If it walks like a duck………

Turgon has previously raised Kenyan politics on Slugger.

Beneath the fold is a piece by MuKoma Wa Ngugi on the dangers of assuming a new political elite will lead to revolutionary change.

Mukoma Wa Ngugi, urges us to be wary of the democratic revolutionary claims made by various parties in Kenya.

One cannot fully grasp what is happening in Kenya and Africa without considering the changing nature of opposition movements and the differences between a people powered movement, or a democratic revolution, and a plethora of movements that consolidate democratic institutions for international capital while flying under the radar of democracy.
In Kenya, both the sitting Government and the opposition exchange members fluidly as they position and reposition themselves, eyes on the national cake.

Even though here below I am mainly speaking about Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), I could just as easily be speaking about Mwai Kibaki and the Party of National Unity (PNU). It is only because ODM has actively courted the image of being a people powered movement engaged in a democratic revolution that I draw your attention to it. Amilcar Cabral once said ‘tell no lies, claim no small victories.’ It is in that spirit that I write.

Let me begin by pointing to the question of ethnicity and say this: In the same way you ought to be surprised to meet a white American denying the existence of racism in American politics, so should you be when you meet an African denying that ethnocentrism is deeply entrenched in African politics. Racism is a historical creation that serves a function – so is ‘tribalism’. In the same way that leaders in the West manipulate race and fear for political goals, so do African leaders. Ethnocentrism can be benign or extremely vicious depending on its conductor. Ethnocracy, like a racist power structure, exists to the extent it is able to obscure for the victim and the activist the root causes of economic, political and social exploitation. It misdirects.

Let us also consider Kwame Ture’s (Stokely Carmichael) reminder that we should not mistake individual success for collective success. The majority of Kenyans – Luos, Kikuyus, Luhyas etc – are poor. The 60 per cent of Kenyans living under two dollars a day cut across all ethnicities. The Kikuyu élite live at the expense of the Kikuyu poor; it is the same for other ethnicities. There is much more in common between the poor across ethnicities, than between the élite and the poor of each ethnicity. Racism, nationalism, and ethnocracy all ask that the poor die in the defense of economic and social structures that keep them poor. It is no surprise that those who have been both dying and doing the killing in Kenya in the past week are the poor. Yet they are killing along ethnic, not class, lines.

The best thing for Kenya right now is a return to a non-violent path governed by principled democratic structures that will outlive both Raila and Kibaki.

And in the same way that over time Western political parties come to represent different and contradictory positions, so have African political parties. In the dictatorships of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the opposition parties were the good guys. Progressive international political analysts are still working with that framework, which has blinded us to glaring present-day contradictions. The assumption that opposition immediately means people-power cannot be sustained by an analysis informed by the complex shifts in African politics in the last two decades. Take Zimbabwe, for example. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change is a neoliberal party. Calling it revolutionary or anti-imperialist would be wrong. In Kenya, both the sitting Government and the opposition exchange members fluidly as they position and reposition themselves, eyes on the national cake. William Ruto, a top leader in the ODM was previously a treasurer for the KANU Youth Wing – a political thug organization created by former dictator Moi, who is now in Kibaki’s camp. And the recent church killings that claimed over 50 lives took place in Eldoret, which William Ruto has represented in parliament for many years.

People power
Therefore not all opposition parties are anti-imperialist or opposed to the move by global capital to consolidate the world. At a time when the rich nations and their élite are getting richer, and the poorer nations and the poor within them are getting poorer, some opposition parties will choose the side of global capital. ODM is composed of some of the wealthiest people in the country. For example, the Odinga family owns Spectre International, a molasses company in conjunction with a multinational petroleum and diamond mining company. The international press, which refers to Raila as a ‘flamboyant millionaire’, is not entirely wrong.

With the above said, analysis of what it means to be a people powered movement is crucial. For people-power politics to be effective, solidarity has to be across ethnicity not along it. In other words, a people power movement has to, at its basis, be informed by the consciousness of a collective oppressed. Because it has no real grassroots developed over years of working with and for the people, ODM can only rile up discontentment by pointing to one ethnicity rather than organizing the whole country against élite exploitation. Like any populist movement it takes the worst fears of a people (fear of Kikuyu domination for example) and plays them out in the national stage. A people power movement on the other hand peels away these fears to reveal how power and wealth are being distributed. Because ODM has not done this, its supporters have identified the fellow poor Kikuyu as the enemy. A people power movement would have directed its energies and anger at the state not at another ethnicity.

