...
written by aeichener , January 29, 2008

An article of beautiful clarity and disposition, very well written and composed. I love the poignant and convincing image of tripartite Kenya.

May I suggest that you take some half hour's breaks in between, over the next days, to read some Clausewitz, in the original preferably. Not just for the beauty of his style (he writes such as El Escorial is built); but as a political scientist, you will also profit from his wisdom. Especially now.

Alexander

to my dearest sister
written by Stephen Wanyama , January 29, 2008

Dear Nanj,
As enchanting as your formulation is, I do think poverty plays too big a part in this year's violence. Poverty and isolation may indeed be the cause of the Kisumu violence, perhaps the violence in Taita or in Western province where we have one class of Kenyan turning on the other, or looting business.

In the Rift Valley however, what exists is a violent streak of nationalism that Kenya must rise up and strike hard. It is easy to take political sides on the matter, make out like it is the government versus the people but I insist that we look again at who it is that is being attacked.

Ateso by Kalenjin - Sabaot
Abaluhya by Kalenjin -Nandi/ Kipsigis
Abgusii by Kalenjin
Akamba by Kalenjin
Gikuyu by Kalenjin

I read also in international media about the Nandi moving out against the Pokot and most bizarrely now, Luo by Kalenjin.

Now the Rift Valley is in many ways the wealthiest part of the country, and the greatest beneficiary of the events of the last five years, whoever's head it is we want to place that credit. From higher prizes for maize, milk, tea and a revitalised sugar industry, to the roaring success in the flower industry, to the consequences of a re-energised Kenya Cooperative Creameries and Kenya Meat Commission, to the relative size of land-holdings, to the fact that the Rift Valley gets so much more per head of population in devolved funds (check the outrageous number of constituencies and number of districts) etc, whichever way you want to look at it I find little extenuation in the poverty argument for what is happening in the Rift Valley, the most represented, most productive part of Kenya.

What we are seeing is pure hatred, and we had better call it for what it is.

P.S. I have heard of many pro-ODM Luhyas in the North Rift losing their homes, unlike Kikuyus their lives are spared but let no one lie that this is in any way about the election, or about land that was come by fraudulently, or unfairly, all these people want is a lack of madoadoa.

Local AND extra-local solution
written by mkosakabila , January 29, 2008

Very interesting hypothesis. Local level efforts to mediate and build peace definitely worth a very good try. Would be nice to figure how the diaspora fits (or not) into this triple conception of Kenya.

But here is an example of an effort led by very enterprising diasporeans in the Boston area.
Benefit concert for Kenya Red Cross
www.VUMAKENYA.org

I beg your pardon, esteemed editors, for springing this promotional type thing on you, for a worthy cause though.

(We grant neither pardon nor quarter when doing our job.
And you do not need either, for this seems to be a very worthy and commendable effort. Eds.)

...
written by Mr. Vikii , January 29, 2008

Fantastic job, Nekesa.

(Editorial remark: Nanjala Nyabola is *not* a moniker for Nekessa. These are two entirely different ladies who live thousands of kilometres apart. Ed.)

I agree with the analysis entirely. The violence is the heat generated when the interests of the three Kenyas overlap.

The political kenya has taken advantage of everybody else for far too long now. The hardest hit by their gluttony is the poor kenya whom actually the violence is about. Political kenya, being a seasoned schemer, has turned the cries of poor kenya in his favour, roped in Poor kenya as a pawn and stole the show once again.

This problem has to be solved by the hitherto disinterested wealthy kenya. An interest has got to be developed now. Wealthy Kenya bears the brunt of Political kenya's greed just as much as poor kenya does, but has somehow been unable to realize it. That university wealthy Kenya wants to attend would have been less costly had he embarked on a journey to liberate poor kenya early enough. He would be talking of buying a bigger car and a better TV.

We have talked of 'punishing them at the ballot' for far too long now. We, as Kenyans should start the painful decision of getting actively involved until we ensure we have a the leadership we deserve in place. this is not about vested interest any more, it has about our dignity, our peace and our prosperity.

" The drops of rain make a hole in the stone not by violence but by soft landing"----Lucretius

...
written by a guest , January 29, 2008

I am sorry Nanjala, I didnt mean to give credit to someone else. Thanks Ed for the correction.

re: Like this
written by aeichener , January 30, 2008

By that same token the colonizers and settlers from England and elsewhere have every right to have been in Kenya when they were, and to even have stayed on. After all they were just migrants in search of greener pastures

Indeed - just like Bantus, Luos, Ameru, Maasai before them. So your point is what?

Alexander

re: to my dearest sister
written by Nyabs , January 30, 2008

In the Rift Valley however, what exists is a violent streak of nationalism that Kenya must rise up and strike hard. It is easy to take political sides on the matter, make out like it is the government versus the people but I insist that we look again at who it is that is being attacked.

