Tribalism tribal tribalism
ancient hatreds or warfare from cultures clashing over the
ages. The major opposing groups like Luo, Luhya and Kisii of
Western Kenya and the GEMA (Kikuyu, Embu and Meru
people) from the Mount Kenya area, had little contact with one
another before the coming of the colonialists. Kenya’s
tribalism is therefore a relatively new phenomenon. It is a
product of modern times arising from colonialism, urbanization
and q
the political culture that sprung up in independent Kenya
(Asmussen, Brochstedt, Jensen, Kjær, Krogholt & Mortensen,
2009).
Tribalism in Kenya has been a major stumbling block to
democracy as well as socio-economic development. It affects
every sphere of development, from social economic, political to
educational spheres. In political spheres, tribalism persists
since it provides an avenue via which state goodies and
favours trickle down from those in power to their tribesmen.
Therefore, loyalty to tribe is given ever greater relevance than
loyalty to the country.
In every sector of development, tribalism has also been
rampant. Employment has been skewed, with members of
certain community being given certain positions. Public
institutions in Kenya present a case where the members of
staff are rendered tribal. Effective performance of duty
therefore becomes a big issue since tribalism affects work
ethics. Ethical practice of the members of staff is called for in
order to safe the situation. The government has mandate to
apply the provisions of public officers’ ethical provisions owing
to the very ills of tribalism.
Tribalism is responsible for a lot of ills in Kenya including
underdevelopment, corruption, rigging of elections and
violence/civil war. In terms of employment, people are given
jobs based on tribe regardless of having low qualifications.
Hence the inefficient use of available skills. Thus, the very
rationale of being educated lacks meaning. Bad governance
and lack of accountability has also been linked to tribalism as
people do not question a government run by their tribesmen.
Delivery of services is also hindered as the culture of impunity
is also inculcated. Delivery of services in both public and
private institution where tribalism is rampant is also highly
affected by tribal affiliations and politics.
Given this state of affairs about the negative effects of
tribalism in Kenya, there is a need to make a deliberate effort
towards gaining national consciousness rather that tribal one.
Human beings will ever be stratified along certain social
stratification domains. However, development into national
consciousness calls for retaining self consciousness and at
the same time working towards the attainment of universal-
consciousness which is not limited to ones tribe. Being ‘a
Kenyan’ or ‘a Global Citizen’ should be the peop
Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating
for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity , tribalism may
also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or
behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than
to their friends, their country, or any other social group. [1]
Tribalism has been defined in engaged theory as a 'way of
being' based upon variable combinations of kinship-based
organization, reciprocal exchange, manual production, oral
communication, and analogical enquiry. [2] Ontologically,
tribalism is oriented around the valences of analogy,
genealogy and mythology. This means that customary
tribes have their social foundations in some variation of
these tribal orientations, while at the same time often taking
on traditional practices (including through religions of the
book such as Christianity and Islam ), and modern practices,
including monetary exchange, mobile communications, and
modern education. [3]
The social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to
case, but, due to the relatively small size of customary
tribes, social life in those kinds of tribes usually involves a
relatively undifferentiated role structure, with few significant
political or economic distinctions between individuals. [4]
Tribalism implies the possession of a strong cultural or
ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from
the members of another group. Based on strong relations of
proximity and kinship, members of a tribe tend to possess a
strong feeling of identity. Objectively, for a customary tribal
society to form there needs to be ongoing customary
organization, enquiry and exchange. However, subjectively,
intense feelings of common identity can lead people to feel
tribally connected. [5] The distinction between these two
definitions for tribalism - objective and subjective - is an
important one because, while tribal societies have been
pushed to the edges of the western world, tribalism , by this
second definition, is arguably undiminished. A few writers
have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards
tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages, however this
claim is usually linked to equating original questions of
sociality with tribalism.[6]
Many tribes refer to themselves with their language's word
for "people," while referring to other, neighboring tribes with
various epithets. For example, the term " Inuit" translates as
"people," but they were known to the Ojibwe by a name
'Eskimo' translating roughly as "eaters of raw meat." [7]
Tribalism and violence
Anthropologists engage in ongoing debate on the
phenomenon of warfare among tribes. While fighting
typically and certainly occurs among horticultural tribes, an
open question remains whether such warfare is a typical
feature of hunter-gatherer life, or an anomaly found only in
certain circumstances, such as scarce resources (as with
the Inuit or Arabs ), or only among food-producing societies.
[8][9] There is also ambiguous evidence whether the level of
violence among tribal societies is greater or lesser than the
levels of violence among civilized societies.
