Beyond Tribal Narratives: The Kenyan National Question through a Proletarian Lens

Recently, our former comrade and the former National Chairperson of the Communist Party of Kenya, which was formerly known as the Social Democratic Party of Kenya (SDP), Gov. James Orengo, treated us to a perplexing interpretation of Marxism concerning the national question in Kenya. In his pedantic manner, Orengo, invoking the authority of Marx, reminded us that the principal contradiction in Kenya, since independence, has been between the Lake region, Luo and the Mountain region, GEMA. According to him, the resolution of this contradiction hinges on the unity of these two regions in the 2022 general elections, thereby ensuring a peaceful and prosperous Kenya. Let me quote his exact words before I delve into a critique of his superficial understanding of social phenomena. 

"In addressing the Kenyan question, many nations have faced issues similar to Kenya's. I would like to provide a few examples to illustrate what Marxists refer to as major contradictions. In South Africa, it was racism; in Ireland, it was the conflict between religious sects (Catholics and Protestants); in India, as resolved by Gandhi, it was the tension between Indians and Muslims. In Kenya, the major contradiction has been between the Lake and the Mountain. If we fail to address this issue, Kenya is at risk of descending into chaos. The Mountain must engage with the Lake to address this major contradiction, which can sometimes escalate into violence. This is Kenya's national and political question, and we are addressing it with the handshake (a truce between Raila and Uhuru)." 

Regrettably, this is how the national question is being perverted by our former comrade Orengo. This is, without a doubt, a bourgeois interpretation of the national question. If we were to follow Orengo's logic, we would be led to believe that uniting the GEMA tribes and the Lake region tribes would resolve the national question. Is there truly such a significant contradiction between, for instance, the Kikuyu and the Luo? Does this even constitute a national question? It is laughable that we are subjected to such a corrupted version of the national question. Such falsification must not go unchallenged; it must be critiqued and treated with the contempt it deserves. This critique will enhance our understanding of the nature of the national question in Kenya and how it can be resolved. 

Is there a contradiction between a Kikuyu and a Luo working together in the same small manufacturing plant in an industrial area? Or between a Kikuyu and a Luo living in Mathare and Kibera? Both individuals are exploited by capital during the day, while the owner of the plant appropriates all the surplus value generated by their hard work. In the evening, they return to the slums they call home and share a roof over their heads. When the month ends, the landlord comes knocking at their doors to collect rent. Is there a contradiction between a fisherman from Lake Victoria and a farmer growing potatoes in Shamata, Nyahururu? These people meet daily at Gikomba and Muthurwa to exchange their products. Is there a contradiction between a wealthy Kikuyu and a wealthy Luo in the upscale suburbs of Runda, Karen, or Lavington? Do they not meet each evening in posh eateries in Kitisuru and Muthaiga to enjoy roast meat and expensive whiskey, and partake in leisure activities on their golf courses and country clubs? The answer is evident. 

Why, then, are we told by our so-called leaders that the tribal unity of Kikuyu and Luo is paramount and that the handshake between a few billionaires from Kikuyus and Luos will lead to a cohesive and prosperous nation? How will the unity of the Odinga family and the Mount Kenya business community benefit the working class, peasants, and the marginalized sectors of society, such as the lumpen who live in deplorable conditions with no human dignity? These are the questions that have been overlooked. Abstractly, the national question has been stripped of its revolutionary essence, namely the class struggle. The national question, as presented by both the Azimio and Kenya Kwanza coalitions, lacks class struggle.

Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, in his characteristic rhetoric, never misses an opportunity to exhibit his tribal chauvinism and remind us of his lineage to Mau Mau fighters. However, in one of his speeches, he made it clear that President Ruto's government is akin to a private limited company, where only those with shares will benefit. Here, he makes no mention of the poor Kikuyu woman in Karima village, Kirinyaga, having shares in Ruto's government, as they were promised. He only refers to wealthy Luos, Kikuyus, Kalenjins, Asians, and even European and American billionaires who invested in Ruto's ascent to power. Rigathi is indeed a man of "truth," as he proclaims himself, never mincing his words. 

In essence, we have two classes in Kenya: the propertied class and the dispossessed class, the rich and the poor, those who own the means of production and those who must sell their labour as commodities to generate surplus, which is appropriated by the owners of the means of production. This constitutes the major contradiction in Kenya and forms the national question. However, Orengo and his cohorts analyse social phenomena not from the production level and the subsequent property relations but only along tribal lines. Such an approach is unscientific and emblematic of petty-bourgeois social science. 

We will continue this examination of the Kenyan national question from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, aiming to understand it in three stages:

1. i) Class struggle and social formation in the classical colonial period
2. ii) The national question in neocolonial Kenya

iii) The interconnectedness of the national question and proletarian internationalism.

Class Struggle and Social Formation in Classical Colonialism

The national question worldwide has historically concerned the right to self-determination in specific epochs. To comprehend the national question in Kenya, we must first understand imperialism, as it cannot be isolated from the broader question of imperialism and the socialist revolution. We must trace the development of Kenyan society in relation to the evolution of other modes of production across the world. 