Ateso by Kalenjin - Sabaot
Abaluhya by Kalenjin -Nandi/ Kipsigis
Abgusii by Kalenjin
Akamba by Kalenjin
Gikuyu by Kalenjin

Wanyama, a very interesting and worrying analysis and I am tempted to concur with you. There is something going on in North Rift that goes beyond these elections and we do hope that the truth will come out sooner and latter.

I have read analyses attributing the land question in the North Rift to the preferential land allocation policies of the Kenyatta government that tended to favour the Kikuyu community and I must say that Kenyatta bears the brunt of the blame in failing to create a nation and instead being a tribal chauvinist.

But a deeper analysis of this school of thought exposes its weaknesses. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Kikuyu community did acquire land in the Rift Valley due to Kenyatta's policies, how then do you explain the acquisition of land by the Kisii and Luhya communities in the same province, other than willing buyer, willing seller? The Kisiis and Luhyas have never had a president, so you cannot argue that their tribesman/woman helped them acquire the land.

Evidence does seem to point to a policy of ethnic cleansing. If this is the case, then whoever is perpetrating it is being extremely shortsighted, for the simple reason that you can never eliminate a community and that you even end up making the target community stronger and capable of hitting back at you with disastrous consequences.

As the deplorable chaos in Nakuru and Naivasha have shown clearly, communities targetted can hit back and at the end of it all, we are all dead.


Lastly, I wonder what some of us who were born and brought up in the Rift Valley and still live in the Rift Valley, but do not belong to the special race that who have exclusive right of ownership of land and property in the Rift Valley are supposed to do. Go back to where we came from?Which is where?And what gives the ethnic cleansers the right to claim ownership of the Rift Valley? Because, unless they emerged from the soil, they too migrated to the Rift Valley from somewhere, attracted just like us latter day emigrants, by the opportunities that do exist in the region.

Like this
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

I have read analyses attributing the land question in the North Rift to the preferential land allocation policies of the Kenyatta government that tended to favour the Kikuyu community and I must say that Kenyatta bears the brunt of the blame in failing to create a nation and instead being a tribal chauvinist.

But a deeper analysis of this school of thought exposes its weaknesses. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Kikuyu community did acquire land in the Rift Valley due to Kenyatta's policies, how then do you explain the acquisition of land by the Kisii and Luhya communities in the same province, other than willing buyer, willing seller? The Kisiis and Luhyas have never had a president, so you cannot argue that their tribesman/woman helped them acquire the land.

Lastly, I wonder what some of us who were born and brought up in the Rift Valley and still live in the Rift Valley, but do not belong to the special race that who have exclusive right of ownership of land and property in the Rift Valley are supposed to do. Go back to where we came from?Which is where?And what gives the ethnic cleansers the right to claim ownership of the Rift Valley? Because, unless they emerged from the soil, they too migrated to the Rift Valley from somewhere, attracted just like us latter day emigrants, by the opportunities that do exist in the region.

Careful, your argumentation here can be turned on its head. Like this. Willing buyer, willing seller? The market? Of course not! Not when land markets are so thin, information sooo assymetrical and markets generally so imperfect. Perfect conditions for market savvy (otherwise shady) types to exploit others, especially where state bureaucracies (read lands department) are negligent, in collusion and generally unaccountable. Your second thought is even more intriguing. By that same token the colonizers and settlers from England and elsewhere have every right to have been in Kenya when they were, and to even have stayed on. After all they were just migrants in search of greener pastures, territories dont mean anything to anybody, and no one sprung from the soil, no?

The final point about how far back we go is by far the most fascinating and worthy of debate. I would propose that we go as far back as when territorial boundaries between ethnicities somewhat stopped being porous and flexible and indeed were frozen, and some land appropriated to settle the wabeberus. That would not be too hard to find from political science and history textbooks or even from the allknowing and rather dear Alexander. Finally the thesis of pure hatred as a driver is claptrap. Why does pure hatred manifest itself most viciously every 5 years? The 5 year itch, I suppose, and in between, breaks of pure, unadulterated love.

To clarify, I am not suggesting that its ok to remove any productive, God-fearing, law-abiding citizen from anywhere, violently or otherwise. No. But to be sure, for as long as we refuse to engage with others in meaningful ways, or in all arrogance refuse to listen to the claims they make, to be sure, what we have seen recently in the north rift is am afraid just not going to disappear. Not even by force. To summarise, mutual accommodations, productive engagement, COOPERATION.


Note. For the quote above I have deleted parts of Nyabs rather long exposition. The full of it can be found a couple posts prior.

mkosakabila
written by Timothy Wainaina , January 30, 2008

Wait now, do you know how and when the Nandi and Kipsigis came to 'own' the Rift Valley? Do you know that for a fact there were Kikuyus in the Rift Valley before the Wabeberu came?

Do you completely discount the effect of the drive for Majimbo and the attendant 41 against 1 strategy as drivers of the hatred and aggression against Kikuyus?