If nothing else, conflict in tribal societies can never achieve
the absolute scale of "civilized" warfare.[ citation needed ]
Tribes use forms of subsistence such as horticulture and
foraging which, though more efficient, cannot yield the same
number of absolute calories as agriculture .[citation needed ]
This limits tribal populations significantly, especially when
compared to agricultural populations.[10] Lawrence Keeley
notes in War Before Civilization that examples exist with low
percentage rates of casualties in tribal battle. He also
points out that some tribal battles were much more lethal
as a percentage of population than, for example, the Battle
of Gettysburg . He concludes from the data examined that no
evidence consistently indicates that primitive battles are
proportionately less lethal than civilized ones. [11]
Tribalism and evolution
Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in human evolution .
Humans are social animals, and ill-equipped to live on their
own. [12] Tribalism and social bonding help to keep
individuals committed to the group, even when personal
relations may fray. This keeps individuals from wandering
off or joining other groups. It also leads to bullying when a
tribal member is unwilling to conform to the politics of the
collective. [13]
Socially, divisions between groups fosters specialized
interactions with others, based on association: altruism
(positive interactions with unrelated members), kin-
selectivity (positive interactions with related members), and
violence (negative interactions). Thus, groups with a strong
sense of unity and identity can benefit from kin selection
behavior such as common property and shared resources.
The tendency of members to unite against an outside tribe
and the ability to act violently and prejudicially against that
outside tribe likely boosted the chances of survival in
genocidal conflicts.
Modern examples of tribal genocide rarely reflect the
defining characteristics of tribes existing prior to the
Neolithic Revolution--for example, small population and
close-relatedness.
According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of
Liverpool , primate brain size is determined by social group
size. [14] Dunbar's conclusion was that most human brains
can only really understand an average of 150 individuals as
fully developed, complex people (Known as Dunbar's
number). In contrast, anthropologist H. Russell Bernard and
Peter Killworth have done a variety of field studies in the
United States that came up with an estimated mean number
of ties, 290, that is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The
Bernard–Killworth median of 231 is lower, due to upward
straggle in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than
Dunbar's estimate. [15][16][17]
Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically
in his book, The Tipping Point where one of his types -
Connectors - were successful due to their larger than
average number of close friendships and capacity for
maintaining them which tie otherwise unconnected social
groups together. According to these studies, then,
"tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of human
neurology, simply because many human brains are not
adapted to working with large populations. Once a person's
limit for connection is reached, the human brain must resort
to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes ,
and other simplified models in order to understand so many
people.
Nevertheless, complex societies (and corporations) rely
upon the tribal instincts of their members for their
organization and survival. [ citation needed ] For example, a
representative democracy relies on the ability of a "tribe" of
representatives to organize and deal with the problems of
an entire nation.[citation needed ] The instincts that these
representatives are using to deal with national problems
have been highly developed in the long course of human
evolution on a small tribal scale, and this is the source of
both their usefulness and their disutility. Indeed, much of the
political tension in modern societies is the conflict between
the desire to organize a nation-state using the tribal values
of egalitarianism and unity and the simple fact that large
societies are unavoidably impersonal and sometimes not
amenable to small-society rules.
In complex societies, this tribalistic impulse can also be
channelled into more frivolous avenues, manifesting itself in
sports rivalries and other such "fan" affiliations.
"New tribalism"
In the past 50 years, anthropologists have greatly revised
the understanding of the tribe. Franz Boas removed the idea
of unilineal cultural evolution from the realm of serious
anthropological research as too simplistic, allowing tribes
to be studied in their own right, rather than stepping stones
to civilization or "living fossils". Anthropologists such as
Richard Borshay Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing
studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the
opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the
title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as
"the Original Affluent Society," not for their material wealth,
but for their combination of leisure and lack of want.
This work is for the progression of humanity and the
enlightenment of ourselves, such as that advocated by John
Zerzan or Daniel Quinn . These philosophers have led to new
tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New
Tribal Revolution". The new tribalists use the term
"tribalism" not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but
to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of
tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian , classless and
cooperative community. New tribalists insist that this is, in
fact, the natural state of humanity, and proven by two
million years of human evolution. [citation needed ]
Feb 15, 2002 (Addis Tribune/All Africa Global Media via
COMTEX) — The root of the matter is so bare, we need
not search for the help of so many telescopes in
intellectual sophistications to see it. The truth is, there
is no such thing as “ethnic politics”. “Politics”, as
gruesome as at times it could be, and as practiced at
different scenes and levels, has at least some tone of
dignified elevation beyond the ordinary human ego. It at
least involves some ‘art’ of ruling. The positions of the
“tribalists” or ethnic ideologues in the world of African
statesmanship are basically so low in personal stature
and mean-spirited in vision to qualify as ‘political
forces’, even in the contexts of the most doggerel
political literatures like the so-called “professional
revolutionaries” in the Leninist doctrine.