A people power movement declares its solidarity with other marginalized peoples across the world. It is Third-Worldist in vision. A people power movement, because its vision grows organically from its struggle and engagement with the people, exhibits a stand against exploitative international economic arrangements because its constituents are impoverished through them. ODM cannot be termed as radical pan-Africanist or Third-Worldist, rather it has a populist consciousness.

Also, the shell – the façade – of a people power movement can be used by a national élite to seize power for international capital. Rather than use the term populist/people power to refer to ODM, it is appropriate to borrow a term from the International Republican Institute. The term the IRI uses is ‘consolidating democracy’, referring to a technique it used in the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and in Haiti against Aristide. Consolidating democracy translates into bringing together civil organizations (religious, universities, local NGO’s, women’s organizations, etc.), and uniting various opposition factions into one large electoral force. If missionaries paved the way for colonialism, evangelists of Western democracy like IRI pave the way for US foreign policy.

International solidarity should be with the Kenyan people and not with individual leaders.
The sole purpose of consolidating democracy is to remove the sitting government. There is no coherent underlying people-centered ideology in this goal – no interest in empowering the people, or returning economic and political institutions to them. Rather than develop real roots with the people so that when in power the ODM becomes an extension of them, the ODM has taken the easy route of consolidating democracy following the IRI model.

We urgently need to distinguish between people power movements (such as those we have seen in Latin America), populist movements, and neoliberal opposition movements that consolidate democratic institutions for global capitalism. People power movements are a fifth force usually in opposition to the legislature, executive, judiciary and military. When they seize power through democratic means, they immediately attempt to transform the other four forces into revolutionary instruments. Laws nationalizing resources or redistributing land and resources are passed. The army is transformed from an instrument of intimidation into one that helps in times of disasters – in short a people power government places the people at the center of the state. When a movement that has been consolidating democracy gets into power it does the opposite, and the democratic structures become instruments of global capital and US foreign policy. Liberia, for example, after working with IRI is one of the few countries to open its national door to the US African Command Center.

We should at least consider that the ODM has in the last few weeks not been engaged in the last phase of a people power revolution but rather in the last stage of consolidating neoliberal democracy – using the people as the battling ram against the state. This is where the neoliberal party calls for millions to take to the streets with the hope of immobilizing the state. Because consolidating democracy requires the ebb and flow of violence from the state and protest from the people, Raila could cynically tell a BBC reporter when asked whether he will appeal for calm that ‘I refuse to be asked to give the Kenyan people an anesthetic so that they can be raped.’
Wounds need healing

In case you are wondering, let me say this: for progressives, Kibaki is not the answer. Before the elections, the Kenyan Human Rights Commission released a report implicating the Kenya police in extra-judicial killings of close to 500 young men, all from poverty stricken areas such as Kibera and Mathare, slums currently up in flames. This is a stark reminder that the 6 per cent economic growth was not trickling down to the people. Also that vote-rigging took place (on both sides as it turns out) is almost certain. Enough doubt has been cast by the electoral commissioners to make a recount of the votes, a re-election, a united government or another suitable solution a matter of democratic principle.
If the country is to heal, reconcile and find justice, progressive voices should call for a UN probe into the December – January post-election ethnic cleansing in Eldoret and other areas. There should be calls and support for a United Nations probe into the 1994 Rift Valley killings in which a reported hundreds of Kikuyus were killed and thousands displaced during Moi’s regime, and The Wagalla Massacre of 1984 (again during Moi’s regime) in which hundreds of Somali Kenyans were shot to death. Finally the non-electoral extra judicial killings of the 500 young men last year should also be investigated.

Progressives should also call for the crisis to be resolved within democratic structures. When Bush won an election that the rest of the world understood as rigged, we did not ask Al Gore to try and overthrow the government through an Orange revolution, we did not ask him to divide the country across racial lines, blacks pitted against whites, whites pitted against Latinos; we asked him to find redress through peaceful and democratic processes. And for that, the United States remains standing, in spite of Bush. Al Gore did not ask for a recount of all the votes, or for a re-election. But both Raila and Kibaki can form a united government; ask for a recount, and even a re-election. Whatever process or option is used to adjudicate this must be one that leaves Kenya standing for generations to come.