Trade between Kenya and southern Arabia can be traced back to the first century A.D. European imperialist contact with East Africa can be dated to the Portuguese voyages of discovery, backed by local European merchant capital. Feudalism, marked by unmechanized agriculture and artisan industry at the production level, prevailed in Europe. This stage was characterized by trade, and the establishment of colonial settlements was not necessary. 

Contradictions arose within the local ruling class, where monarchies had been established in some communities. For instance, in 1502, Vasco da Gama during his second voyage forced Ibrahim, the ruler of Kilwa, to pay a ransom to recognize the authority of the king of Portugal. This led to the establishment of the Fort Jesus Garrison in Mombasa, an outpost for Portuguese trade. The British and French similarly vied for influence in East Africa, signing pacts and treaties with Seyyid Said, the Sultan of Oman. Local communities involved in foreign trade and commerce sought to maintain their independence. 

By 1895, the British began building a railway, partly with forced Indian labour, to secure and facilitate their control of Uganda. The need for African labour increased, which marked the beginning of social transformation in Kenya. The capitalist mode of production was introduced through settler land and labour policies, leading to the dispossession of Africans. This period was the transition from pre-capitalism to capitalism in Kenya. 

The land question became central, leading to contradictions and conflicts between colonial and settler interests. The British East Africa Company had held vast land reserves in trust for the British Crown, ostensibly for settler colonisation. Yet, Africans had their lands and modes of production that were crucial for their survival. The Crown sought to maintain indirect rule, with the company holding land in trust. British imperial interests in Kenya evolved, and settlers demanded more land, eventually leading to the crown asserting direct control. A land commission, known as the Devonshire White Paper, recommended the preservation of Kikuyu land from settler alienation. 

By 1904, the British colonial administration changed its view on alienating Kikuyu land, leading to the Kikuyu settlement scheme. More contradictions emerged between the settlers and the British Crown on land issues. While the British Colonial Office aimed to preserve some African land, settlers demanded land for themselves. As a result, some African land was preserved as reservations while others were alienated from settlers. The new order established wage labour relations and colonial taxation, forcing Africans to become labourers and peasants. The monarchy (monarchical and imperial forces) thus introduced the capitalist mode of production in Kenya. 

Social formation took place as capitalism was imposed, and the colonial bourgeoisie was established in Kenya. While contradictions persisted between British imperial interests and settler interests, these factions were united in the preservation of capitalism in Kenya. By the time of the First World War, the principal contradiction in Kenya was between the workers and peasants on one side and the local bourgeoisie and imperialists on the other. An era of political contestation emerged. In the second part of this series, we will explore this period more, focusing on the peasant and workers' struggle and the demands for land.

Certainly, I will continue with the editing of the article. Let's proceed with the second part of the article:

The National Question in Neocolonial Kenya

As we delve further into the analysis of the Kenyan national question, it is essential to understand the evolution of this issue in the context of neocolonial Kenya.The transition from classical colonialism to neo-colonialism was a pivotal moment in Kenya's history. Neo-colonialism can be defined as a situation where formal colonial rule gives way to political independence, but economic and political control continues to be exerted by foreign powers. It's a subtler form of imperialism, characterized by neocolonial relations between the ruling elite of the newly independent state and their foreign imperialist backers. 

Kenya, like many African nations, gained political independence in the mid-20th century. The colonial powers, in this case, Britain, recognized the impracticality of direct rule, especially in the face of growing nationalist movements across the continent. Hence, Kenya achieved political sovereignty in 1963 under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta. However, the Kenyan independence movement, despite its anti-colonial rhetoric, was marked by compromises with the colonial rulers, particularly in the realm of land reform. This set the stage for neo-colonialism. 

In post-independence Kenya, the mode of production, rooted in capitalist relations, continued to shape society. However, the class struggle, which was present during classical colonialism, took on new dimensions. The ownership of the means of production remained concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which was often aligned with foreign capital. As a result, the national question persisted, not in the form of colonial occupation, but through the exploitation of the working class and peasants by the neocolonial ruling elite. 

The land question, a key aspect of the national question in Kenya, remained unresolved. The promises of land reform made during the independence struggle were not fully realised, leaving a legacy of landlessness and inequality. The situation was further exacerbated by the ongoing struggle for control over land, with powerful elites grabbing large portions of it while the majority of the population struggled to secure their livelihoods. 

In this neocolonial context, the national question became intertwined with the class struggle. The working class, peasants, and the marginalized segments of society continued to experience exploitation and oppression, not only from foreign capital but also from the comprador bourgeoisie, which often acted as a proxy for imperialist interests. The neocolonial state, despite its political sovereignty, did not fundamentally challenge the exploitative economic relations inherited from colonialism. 

The national question in neocolonial Kenya is, therefore, a question of class struggle. The true contradiction lies between the propertied class, who control the wealth and resources, and the dispossessed class, who must sell their labour to survive. This class struggle often transcends tribal or ethnic boundaries, as the common interests of the working class and peasantry unite them in the fight against exploitation and oppression. 