Willing buyer, willing seller is indeed important and I have not as yet seen any evidence that shows that the poor squatters of the Rift Valley were in any way taking advantage of the Kalenjin there when they bought from them. The other, perhaps even more important fact is that most of the people settled in the Rift Valley, be they Kikuyu, Kisii, Luhya or indeed Kalenjin were settled on former settler farms. I have seen very little evidence of wholesale expulsion of Kalenjin from land in order to create space for the colonists and in all likelihood the land taken up by the colonists was either empty or sparsely populated.
This is why you have this problem only coming up from 1992, 50 years after the emergency (why no MauMau in the Rift Valley) and only when politically instigated. What I mean here is that land pressure in the RVP has never been what it is in the Kisii districts, or in Central Kenya, or even in Maragoli land.

Have you not noticed the shocking absence of Kalenjin populations in the slums of Nairobi? Why do you think this is?

Like this, again
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

(Bis repetita non placent ;-). Just see above, dear, it's all there now. Ed.)

re: re: Like this
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

Indeed - just like Bantus, Luos, Ameru, Maasai before them. So your point is what?

Alexander

My point is very simple. For as long as there is sustained contention over land claims, it makes sense to deal with them through formal and informal means and as far as possible try not to privilege those that have direct access to state power in the current because, and as we have seen, regimes do change. Even the bulk of the same wabeberus were eventually driven off, remember? You are right, lets take these ideas to their logical conclusions.

re: Like this
written by aeichener , January 30, 2008

My point is very simple. For as long as there is sustained contention over land claims, it makes sense to deal with them through formal and informal means and as far as possible try not to privilege those that have direct access to state power in the current because, and as we have seen, regimes do change.

Oh, I will fully agree with that.

I will not
written by Stephen Wanyama , January 30, 2008

(Contentious tone edited and mildered, as to better enable discussion of issues. Ed.)

It would not be correct to claim that land in the Rift Valley (at least the land in present contention) was gained through proximity to State Power. If one were to make such a statement about this specific region (as opposed maybe to others, where this may have been so), it would simply be a lie, and a dangerous one at that.

It is true that there are those who did gain land through the patronage system thereby impoverishing the wananchi, but these cannot properly be described by tribe, especially as a very large number of them are of ethnicities deemed native to the Rift Valley.

I still insist that apart from ethnic jingoism and the anti-Kikuyu fervor whipped up by the ODM and its calls for Majimbo, there is no just extenuation even for the Rift Valley violence. All the real problems are further south in the Maasai districts, or in the Mt. Elgon area; in the bulk of the Rift Valley it is unadulterated inexcusable hatred, the kind that Kenya coddles at national peril.

re: mkosakabila
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

Wait now, do you know how and when the Nandi and Kipsigis came to 'own' the Rift Valley? Do you know that for a fact there were Kikuyus in the Rift Valley before the Wabeberu came?

Do you completely discount the effect of the drive for Majimbo and the attendant 41 against 1 strategy as drivers of the hatred and aggression against Kikuyus?

Timothy,believe me, I deplore the suspicious drive for majimbo and the 41 to 1 nonsense. That is brutal political expediency exploiting existing social cleavages and associated grievances. I'm sorry, if thats how I came across.

Willing buyer, willing seller is indeed important and I have not as yet seen any evidence that shows that the poor squatters of the Rift Valley were in any way taking advantage of the Kalenjin there when they bought from them.

There is evidence in Maasai areas. I guess its different in North Rift? But I can dig up some evidence for you if you so wish. This could be my next research project, perusing land transactions records and disputation.

The other, perhaps even more important fact is that most of the people settled in the Rift Valley, be they Kikuyu, Kisii, Luhya or indeed Kalenjin were settled on former settler farms. I have seen very little evidence of wholesale expulsion of Kalenjin from land in order to create space for the colonists and in all likelihood the land taken up by the colonists was either empty or sparsely populated.
This is why you have this problem only coming up from 1992, 50 years after the emergency (why no MauMau in the Rift Valley) and only when politically instigated. What I mean here is that land pressure in the RVP has never been what it is in the Kisii districts, or in Central Kenya, or even in Maragoli land.

Land was never empty, that was the colonists convenient excuse or justification for taking it up.

Have you not noticed the shocking absence of Kalenjin populations in the slums of Nairobi? Why do you think this is?

I don't know the demographics of the Nairobi slums other than that there are many Luos and Kikuyus (like in Kenya). But I do suspect that some areas in Nakuru might not have such a shocking absence. In fact, this same point you have here can be twisted in quite a different way at this time.

re: I will not
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

(Contentious tone edited and mildered, as to better enable discussion of issues. Ed.)

My appreciation of this enforcement.

It would not be correct to claim that land in the Rift Valley (at least the land in present contention) was gained through proximity to State Power. If one were to make such a statement about this specific region (as opposed maybe to others, where this may have been so), it would simply be a lie, and a dangerous one at that.

It is true that there are those who did gain land through the patronage system thereby impoverishing the wananchi, but these cannot properly be described by tribe, especially as a very large number of them are of ethnicities deemed native to the Rift Valley.

Guess the settlement schemes were organised by....skin colour?

I still insist that apart from ethnic jingoism and the anti-Kikuyu fervor whipped up by the ODM and its calls for Majimbo, there is no just extenuation even for the Rift Valley violence. All the real problems are further south in the Maasai districts, or in the Mt. Elgon area; in the bulk of the Rift Valley it is unadulterated inexcusable hatred, the kind that Kenya coddles at national peril.

Ok. Wont waste my time on this one.

The land issue
written by magothe , January 30, 2008

Im keep hearing that the reason Kiuks and other madoadoa are being expelled from RV is to do with their being land that is not theirs. Really? So are the biggest landowners in RV, the Kenyattas, Moi, Biwott, Kosgey, variuos army generals and well-connected. So why haven't you been expelling them? Please lets not excuse ethnic-cleansing for what it is.

re: The land issue
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

Im keep hearing that the reason Kiuks and other madoadoa are being expelled from RV is to do with their being land that is not theirs. Really? So are the biggest landowners in RV, the Kenyattas, Moi, Biwott, Kosgey, variuos army generals and well-connected. So why haven't you been expelling them? Please lets not excuse ethnic-cleansing for what it is.

Or is there something called power? Oh, were it in my power!

MkosaKabila
written by Stephen Wanyama , January 30, 2008

The clue to the difference between the South Rift and the north rift will I suppose lie in the different utilisation of land, with one group of people adopting a more sedentary lifestyle, and the other being nomadic.

A sedentary community, holds its land much more jealously than the nomadic ones do. The claim as to emptiness of land can be verified. Let us look at the vastness of the Rift Valley, and the fact that even today people can afford to have the vast tracts of land that they do. Now are you seriously suggesting that the populations from one century ago could properly utilise the entire Rift Valley, hey lower populations, inferior technology, no cash economy so no need for surplus, etc; and that this land is somehow theirs by birthright? What is the present average land holding and is there really a shortage of any sort?

I keep asking, will we also raze Nairobi to the ground and hand it back? All the tea farms, all the flower farms? Where will we stop, and why do some Kenyans think the property rights of Kikuyu, Kisii, Kamba and Luhya families, who are striving hard against great adversity to live dignified lives and build this country, put milk in your glass and food on your table, are negotiable.

For the last time
written by mkosakabila , January 30, 2008

The clue to the difference between the South Rift and the north rift will I suppose lie in the different utilisation of land, with one group of people adopting a more sedentary lifestyle, and the other being nomadic.
A sedentary community, holds its land much more jealously than the nomadic ones do. .

Ah, I see.

The claim as to emptiness of land can be verified. Let us look at the vastness of the Rift Valley, and the fact that even today people can afford to have the vast tracts of land that they do

And which people have these VAST tracts of land? The ones hacking others or the ones being hacked? Or the power elite? Besides, the rift valley per your blanket generalizations, and as far as I know it, is ecologically heterogeneous. Factor that too.

Now are you seriously suggesting that the populations from one century ago could properly utilise the entire Rift Valley, hey lower populations, inferior technology, no cash economy so no need for surplus, etc; and that this land is somehow theirs by birthright?

No, quite the contrary, and patiently too. Things do change.

What is the present average land holding and is there really a shortage of any sort?

The average tells you little. Its the gini that youd rather read as this is a distributional argument. And be careful about the lands agroecological potential too.

I keep asking, will we also raze Nairobi to the ground and hand it back? All the tea farms, all the flower farms? Where will we stop, and why do some Kenyans think the property rights of Kikuyu, Kisii, Kamba and Luhya families, who are striving hard against great adversity to live dignified lives and build this country, put milk in your glass and food on your table.

Again, for the last time, hopefully. For as long as there is contention and especially where collective claims are being asserted, it is worth being less dismissive. Again, and as I said in a prior post, I do not agree with the violence or dislodging people, I believe in mutual accommodations. For example, instead of turning Nairobi city into a conglomeration of Manyattas per an earlier suggestion of yours, it might make sense for city planners to consider how to accommodate herd movement and occasional grazing needs. This is not impossible. Be flexible!
ps: I must say its hard, eh, wanting to protect everyones property rights, whether collective, whether individual, whether newcomers, whether old timers, whether pastoral, whether sedentary. Very natural that our own biases would inform our selection of which and whose property rights to privilege and protect.

let\'s try read first
written by Stephen Wanyama , January 30, 2008

Sasa wewe MkosaKabila,
I will need you to explain this statement, as I cannot make head or tail of it.

Guess the settlement schemes were organised by....skin colour?

You will not waste your time on what? Defending the rights of the poor farmers who just happen to be the wrong tribe?

Now, let me pose a question. Given that the Maasai, Kipsigis and Nandi had themselves come by this land by forceful expulsion, pushing the Luo, Luhya, Kisii and so on out, is there really a moral case to their demand that the land is theirs by right?

Send the mp\'s home
written by Mzalendo , January 30, 2008

An article of beautiful clarity and disposition, very well written and composed. I love the poignant and convincing image of tripartite Kenya.

