Al-Watan
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 16, 2009
- 11,891
- 14,583
There is another tribalism that is not being talked about here.It's very obvious that certain groups of tribes are aligned politically and thus empowered or disenfranchised as a unit. I'm certain an average luo wouldn't mind a luhya president just as an average Kikuyu wouldn't mind a meru president. Rotational presidency split region wise could work for if the status quo prevails, some certain elements will keep on tinkering towards cessation. By that I mean if someone from the western/Nyanza region led this time round, it would be advisable that they relinquish the reigns for atleast 2 or so terms.
As it is, tribal (and family) affinity and not meritocracy are the determinants of our leaders. This locks out hosts of very viable candidates on the basis of which tribe (region in reality) they're from.
Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga are from the same tribe. That of families of past national leaders.
Uhuru's father used to be President while Raila's father used to be Vice President.
Why do I not hear more about this tribalism? The tribe of the politically connected seems to win whoever wins, is it true that Uhuru/ Raila are the best Kenya has to offer? (OK,Uhuru maybe can make an argument on the merit, but Raila? Really?)
Or did they get to be where they are and a chance to contest the presidency, not because of merit,but because of nepotism and a quaint sense of hero worship?
This is also a form of tribalism in that it does not allow smart people with bright ideas who are coming from the tribe of the unconnected to get at shot at leading Kenya.