My plea to you is this: Let us not find revolutionaries where there are none. International solidarity should be with the Kenyan people and not with individual leaders. A whole nation is at stake. The best thing for Kenya right now is a return to a non-violent path governed by principled democratic structures that will outlive both Raila and Kibaki. It is this that will make possible a people-powered government through a democratic revolution.

Mukoma Wa Ngugi is co-editor of Pambazuka News, author of Hurling Words at Consciousness and a political columnist for the BBC Focus on Africa Magazine.

  • The Dubliner

    Mark, while his call for the poor of various ethnic groups to unite under the socialist banner against the wealthy elite has undoubted appeal to you, a quick reference to the local context will show you that the poor vote according to ethnic criteria rather than political ideology and common sense should tell you that this won’t alter in a context where ethnic identity is paramount. So, as a socialist, you will have to sell your product to a particular ethnic group, even though that means having the market.

    In regard to the spiel about mistaking “individual success for collective success.” This is what socialists can’t grasp: without the success of the individual there can be no success for the collective. The entrepreneurial and organisational talent of the individual creates the wealth for the collective as he pursues his own wealth. He creates the jobs for the workers as he creates the wealth and he allows the state to raise taxes on the wealth that he creates. If they don’t have jobs, then they can’t pay taxes. If they can’t pay taxes then those who can’t work can’t benefit from those who do. In short, wealth must be created before it can be taxed, and wealth creation is best left to the elite who able to do it. If it was easy, we’d all be millionaires. The reason people are poor is because they lack the ability to provide for their own needs. People who lack that basic ability are by default not the class of people who can create successful businesses, are they? Therefore, there can be no collective wealth without that very small number of people who have the entrepreneurial talent to create it.

    As simple as it is, it is seemingly beyond the grasp of the socialists. Perhaps that is because political careers can always be made promising riches to others that they don’t have to work for? Hell, if I didn’t know better, I’d vote for it myself.

  • The Dubliner

    Typo: “…means halfing the market.”

  • joeCanuck

    I have to agree, Dubliner, that there is a lot of woolly minded thinking there along with a lot of high minded aspiration.
    But there are people dying in the streets right now and he calls for the outside world to stand with the people and not the current leaders. I wonder what exactly that can mean in terms of stopping the violence.

  • Rory

    “The reason people are poor is because they lack the ability to provide for their own needs.” – The Dubliner

    Not so, Dubliner. The reason that the poor are poor is that they have been stripped of the means whereby they might supply their own needs. So it is that all they have left to barter with in the market place is the power of their own labour.

    It was capitalist imperialism that so denuded them of the means of livliehood in the first place and that now, with the willing help of the corrupt native agents of neo-colonialism such as Moi, and his warring successors, Kibaki and Odinga, helps to maintain them in the miserable abject slavery of dependence upon what crumbs might fall from the masters’ tables.

    To this end ethnocentricty plays a valuable role in dividing the poor against it’s best interests by dangling out the carrot of the promise of more crumbs if their ethnic robber wins out over another ethnic group’s rival robber.

    As to your thesis that “This is what socialists can’t grasp: without the success of the individual there can be no success for the collective it is perhaps worthwhile to examine it’s corollary – that what capitalist apologists fail to recognise is that simple definition of wealth itself : the application of man’s hand upon the God-given bounty of the earth.

    In order to exploit that bounty it is certainly necessary that there be motivation and from that motivation will spring ever developing ingenuity in the wresting of such bounty and new ways of fashioning it to satisfy man’s growing desires. The first two parts – the motivation and the ingenuity are however quite hopeless of accomplishment without the other two parts – the wresting and the fashioning which necessarily require the application of labour.

    The capitalist having by force of arms and force of law, backed up by force of arms, stolen ownership and control of practically all the land and it’s bounty then arrogantly and quite mistakenly believes itself to be the only motivator, the only part of the production equation that holds title to ingenuity and that those whom they have stripped of all but their labour power they can cheat out of any equitable return for it’s exploitation by virtue of starving, bullying, beating, gaoling and murdering into compliance.

    To assist in this exploitation they create a myth propagated by their willing lackeys that the poor are too lazy, lack motivation, are ignorant and require nothing that might bring dignity and security to their lives. Eventually such propaganda takes such a hold that, as your above post admirably demonstrates, the capitalists and their apologists start to believe it themselves.

