Tribe: Friend or Foe

I recently had a conversation with a good American who happens to be a close friend of mine. The conversation dealt mainly with tribalism and problems associated with it. She wondered aloud why loyalties in Kenya continue to be very much divided along tribal lines. She very much appreciated Kenya's complicated history both during the colonial period and before. What she could not really understand was why, to use her own words, the naming of long-time tribal enmity is so objectionable to me. My friend could not help concluding that “the very term 'tribe' is heinous” to me. I am not sure if this is a correct representation of why in my opinion the term “tribe” is not acceptable.
However, our discussion was at a crucial time when “tribal” mayhem reigned supreme in Kenya after the much disputed presidential election. Since then looting and murder have ceased. Kenyans now have in place a coalition government which in actual sense is an amalgamation of “tribal” chiefs and their cronies. But even as the country celebrates this achievement, it must be noted that none of the megalomaniacs who instigated “tribal” violence has been brought to justice. More distressing, the internally displaced continue to languish in poverty and humiliation. Now, compare events in Kenya and the Zimbabwean situation. It seems to me that the only difference is that Zimbabweans handle their political situation more “maturely” than Kenyans. Instead of resorting to rungus and machetes, they coil at the roar of the everlasting Mugabe. But the bottom-line remains the same, that is, “tribal” politics hang precariously over Africans’ very survival. With the media both in Africa and West reminding us of Rwanda, it would be futile trying to reject or oppose any notion of tribalism. But can Africans draw anything positive from “tribe” and “tribalism” without being accused of perpetuating or resurrecting its “savage” past?
I believe that “tribe” is not a helpful term and should be drop in all our conversational and intellectual discourses. In the modern world (or is it postmodern?) the term tribe has been positively defined to refer to any social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations; and/or a group of people having a common character, occupation, or interest.[1] However, in the minds of many journalists and most Westerners the anthropological construction takes precedence more so in reference to Africa. Generally, the aboriginal meaning is intented. In this case the term tribe is viewed through historical or evolutionary prisms to refer to “a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states”. It covers most non-Western societies which are seen by anthropologists as largely organized on the basis of kinship.[2] Following this anthropological construct, all conflicts in African societies are always described as atavistic and barbaric in nature.
Personally, I attribute the sociohistorical transformation in Africa to colonialism and capitalism. In Kenya, for example, the anthropological understanding of the tribe as enumerated above, was effectively used by Sir Charles Eliot (the first colonial governor) who in 1905 categorically proclaimed Kenya as a “Whiteman Country.” But it was not until 1919 (under governorship of Sir Edward Northey) when “tribe” became part of the colonial system and a policy was adopted and used to segregate all Kenyan “tribes” into “Native Reserves” leaving the economic productive land in the hands of European settlers. The “purely Native areas” were divided into provinces or districts separated from other communities with the post of Chief Commissioner of the Native Affairs Department created to oversee implementation of the policy. European Settlements fell under Resident Magistrates. The “natives”, particularly in Kikuyuland were forced to live near or in the settled areas in order to supply cheap labour to the white farmers. Therefore, by sheer accident of history some of the communities in Kenya (e.g. Kikuyu) benefited from this colonial set-up either because of their close proximity to the European farms and city of Nairobi or through forced dislocation to the settled areas (mainly in the expansive Rift Valley.) Post-colonial government under Kenyatta perpetuated these social-economic advantages of the favored communities at the disillusionment of other less advantaged communities. Nonetheless, President Moi spent a good part of his years to reverse or stall any progress that the favored communities had achieved. In order to succeed in his attempts Moi used the old colonial tactics which emphasized “tribal” differences as magnified by anthropologists of old. In actual fact President Moi succeeded in perfecting “tribal” divide as political device.
Consequently, “tribe”, as an anthropological construct, has been powerfully used to brainwash and make the African look pathetically at his God-given identity. The present situations in Kenya and Zimbabwe proof my thesis correct that the African elite and Christian leaders who have taken power from the colonial masters with the great support from the masses perpetuate the legacy of “tribalism” and colonialism. By rejecting our own value system as reflected in our social organisation (call it tribal if you may), the elite class has adopted the Western middle class mode of living and behavior. The new political and economic arrangements impact negatively on the spirit and values governing human relationships. As a result, social and moral values have been distorted and reversed resulting to drastic historical change of the religious, political, economic, and cultural ethos. Capitalism and the competitive accumulation of private property and profit (as adopted by the ruling class and imposed on the ignorant masses) have encouraged the most reactionary, clannish, and regional feelings (as Ngugi wa Thiong’o would put it) which keep the Africans divided.
Nonetheless, all is not lost. On December 27th, 2007 the Kenyan communities (and later Zimbabweans in March) waited patiently in voting queues and stood as witnesses to themselves that they understood very well that their destiny was in nobody else’s hands. Why then is Africa burning? One may ask. I am proposing that the answer lies in apathy and lack of appreciation of the richness and diversity derived in our social reality. We view “tribes” as aberration of the “ideal” human society. Left with nothing to admire of ourselves, we have turned West. In envy and adoration of the “ideal” humanity as represented in the Western world, the Africans desire that which is far removed from themselves. Unconscious of its implication, we have alienated ourselves from our natural and social environment. As a result, the location of our imagination is no longer in Africa but in Europe and America. This is evident in our quick embrace of multi-party democracy. A quarter of a century since introduction of multi-party politics in Kenya as borrowed from the West, African elites have pushed their constituents to withdrawn into “tribal” and religious enclaves. Democracy then is translated to mean voting for our own “tribal” gods. As such, anybody who refuses to vote for my “god” is an enemy and must be annihilated. Does this sound like a contradiction of what have been said so far? Not so! Can we then conclude that what we have witnessed so far in Kenya and Zimbabwe symbolizes the demise of Xeroxed multi-party politics? Is it possible for Africans to evolve their own form of democracy that embraces and encourages our rich heritage and diversity? Africans will have to gather together at the Well of Reason and communally draw from It water that gives meaning and hope. We cannot allow the political elite to shape our destiny. We must take charge and map our way ahead. This is the way I see it.
[1] http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tribe
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe