similarly vague criteria of "merit," a merit which will be determined by that "us."
The other small and revealing word in Hassan's article is "still" in the title. "Still" implies continuity despite certain factors. We say that despite independence, we are still colonized, meaning that power relations between the Southern and the Northern hemispheres are roughly the same despite formal independence. Similarly, Hassan's "still" implies that the Kikuyu presidency is likely to linger despite the wishes of "us." So even though he argues that a Kikuyu could be president on the basis of "merit," Hassan indicates that such a presidency would be the continuation of the status quo.
Hassan's imprisonment in the infernal cycle of ethnicity demonstrates the extent to which Kenyan intellectuals have found it difficult to break out of the tribalist paradigm of thinking. Like Hassan and Makau Mutua, intellectuals confuse the ideology of merit despite ethnicity, or of loving each other despite ethnicity, with the absence of ethnocentricism. An insidious manifestation of this thinking is found in the concept "negative ethnicity" which was popularized by Koigi wa Wamwere, based on his dangerously shallow interpretation of the Rwandan genocide. Thanks to Koigi, we now have leaders and intellectuals repeating the troubling argument that there is nothing wrong with ethnicity, but that what is wrong is "negative ethnicity."
The problem with this dichotomy is that it provides Kenyans with the leeway to be tribalist while simultaneously decrying the pervasiveness of tribalism. When one favors job applicants from one's ethnic group, one does so on "merit," and when another does it, it is tribalism. When one speaks vernacular in the presence of people who do not understand it, one does so out of cultural pride and respect for Kenya's diversity; but when another does it, it is tribalism. The so called "negative ethnicity" thus becomes "the others," to adopt Sartre's expression "l'enfer c'est les autres" (hell is the others).
Ethnicity is an intrinsic human quality that emerges from the social nature of human beings. We do not determine our ethnicity as individuals; ethnicity is a construct that is simultaneously biological (by virtue of being born by parents of a certain group) and social (by learning the culture of that group). Sometimes one aspect overrides the other, for example through adoption. This nature of ethnicity is no different from that of gender. Gender is more than one's sex - it also includes the values and customs that go along with being a woman or a man. If there is no such thing as "negative gender" and "positive gender," then it defies reason that there is "negative ethnicity" and "positive ethnicity."
Ethnicity is an easy guarantee to resources and to belonging or identity because one only need exist to remain a member of an ethnic group - or at least in Kenyans' understanding of ethnic groups. Nationhood, on the other hand is more than existence. Nationhood reveals us as more than biological entities, because a nation is group of people who make the deliberate decision to be bound together by a common history and shared ideals. Nationhood affirms us as also thinking, feeling and social human beings. To be a nation takes willpower, determination, rigorous thinking, sustained discipline and selfless leadership.
Tribalism cannot be overcome by loving people, voting for people and living with people across ethnic boundaries, but through making Kenya a home to every citizen and a nation for all citizens. The promise of a Kenyan nation therefore lies in people like Hassan's hosts who are exploring how democracy and governance can be enhanced to make of all Kenyans citizens who should be served by their government. Those Kenyans understand that the Kenyan nation lies in their agenda which Hassan cites; namely, in the transformation of our new constitution into a living document, the betterment of the lives and the desire to root out the "destructive nature of the political class, hopelessness, and a nation perpetually in crisis."
But rather than provide ideas on how to translate those aspirations into action and institutions, Hassan pours cold water on those dreams by saying that the old paradigm might "still" remain after all. No wonder he finds himself a "lone minority." And it is a minority he is mistaken to be proud of.
