Negotiating Ethnicity: Identity politics in contemporary Kenya 1

Abstract

Ethnic identities are best understood as complex and contested social constructs, perpetually in the process of creation (c.f. Berman, 1998). It is with the perpetual processes of evolution, devolution, change and conformity of ethnic identities, often perceived to be cultural givens, that this paper concerns itself. Ethnicity is a politically relevant signifier in contemporary Kenya, and drawing on evidence from Kenya's Rift Valley Province and Western Province, the paper looks at the ways in which ‘modern’ Kenyans can, and do, contest, revive, create, negotiate and renegotiate their ethnic identity. The paper reveals how ethnic communities can both contract and/or expand, and how individual actors and groups can draw on selective memories and histories to justify their ‘migration’ from one community to another; while the relevant content of ethnic units is open to both debate and contestation. The paper provides detailed evidence of the fact and nature of ethnic construction, deconstruction and creation in the Kenyan postcolony and reveals how processes of ethnic negotiation and renegotiation are ultimately fuelled by the desire to stake claims to, and access resources controlled by the Kenyan state and external agents. Ultimately, the negotiation and renegotiation of ethnicity is inexorably intertwined with common perceptions of how political representation and redistribution actually works in Kenya, and with the perceived opportunities for advancement in both domestic and/or international arenas and forums.

Group Inequality and Environmental Sustainability: Insights from Bangladesh and Kenyan Forest Commons

“…It is shorthand for a naturalised claim to "belong" to a geographic space as "sons of the soil" (autochthon) compared to "others" or "outsiders" (allogè ne). Autochthony seems to retain a "self-evident" meaning and enjoys a "great popular appeal" in strikingly different situations despite studies showing that such identity can be fuzzy and easily redefined, and acquire violent implications [51][52][53][54].…”

“…However, this did not happen till 1968, when a part of the forest reserve was declared National Park and the inhabitants were forced to leave. To rehabilitate them, in 1971-1972 the government excised the lower part of the forest reserve and created a settlement programme in Chebyuk [53]. However, land thus distributed was grabbed by politically powerful groups, and people for whom this was intended remained landless, and they thus became illegal squatters in their ancestral land.…”

“…As a legacy to the above policies, Mt. Elgon region became a centre of "a long standing dispute" between the ethnic groups mainly on the issues of "politics of belonging" [53,61,62] that impacted on people's right and access to land. The dispute turned into violent clashes that were observed in several instances, as in 1963 at the moment of independence; in 1990s during the return of the multi-party election; and more recently in 2006-2008 just before and after the election of 2007.…”

Repatriating more than Mapungubwe human remains: archaeological material culture, a shared future and an artificially divided past

“…Embedded in Apartheid ethnic classification lies the potential for further conflict amongst the communities of the MCL. In this potentially volatile context (see Lynch 2006 in the case of Kenya) we were not just negotiating responsible repatriation, but archaeologists must also consider their role in a divided present.…”

Power, patronage, and gatekeeper politics in South Africa

“…93 In South Africa one might hypothesize that this "sucking in" of deep-seated frustrations with the post-apartheid order reflects the reality that while communities are not devoid of agency, they nonetheless exhibit "agency in tight corners," 94 where achieving tangible short-term "fixes" by aligning with one or other ANC faction might be preferable, and infinitely more achievable, than challenging the very structural foundations of social injustice. 95 In short, it reflects a strategy of navigating relations of dependency and endemic structural violence: playing the game, so to speak, rather than engaging in transformative forms of political agency.…”