  • lib2016

    There are millions of reasons why the poor are poor but what it means in practice is not in doubt – they have no incentive to contribute to society. This is one of Thatchernomics worst legacies, the twin myths that the rich need lower taxes to incentivise them while the poor need their inadequate doles or pay undermined by direct cuts and indirect taxes so as to make them work harder. Lies then, still lies!

  • Shore Road Resident

    Briliant, Rory, I didn’t know people still talked like that. You are over 17, aren’t you?

  • Rory

    I am indeed, Shore Road. Just.

    Which is one the reasons, I suppose, that I am able to distinguish between talking and writing.

    Don’t worry, you may find that this now seemingly impossible ability will naturally grow with age and experience.

  • andy

    interesting blog

    I am sorry but I think you massively oversimplify things here even if I agree with a small part of what you write.

    What else do virtually any of us have but the power of our labour? (assuming we include entrepreneurial spirit as labour). What has been taken away – exactly – from the poor (eg of Kenya) to keep them in their current state?

    I take your point about mineral wealth etc being exploited by colonialists, but other areas of the world (eg SE asia) have had less mineral resources than Africa, and indeed less aid, and displayed better economic success.

    Anyone interested in post-colonial africa could do worse than read “Dark Star Safari” by Paul Theroux. Puts a pretty bleak case for how post-colonial African governments have governed their countries, and the pernicious effects of international development agencies

  • Peadar O’Donnell

    Andy says:

    What else do virtually any of us have but the power of our labour? (assuming we include entrepreneurial spirit as labour). What has been taken away – exactly – from the poor (eg of Kenya) to keep them in their current state?

    You use entrepreneurialism as a fig leaf for captial. In the case of Kenya this means land.

    British settlers took the land from the Kikuyus forcefully – by ethnic cleansing, if you will – certainly not by entrepreneurialism. The Mau Mau conflict was the result of this (they were known to themselves as the ‘Land and Freedom Armies’). As in Algeria this anti-colonial war was also a civil war. On its conclusion Britain granted independence subject to the dictatorial control of the Kenyattas. They proceeded to take over (at a good price) most of the whites’ land. The means of production passed to a new Kikuyu gentry, which held on to its gains not by entrpeneurialism by extreme violence where necessary.
    Poor Kikuyus worked as labourers on these farms (having only their labour to sell)- or scattered around the country to where you see them being massacred today. This goes on to today – the flower plantations at Naivasha drain off the water so subsistence farming (which allows for food security) is impossible, so the farmers are forced to work on the plantations.

    The rhetoric of setting the market free might have been ok in Britain in 1979, where all were supported by the welfare state and no one had to mine coal for example. But Kenya today is more like England in the 1830s – a time of immense civil strife here too.

    If you want an unfashionable source for this, read Rosa Luxemburg on ‘accumulation by dispossession’, though Dickens’s Hard Times is more readable!

  • andy


    Yeah i take your point on land and land reform would certainly be helpful (if done properly – not a la zimbabwe).

    However I do not accept that capitalism only serves to hold people back by denying them the means of production. Stripping them of all the means of meeting their needs, as Rory put it.
    Capitalists do add value. To deny that seems to ignore virtually all the lessons of development economics.

    I also would not (and did not of course) describe imperialism and its associated ethnic cleansing and land grabbing as entrepreneurial. That is not a particularly capitalist trait though is it? I would have thought more feudalist

  • Rory

    Oh no, Andy. You are very wrong indeed. Imperialism is indeed a trait of capitalism. Think of the colonisation of India via the East India Company, North America via the Hudson Bay Company. Think of BP, the RAF and Iraq and then of Shell and of the United Fruit Company, of Pepsi and Evangelism in South America (read Peter Mathieson’s At Play in the Fields of the Lord) and tell me that it is not.

    It is true that former colonies since 1945 tended to be made “independent” by handing them over to native agents of capitalism who did the bidding of the multinationals under neo-colonialism. Where they did not, or became troublesome, they were simply murdered or removed.

    Remember that Idi Amin in Uganda was Britain’s baby used to overthrow the previous leader, Milton Obote, who was displaying signs of a form of moderate socialism and moving towards a limited government stake in foreign owned companies.