May I suggest that you take some half hour's breaks in between, over the next days, to read some Clausewitz, in the original preferably. Not just for the beauty of his style (he writes such as El Escorial is built); but as a political scientist, you will also profit from his wisdom. Especially now.

Alexander

I now know why they refused to have the recall clause for MPs. ALL of them would be home now. Can some creative NGO start a petition?

(What would the above quotation have to do with your own text? Please rectify. Ed.)

I am Sirikwa
written by Stephen Wanyama , January 30, 2008

And which people have these VAST tracts of land? The ones hacking others or the ones being hacked? Or the power elite? Besides, the rift valley per your blanket generalizations, and as far as I know it, is ecologically heterogeneous. Factor that too.

Puzzling. My point should really be obvious. I am simply stating that the fact that there is little encroachment on the massive tracts, and no attacks on them certainly, not even by politicians, then we can be sure that there is not really an issue of land pressure. This argument has never been made, and if it is the one you want to advance, this is certainly the first time.

Again, incomes from agriculture have shot through the roof, maize, milk, tea and so on, by a multiple of three or more. So people are actually far wealthier, and one would have hoped more inclined to be generous,but no, they can rely on people like you who will apologise for their rights to the land, rights founded in blood and soil, Gotab Kalenjin, etc.

By the way, Kisiis are being killed who work in tea farms in Kericho, would you supply this same excuse? Kikuyus who own maduka are being killed, and Kikuyu residential homes in Eldoret are being burned, how is this related to the land? Hell, there are many reports of people being while travelling on the roads, are those also about the land?

Now, also you know (or should know of the rivalries) between the Kalenjin tribes, and that many of them have settled in areas dominated by others. Will you say Nandi land (Wareng,Mosop,Tinderet, Aldai, Emgwen) for Nandis and Kipsigis land (Kericho, Timboroa, Sotik for Kipsigis, etc? So now it is not just those evil Kikuyus, Kisii, Kambas, and Luhya, they can also fight the Maasai, and the Maasai the Kisii because they have a right to the land having solidified their settlements there(by the way this is actually happening now).

There is evidence, that the people of Kenya did not have these solid boundaries, or territories as you claim, and especially not the pastoralists, there are many clans with very mixed heritages, mixed Luhya/ Nandi, mixed Kipsigis, Kisii, mixed Kikuyu/Maasai and so on. So you really must get deeper with your arguments on who owns the land under this Blut und Boden, I propose that merely being Kalenjin will not suffice.

Perhaps I should here correct myself, neither the Nandi or the Kipsigis had entirely sedentary lifestyles although the fin de sicle did present with invasions by the British, war and the rinderpest all of which likely colluded to bring on a more sedentary culture.

The average tells you little. Its the gini that you'd rather read as this is a distributional argument. And be careful about the lands agro-ecological potential too.

Dear Miss, no let us do the average as we are comparing like for like, the Kalenjin small-holders and the Kikuyu being expelled. There have been no cases of attacks on the Delameres, or on Sally Kosgei or Musa Sirma's massive holdings, so let us leave that out.

By the way, what is your position, you seem to be hooting at the wind. Mine is simply that land rights for those who did not come by their property through fraud or greed are non-negotiable, and that the Rift Valley should not be treated as a special case. Kenyans as a nation have compensated the Rift Valley Province and will continue to compensate it through transfer funds and the inordinate representation it enjoys.

ownership
written by Tim Norwood , January 30, 2008

Did the pre-colonial Kenyan people, especially those who were nomads rather than cultivators really have a political conception of land, i.e. with ethnic boundaries and conceived in terms of our land and not theirs? Or was it merely within this space shall we graze our animals? I mean look at the size of the Maasai claims, it is almost a fifth of Kenya!
Tribal disputes more often than not were about stock-theft and not about land and boundaries as we conceive it.
The truth is, among the majority of the Kenyan people of nomadic proclivities, identity and ethnicity were not matters of land and territory, but matters of culture and society.

It is true as MkosaKabila says that it is impossible to use force to implement land rights, but there must be no wavering on the part of the central government on one thing, any Kenyan can settle anywhere in the country. Any Kenyan who has bought anything, be it a transistor radio or an island in Lake Turkana, if has come by this ownership without defrauding another, or taking it from him by force really should enjoy the protection of the state, and of all civilised persons in holding on to his property.

individual ownership
written by Timothy Wainaina , January 30, 2008

Everything I have read, indicates that the Kipsigis at least, did have the concept of individual ownership, and that even before deeds were about, usufructuary rights gave superior title. Some land was held communally it is true, but I find dishonest the claim that the Kalenjin in selling their land off to the Kikuyu, Kisii, Kamba and so on were not fully aware of the market system, private ownership and so on. They were.

The transition to arable agriculture does mean that these groups have less need for large tracts of land than they did two-three centuries ago. If we are one country, then as Wanyama posits any non-criminal, non-immoral land ownership should and must be upheld by the state.

