The assertion that elected leaders should abandon their obligations to the electorate in favour of some undefined 'duty to the nation' is not only erronous but also misleading and not well thought-out. While the narrow interests of the electorate at the local level may not at all times be congruent with broader national policies, the very tenets of representative democracy binds elected representatives to the wishes of their constituents.

The argument that members of parliament should put the interest of the nation ahead of their constituents is therefore flawed and inherently undemocratic. Indeed it is the very same legislators who appeal to ethnic and regional bigotry, fanning the flames of ethnicity and division in order to win elections. Its therefore laughable that they can now be expected to turn around, swallow their own vomit and advocate a national interest they do not believe in in the first place. 

Onyango makes several unsubstantiated assumptions that cannot go unchallenged. First, what is his understanding of the ‘nation' and who constitutes it? Don't the very same electors form part and parcel of the nation? Is the nation some entity other than the constituent parts that make the whole?

Secondly, does Kenya as a state have a coherent, homogenous and unitary national identity, aspirations and interests? Do the more than 30 million kenyans, 42 ethnic groups, 210 constituencies, 71 districts and 8 provinces think as one, have the same values and believe in their achievemnt jointly or individually at the exclusion of the ‘others'? These questions go to the core of our national identity. Does a country so characterised by ethno-nationalism and regionalism have a single national identity?

Third, if indeed there is such a thing as a single national  interest, what is it and who defines it? According to Onyango, MPs are supposed to educate their constituents on what the nation wants and thinks. Again, who is the nation? Who decides what the nation thinks and wants? Is it parliament? The MPs? The cabinet? The ‘government', or the citizens themselves? Is it the place of elected representatives to define the national interest or simply articulate the wishes of their electorate?

Fourth, democracy is essentially a bottom-up process by which disparate interests from varying social groups are harmonised, aggregated and represented at the level of government, be it local or national. By arguing that ‘national' interests trump local aspirations, Onyango is advocating for an authoritarian, undemocratic and repressive top-down system of government. It is a shameless defense of elite politics that have continued to disenfranchise millions of Kenyas while propping up, glorifying and excessively empowering the ruling class. This is  contrary to the very tenets of democracy and participatory governance.

A desire to make a substantive argument on nationhood could begin at wikipedia, which defines a nation as a 'form of self-defined cultural and social community whose members share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of history...' This is where we begin to recognise the enormous challenge that Kenya faces: do we have a nation called Kenya? A common identity? A sense of nationhood? Are the citizens that fill the geographic space called Kenya nationalistic in any way? A critical review of our history since independence, brought into sharp focus by recent socio-political events leading up to and following the last general election may be an eye opener and your guess is as good as mine. We cant even agree on a national dress!

What is my point then? That the challenge facing us as a nation is enormous. Simplistic arguments such as Onyango's fail to capture the complexity of the difficulties and the depths to which we have to go to resolve the challenge of forging a common national identity as a people with a shared destiny. Only then can the electorate stop thinking in terms of 'us' versus 'them' and that their interests can only be realised at the exclusion of the ‘others'.

The absense of a critical and well thought out diagnosis of where we are means we cannot develop comprehensive, effective and far reaching solutions to the challenges facing us today. The result will be mediocre, populist, narrow minded and often elite controlled and selfish measures that only serve to perpetuate the status quo.

We need to go back to the basics and recognise that the sense of ethnic, tribal or regional identity is so deeply rooted in our subconscious that it has become a part of who we are and what defines us as a people. Look at our political culture,  for example the character of our political parties and their alliances. Our hope as a nation lies in inculcating a new culture, a new sense of self-consciousness and a common identity that transcends the narrow divisions of ethnicity, tribe, clan or region. Only then can a new nation called Kenya be forged. Perhaps then can we know what the nation thinks and wants.

 _________________

Josh Maiyo is a Political Scientist based in Amsterdam.