The underlying phenomenon during the last forty years
history of the African states, (ten years in the cases of
Ethiopia and Eritrea), was an embarrassing power
struggle among individuals of either good-for-nothing
(personal qualities) in ordinary life or personas with
exaggerated egomaniac tendencies, basically using
‘ethnic identity’ or pride or the colonial background of
territorial partitioning of the African continent as means
of “divide and rule”. The struggle, whether we like it or
not, leaves us with indelible scars and potential poisons
behind. In most situations, such strategies for grabbing
power backfire or misfire at some point in time so as
to be antidotes of their own poison. The backlash
comes mainly from the very rude characters of
individuals who happen to be ignorant of their own
ignorance and repugnant in all their public
countenances and with absolutely rigid outlooks,
apparently emanating from low self-esteem. A fair
characterization of using ‘tribalism’ as a political tool
may be provided in the following insightful
descriptions:-
“Tribalists think [and preach]… that the men and
women of their tribe [or ethnic group] … are superior to
others, and that as a result the others should serve and
obey them. [They try] to impose the hegemony, the
predominance of their tribes… Tribalist ideas and
feeling are used most often to create a clientele who
can help them to satisfy their selfish interests and
ambitions. Tribalism is expressed in different forms, of
which the following are the main ones:-
1. “The tribalist constantly exaggerates and boasts
about the qualities, merits and good deeds of the tribe…
on the other hand he refuses to recognize their faults,
and even tries systematically to hide them. With
respect to other [ethnic groups], exactly the opposite
attitude prevails.”
2. “The tribalist indulges freely in liberalism and
favoritism towards people of his tribe… By contrast, he
is in general very sectarian towards people of other
[ethnic groups]…”
3. “The tribalist tries to grant all privileges and posts of
responsibility to the people of his tribe.”
4. “Conversely, the tribalist seeks to exempt his own
people from their duties and obligations… from the
most dangerous or humiliating missions.”
5. “The tribalist practices… favoritism in the division of
material benefits and the distribution of material
services.”
6. “Occasionally, the tribalist even believes that those
who are not his tribe are too rich and fortunate to
deserve his help.”
7. “Some extend tribalism as far as preferring marriage
between black women and white men to marriage
between the tribes.”
8. “In politics, the supreme expression of tribalism
consists of demanding the formation of so-called
independent republics which in fact have tribal basis;
failing this, tribalists demand ‘federation with regional
autonomy’ with the distribution of political and
administrative power following tribalist lines.” (CRISP
(1965), Instructions Politiques et Militaire de Partisans
Congolais (1964-65), pp. 51-52)
As it is obvious from the above characterization, and
assuming that we agree with it, tribalism is
aesthetically ugly, intellectually illogical and practically
inefficient. The ugliness mostly shows of as a mode of
blatant extortion of rightful possessions of the humbler
citizens by the league of the weak, and in its tendency
to insult the intelligence of others, in so doing. That
explains why such strategies of preserving power more
often result in ludicrous contradictions and self
inflicting painful wounds. The current internal power
struggles in Ethiopia and Eritrea may be typical cases
in point. If one learns just from the African experience,
such examples are stupendous. Varying in intensity, we
can discern them in the shabby politicization of
ethnicity across many of the sub-Saharan African
States. The tactic has been reluctantly used in Nigeria,
and more resolutely, with tragic consequences, in
Burundi/Rwanda, all ending up in shameful social
disasters. Elsewhere in Africa, somewhat in between the
above two extremes, we find a whole battle field of
greed. At the end of the day, such behaviors prove to
be not only suicidal but also betray human malice at
its most (par excellence!)
In Kenya, the regime of Daniel Arap Moi took over
power apparently to ensure the revenge of the Kalenjin
ethnic group over the long predominance or alleged
predominance of the Kikuyu. Logically, therefore, the
security and safety of individuals in key positions of the
regime rely on staying in power. In Ethiopia, the regime
of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic
Front (EPRDF), spearheaded by the Tigrean Liberation
Front (TPLF) and directed by Mr.Meles Zenawi,
controlled central power ten years ago evidently with
the intention of ensuring the predominance of Tigrean
or other non-Amahara interests over the alleged
predominance of the Amhara ruling class.
In 1964, the alleged “Arab dominance” in Zanzibar was
revenged by a revolutionary seizure of Arab properties
by the “Africans”. The rivalries between Igbo and non-
Igbo groups in Port Harcourt, between Yoruba and
Hausa in Ibadan (Nigeria) and other similar
occurrences in the Congo Leopoldville, Rwanda, Burundi
and others signify not ethnic conflicts per se but just
sheer power struggles for the control of either major
resources (wealth) or political power or both, by certain
groups playing the ethnic card. (See H. Wolpe, Urban
Politics in Nigeria… (1974), pp.