P.S. The Kalenjin do have their landless, some of whose land is held for them in trust by their ethnic champions, like ODM Chairman Henry Kosgey who stars in this video. Looks like Nanjala was right, eh? As Mheshimiwa Kosgei, Mbunge wa Tinderet says in the video to the foreign journalist, 'you do not know Kenya.' So now, redirect passions to Kikuyus, Kosgei good, Kikuyus bad , now attack!!

The army should take over?
written by Wuod Aketch , January 30, 2008

Paul Kagame of Rwanda proposes that the Kenya army should take over the institutions in order to stop the killings. Maybe that is the way to go!!!

Kagame said the Kenyan army might have to take over before things get worse. "I know that it is not fashionable and right for the armies to get involved in such a political situation. But in situations where institutions have lost control, I wouldn't mind such a solution," he said.

"I tend to believe that the Kenyan army is professional and has been stable," he added in the interview late on Tuesday.

Rwanda suggests military option for Kenya crisis

re: re: mkosakabila
written by Wuod Aketch , January 30, 2008

Have you not noticed the shocking absence of Kalenjin populations in the slums of Nairobi? Why do you think this is?

What is the answer?

Nairobi My Home.....I will def
written by jay , January 30, 2008

(This is not Mashada. Behave. Ed.)

History is not all bunk.
written by Daniel.Waweru , January 30, 2008

MK,

The final point about how far back we go is by far the most fascinating and worthy of debate. I would propose that we go as far back as when territorial boundaries between ethnicities somewhat stopped being porous and flexible and indeed were frozen, and some land appropriated to settle the wabeberus. That would not be too hard to find from political science and history textbooks or even from the allknowing and rather dear Alexander.

Why should we only go back that far? There are obvious gross injustices that occured before that - chief amongst them the acquisition of control over very substantial parts of the Rift by the Maasai as recently as the 1860s. Why on earth should this episode escape our notice? This also speaks to your point about the land being empty: as Lonsdale says somewhere, the pastures they acquired in this way were simply too large for them to defend (or even use productively).

And too, the original conquest of Kenya relied on Maasai auxiliaries who did well out of it. Will the territory thus acquired be given back, or compensation paid for it?

Some poetic thought
written by Kimemia , January 30, 2008

I may go on and write a piece on this but as I was reading Okot p'Bitek's Song of Ocol this particular pasage struck a chord with the whole idea of the irrationality of the so called ethnic cleansers reasoning for their acts

You young soldier
Guarding the border post
Do you know
When that sacred boundary
Was drawn?
Which of your anscestors
Established the area
Of your beloved
Country?

Very apt, thank you. This editor is rather a fan of Okot. (And has sometimes worried his 'manhood being crushed by the classroom'. But enough). Thanks. Eds.

...
written by politicalscientist , January 30, 2008

I don't often weigh in when the debate goes off topic but I think the question of Land is an interesting one. how far back can a land claim be before it becomes legitimate? It calls to mind the situation in Palestine. The Israeli claim that Palestine is their homeland goes back 2-3000 years, and was given legitimacy by the British colonial government (read the Biggest trouble makers in the world...;-)) but the Palestinian claim which was more recent is ignored because they were the colonised and not the coloniesers.

In a situation where neither has a title deed, do the people who really were there first have more claim to the land than those who came more recently?

And better yet in the words of Marvin Gaye, (don't quote me on that) why can't we all just get along?

Land issues
written by a guest , January 30, 2008

Very interesting debate going on about land, I must say.
If the claim to land by Kalenjin, Maasai and other nomadic tribes is that traditionally it was theirs because seasonally, they would pass by, grassing their cattle as they followed the rains, is that really a legitimate claim to land?
Some of the issues with land have to do with a nomad selling his land to a settler/farming community/member and then moving as he roams around, grazing his cattle, is very shocked to find that the fellow he sold the land to has fenced it off and wont allow him to graze on it? He may not have fully understood this implication when he sold that land.
Does that settler who bought the land have a right to now deny the nomad grazing access to it?
If, as in the case of the Kalenjin, the community has transformed itself from a nomadic to an agrarian society, planting tea, maize ,etc, would they then claim that land they never before farmed on, but did roam on as they grazed their cattle, is theirs exclusively, although they no longer graze cattle on it?
Everybody seems obsessed with looking back in time to determine the rightful owners of land, but ai don't think that exclusively will resolve the land issues.
Any solution has to consider that times have changed, populations have grown and land use is changing and the solution must accommodate all these factors, without unfairly penalizing one particular community.
At the same time, land is a limited resource, we must strive to put it to the most productive use possible. 1000 acres of prime land used for raoming around grazing a few hundred head of cattle, does not contribute to the country as much as if it was put under proper farming.
However, if we chose to do this, what of the rights of that guy with the cattle? How can we accommodate his need for the land too? Should we create reserve areas for anybody and everybody to graze? Or should we accommodate him by assisting him transition to zero grazing.
Or perhaps create communal reserve ranches on land suitable for ranching that all nomadic people can graze on. Well, what happens during droughts, when grass is dry and there is pressure on the communal ranch lands?
Interesting issues here.