The unity of the ruling elites, whether they come from different tribes or regions, does not necessarily benefit the working class, peasants, or marginalized sectors of society. The neocolonial state often serves as a vehicle for maintaining and reinforcing capitalist relations, making the national question a question of economic justice, rather than just tribal or regional unity. 

In the next part of this series, we will explore the interconnectedness of the national question and proletarian internationalism and discuss how the struggle for national liberation in Kenya relates to the global socialist movement.

The interconnectednessbetween the National Question and Internationalism

In this final part of our analysis, we explore the interconnectedness of the national question in Kenya with the concept of proletarian internationalism. This perspective offers a more profound understanding of the struggle for national liberation in Kenya and its broader implications within the global socialist movement. 

Proletarian internationalism, a fundamental principle of Marxism, emphasizes the unity of the working class across borders. It underscores the common interests of workers and peasants worldwide in their shared struggle against capitalism and imperialism. Proletarian internationalism rejects narrow nationalism and tribalism and calls for solidarity among the oppressed classes, transcending ethnic, tribal, or national boundaries. 

When we apply this principle to the national question in Kenya, we recognize that the central contradiction lies between the people of Kenya and imperialism. Imperialism represents the global capitalist system's exploitative and oppressive forces. Therefore, the struggle against imperialism is a collective effort of the working class, peasants, and marginalized sectors of Kenyan society. 

It is essential to understand that a ruling class does not necessarily need to be locally based. In a neocolonial context, the ruling elite often acts as agents of foreign financial capital, serving the interests of imperialist powers. In recent Kenyan elections, various candidates were funded by competing imperialist interests, indicating that these elections were, in essence, a contest among foreign finance capital for control over strategic national resources. 

The struggle for national liberation in Kenya should not be reduced to tribal divisions or parochial nationalism. The national boundaries, established to perpetuate exploitative systems, will lose significance when the means of production are socialized, and the people collectively determine their economic destiny. 

It's crucial to avoid the trap of supporting every call for self-determination without assessing the specific conditions and character of the national question. A communist perspective requires a nuanced understanding of each situation, ensuring that the struggle for self-determination aligns with the broader goals of economic justice and the liberation of the oppressed. 

In conclusion, the national question in Kenya is inextricably linked with the global struggle against imperialism and capitalism. The primary contradiction is between the people of Kenya and imperialism, not among different ethnic or tribal groups. The working class and the peasantry constitute the motive force in this struggle, and their unity under a vanguard party is essential for challenging the existing neocolonial system. 

As imperialism has stifled industrialization and economic sovereignty, the majority of Kenyans are still engaged in petty commodity production. The socialist state, when established, will serve as a tool for the working class and peasants to redirect the economy for the common good. The principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" will guide the transformation of Kenyan society. 

The struggle for national liberation in Kenya is part of the broader international proletariat movement. Small nations can play a crucial role in challenging imperialism and advancing the cause of socialism. The dialectics of history make these struggles part of the global revolutionary process. 

The Kenyan people must rally behind a vanguard party that represents their interests and wage a protracted struggle against imperialism, neo-colonialism, and economic exploitation. This is the path to a more just and equitable society, where the exploitation of one class by another is abolished, and the means of production serve the collective welfare of all. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Dani Wadada Nabudere - Imperialism and Revolution in Uganda, Onyx Press 1980
   1. -Essay on the theory and practice of imperialism, OnyxPress 1979
   2. -Imperialism in East Africa Vol I (Imperialism and Exploitation) and II (Imperialism Integration1981).
2. Debate (Edited by Yash Tandon), Tanzania Publishing House 1982.
3. Lenin V.I - ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Rightof Nation to Self-determination‘collected works, Moscow,1970.
4. Critical remarks on the National question.
5. Luxembourg R – The accumulation of Capital, London 1963
6. Liu Shaoqi- Internationalism and Nationalism, Foreign Languages Press 1952
7. Mao Tse-Tung– On Contradiction, Foreign Language Press, 1967
8. Stalin- Marxism and the National Question 1913,Marxist internet archive. - J. STALIN Collected works Volume VI
9. Swainson, Nicola ‘The development of corporate Capitalism in Kenya, 1918-1977, Uc press, Berkley, 1980.
10. W – Finance Capital and the so-called NationalBourgeoisie in Kenya(https://escholarship.org)
11. R – The Agricultural History of Kenya, East African Publishing House 1972.
12. An Economic History of Kenya and Uganda, 1800-1970
13. Fred Mmembe calls Raila a Miners PUPPET, http://www.youtube.com (The liberal informer)
14. Orengo on the Major Contradiction in Kenya, https://www.facebook.com/100006536132940/posts/pfbid02sxmdPnxKarCP9eaRZ2cBH8DEGJKi4B46QnH1Hyn53HyWYEnNsDQYU5ncEaaMM3i3l/?app=fbl

By Mwaivu Kaluka, the National Chairperson of the Young Communist League and Member of the Central Organising Committee (COC) of the Communist Party of Kenya (CPK)

https://communistpartyofkenya.org/87-recent-news/313-beyond-tribal-narratives-the-kenyan-national-question-through-a-proletarian-lens