232-233)
In Uganda, the 1960s crisis occurred as a result of the
anger or resentment or jealousy of the self imposed
‘representatives’ of the other ethnic groups at the
historical advantages of the Baganda ethnic group,
which they got from the British imperial favors.
Ultimately, the bitterness accruing from such
irresponsible conducts for the sake of short-sighted and
short-term gains plant poisonous seeds for potential
disasters. The hatred of the Luo and Kalenjin towards
the Kikuyu in Kenya can be paralleled with the joint
resentment of the Tigrean and Oromo groups within the
EPRDF towards the Amharas in Ethiopia. In both of
those situations, the main issue is not as much on an
equitable distribution of power as it is over the lions
share of the spoils of power struggle. Even within
obviously homogenous societies, like Somalia , a
complete internal harmony is an exception rather than
the rule, let alone states shredded with a plethora of
tribes. (There are more than one thousand distinct
tribes with their own languages in Africa.)
There are several conflicts of interest even from among
family members, which cannot be resolved by any sort
of benign umpire from heaven, much less by pretending
to be the protector of an “ethnic” interest, or even
worse, national interest. There are gender conflicts,
even age group conflicts of interest, conflicts of interest
between the warriors (the bullies) and ordinary
(humble) citizens, between the intellectuals and the
licentious, and so forth. A well developed unitary polity
with nationally applicable “rule of law”, which is ethnic-
blind seems to be the solution, not the so called
‘representatives’ of ethnic interest.
Conclusion:
In the overall sub-Saharan African political ethos, so
long as a larger chunk of the negative vestiges of
colonialism predominate, ethnicity as a political tool in
the long run may, of course, involve several thoughts in
the dimensions of social sciences like anthropology or
sociology in the academic world, but in practical
politics, especially in the contemporary African context
of increasing ignorance and backwardness, ethnicity or
ethnic politics exist as a blatant, gruesome instruments
of accumulating private wealth and an easy accesses
to unearned political power. In short, ethnic politics is
an excuse to the profession of brigandage.
by Yohannes Chane Metiku
Copyright Addis Tribune. Distributed by All Africa Global
Media(AllAfrica.com)
KEYWORD: PanAfrica
Copyright © 2002, Africa News Service, all righ
Despite assurances that they would accommodate everybody,
counties have become tribal homelands that are driven by the
ideology of negative ethnicity that made sure that every
community had its own homeland or homelands.
However long it took to take shape, Kenyan devolution is now
majimbo with Kenyans of different ethnicities living in the
same county categorised as citizens and foreigners while
people in counties of same ethnicity are discriminated against
for having come into the county from other counties of the
same or different ethnicity.
In people’s political consciousness, media has already used
negative ethnicity to kill Kenya and replaced it with ethnic
identities and homelands. In counties, Kenyan identity is not
only disregarded, second-classed and demonised but also
brushed aside as enemy identity.
Falsely credited for bringing power and resources to
grassroots, counties have devolved resources and power not
to Wanjiku but elites of the county.
Worse, through taxes and graft, under devolution, common
people are as oppressed and exploited by county governments
as they were by central governments. In fact, under
devolution, common men and women suffer double oppression
and exploitation from both central and county governments.
As intended, ethnic elites are primary beneficiaries of
devolution, county governments and resources, not ordinary
people. Indeed, ethnic elites are no lesser exploiters of their
grassroots and ethnic communities than national elites but are
demanding exclusive rights to that exploitation.
While exorbitant taxes alone don’t make ruling elites like those
of Scandinavia that return taxes to people as development
evil, it is the exclusive misuse and theft of those taxes that
makes both the elites and their unaffordable taxes evil and
hateful. Devolution that facilitates theft cannot be the
devolution that people wanted. County governments are no
longer yearned. They are loathed by voters who voted for
them only one year ago.
In the meantime, the power struggles we witness in the media
everyday are not about how best county governments can
serve people but how county and national elites can share
power and resources they have looted from people.
To avoid the tragedy of distorted devolution, the constitution
should have been written in such way that its implementation
would create no problems for unity of the country; occasion a
struggle for power between governments of devolution, Senate,
National Assembly, Executive and the Judiciary; should not
have allowed negative ethnicity to be the ideology of
devolution to the detriment of Kenya and nationalism and
should not have conceived devolution that would allow it to
degenerate into majimbo.
Ultimately, devolution of, by and for the elite will do more
harm than good to common people. It will put elites into
power to exploit people and kill Kenya that is united and
above tribe.
Unless Kenyans get the right people to manage devolution, it
will do nothing to develop Kenya. Instead devolution will be
just another avenue of the elites to exploit the poor of all
communities and multiply their poverty and misery.
www.dexxaxx.blogspot.com
Tribalism is not a successful means