No Ndiangui
written by Stephen Wainaina , January 31, 2008

Let us assume that the Gikuyu are indeed 'taking over the Rift Valley'. Is it not true that with that degree of demand, and with the fact that the Kalenjin themselves need this land, that this is a true seller's market?
I mean how exactly is a Gikuyu going to come from far away and be able to trick, force or otherwise cajole a local into parting with his land against his will? And this through the last 24 years when the Rift Valley dominated Kenya politically?

Remember also that Equity was started in the Moi years by farmers.

Insightful & balanced debate .
written by pndiangui , January 31, 2008

The resistance of the British in the 19th century was mainly concentrated in the Gikuyu dominated areas. In fact it is important to remember the battle against Meinertzhagen around 1902 where the Maasai, Akamba and Swahilis in helping the IBEA push out thousands of Gikuyus from the highlands in the ongoing struggles by the British to entrench themselves in the to be EA protectorate.

I know many would want to point out that my assertion are in effect arrogating the people of the Gikuyu descent a stronger claim to the land they were defending, but far from it. My point is that with such spirited fights and resistance against the British , it shows the communal value of land that had taken root in the community. That the Agrarian revolution had gained grounds and private ownership of land was recognized. This is also illustrated in the governance structures of the Agikuyu. Interestingly from anthropological studies the Gikuyu had converted from nomadism as early as 14th AD, much earlier than elsewhere among their neighbours.

The expansion into the Rift valley can be more attributed to cultural leverage than to land hand-outs from the Kenyatta administration. In fact for those who might calling the settlement of perceived or real injustices, for the sake of settling political scores with the mount Kenya communities or just for the sake of pure hatred , i.e not driven by intrinsic search for justice , they would be for a rude shock because what defines the vast expansion of the Mount Kenya groups is more cultural than about state favours. Admittedly, the fact that proximity to Nairobi, the location of missionaries, social investment and the fact that the Agikuyu were the first communities in Kenya to gain real experience with a more capitalistic/ commercial approach to farming when working for the white settlers presents great historical leverage in the community members aspirations and value they attribute to land.

You can take this to the bank that the biggest land leasers, not just buyers from the Kalenjins are the Gikuyu. In any case, claims of 'willing buy/will seller' market inefficiencies should have been addressed by the very leaders that are today inciting the sorting of past injustices through the sword. For example, I believe people like Ruto having proved their prowess in selling land 50 times its acquisition price to NSSF would have known better how to legislate to make sure that the Kalenjin get fair prices for sale or leases as he did in his deal. Again I have never seen or heard Ntimama or any other Rift Valley politician shepherd any meaningful legislation meant to address issues of leasing of land to commercial farmers in Narok, Kajiado or any other part of the former White highlands. This is something that a group I am part of want addressed for the sake of eliminating rogue brokers. Last year I joined an investment club in Kenya whose sole aim is to look for idle land in Narok and Kajiado to lease and farm wheat and green maize commercially in these areas respectively. In this group ,it just happens we are either Gikuyu, Meru and Kisii but we don't ask for anyone tribe to be able to be part of the group.

Getting back to the much discussed perception of unfair domination of the Agikuyu, even more overlooked, is the savings culture of the community, deeply inclined in the community and even prejudiced in the normal Kenyan jokes. (For example the classical, most Gikuyu don't treat their girlfriends with luxuries even while having bundles of cash). This argument is critical and not trivial at all. The Asian economies have turned around because of the very culture of saving. Looking at the Gikuyu culture two things are evidence of an early practice of saving; barter trade was used culturally for farm products t to get converted to assets that were measure of wealth i.e. goats. A responsible man was one that did not call for beer brewing sessions as this would lead to the eroding his flock (a beer drinking party would always see a Goat slaughtered).

So in essence consumerism without saving was abhorred from very early times. The other one is the presence of granaries that were used both for food reserves and for the next planting session's seeds. The discipline to harvest but store for future use is basically an ingrained risk management strategy that is a parallel of the Agikuyu small time investors', dominance in the NSE especially the retail investors who line-up to buy KenGen shares with Ksh.5,000 loans from Equity Bank. It is important to see the start-up that became the present day Equity Bank in the same sense. As for the Agikuyu's expansion for land ownership was the true test of adventurism in their capitalist dreams pursuits.

I write this in trying to help explain some of the ignorance, chauvinistic and hatred portrayed by articles doing rounds in the blogs like Kalenjin.net, to see if here we can elicit debate that is more concrete of the ways to sort out not only the perceived or real injustice of land allocations in the Rift Valley in the 60's but also to understand the communities that are perceived as the evil beneficiaries.

In fact my biggest worry is how to make all Kenyans differentiate between communities cultural strong practices that can be shared, copied or adopted by other Kenyan communities without tribal sentiments brought about by divide and rule tactics of politicians who are always at work to drive a wedge along 'superior' tribes, 'inferior' tribes/ 'marginalised' tribes to score political points and support.

In the course of such events, we have seen selective accusations that deny us the ability to see clearly the very chief beneficiaries of the Moi and Kenyatta land-allocation patronage systems. Almost all ODM luminaries are chief beneficiaries of the very patronage system that they would want to selectively point fingers at. Odinga mortgaged the NDP support to KANU for the sake of the Molasses plant and the land sitting on it, I really don't see the difference in that accusation from Kenyatta allocating himself the whole of Thika and Juja bearing in mind that the Mollases plant was a communal and a state asset too.

I concur with Uhuru here
The issue of land should not be dealt with from the point of view of ethnicity, but from the need for a comprehensive land reform that allows us all equally, ready access to land for its productive capacity, not because this area or this zone belongs to this community or that community.

Uhuru says:

Parliament this time needs to sit down and engage in constructive dialogue, to be able to provide Kenyans with the constitutional framework that politicians have used to create the kind of atmosphere that we have today. What may have been suitable 20 or 30 years ago maybe needs to be looked at again; now taking into account the increase in population and the greater need for land around the country.

The ethnic violence in the country, was fuelled in part by the hate-filled rhetoric from both sides throughout the campaign and the notion that opposing tribes represent the enemy and the very perception sold extensively by one of the parties of a 'dominating tribe'.
To this effect, I urge those who look at the poverty or lack of success as a purely ethnicity-based injustice, that while people may recognise that politically-motivated narratives are not comprehensive, both because human beings cannot process all aspects of information they receive and because people generally look only for that information that strengthens the position they already hold, especially for the sake political mobilisations, these narratives often persist (becoming almost fact),influencing behaviour. If critical aspects of information are discarded while arriving at any causation, faulty conclusions can be reached about oneself and others, and resources inappropriately expended accordingly. When such conclusions involve sentiments of persecution, actions taken may inadequately address the actual sources of problems. That is what will happen if we continue to look out at enemy others instead of considering what it was in the first place that gave them the perceived advantage over us.

Here is a suggestion by a Harvard lecturer. We need to get community engagement in full to sort out the perceived or real land injustices, the government can set aside an Land Authority meant to concentrate its efforts on meeting with community leaders and offer concrete compensation for the land they feel was lost without tampering with land and property rights.
Because in politics, perception can be far more convincing than the reality. But to guarantee long-term economic success of all communities, I insist a re-look at the anthropological aspects of communities to change certain cultural practices that might be leading to lower enterprise and savings cultures. This starts from the very fundamentals of capacity building and constitutional reform that will guide and influence a cultural change. The one-size fits all approach to policy for all Kenyan communities might not be effective enough when confronted with diverse historical & cultural practices among the different communities.

re: Insightful & balanced deba
written by aeichener , January 31, 2008

The resistance of the British in the 19th century was mainly concentrated in the Gikuyu dominated areas.

I am not aware of such a thing as of "mainly". Could you kindly corroborate?
While resistance was set up in many areas of what today is Kenya (always local, never united as in German East Africa, where the famous Maji-Maji revolt was a first sign of pan-African resistance), it is mostly associated to Nandi and Giriama.

Le me also quote from an interesting article, since the frequent popular penchant for hero (and heroine) worship often stands in the way of facts:

Black Mischief: Crime, Protest and Resistance in Colonial Kenya
by: David M Anderson
The Historical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4. (1993), pp. 851-877.

Abstract:
This article examines the history of African resistance to colonial rule among the Nandi and Kipsigis peoples of Kenya's Western Highlands. Anti-colonial protest centred on the activities of a group of ritual leaders, the orkoiik of the Talai clan, who were believed to possess supernatural powers of prophecy and divination. Between the late 1890s and 1905, the orkoiyot Koitalel had come to prominence as a leader of resistance to conquest. After his defeat the British briefly attempted to harness his Talai clansmen to the system of colonial government, promoting them as chiefs. This move was based upon a misunderstanding of the status of the orkoiik, whose powers often stood in direct conflict with the authority of the elders and who were greatly feared by many Nandi and Kipsigis. By the 1920s the orkoiik were deeply implicated in much criminal activity, especially the theft of livestock from European settler farmers. On three occasions orkoiik attempted to organize armed risings. The article concludes with a discussion of the place of the orkoiik in the historiography of Kenya. Although Koitalel and Barserion are commonly presented as heroes of a glorious resistance to colonialism, it is suggested that this interpretation fails to reflect the deep ambiguity of the status of the orkoiik, and the complexity of the struggles that took place within African societies under colonial rule.

USA committee for foreign Affa
written by a guest , February 17, 2008

Kenyans please watch USA house committee on foreign Affairs- endorse a ban on Visa's and freeze on accounts and a slap on all properties owned by any Kenyan MP- from both PNU and ODM who disrupts negotiations on a coalition Government!!
Now we know why UHURU KENYATTA IS IN SUPPORT OF A COALITION GOVERNMENT!!

Kenyans thank the USA for all their efforts and we demand they also freeze all offshore accounts regardless which countries the accounts are!!!

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/...d=203939-1