Everlasting:

On a hill
Lonely, casting eyes to the endless horizon
In thoughts, in tears
Longing for her
I missed
I saw her face
She smiled
I reached out
Touched her formless form
Did she say she is?
- Kinyua.

Come now, let US reason together

In my last post I attempted to answer some fundamental questions that ought to be addressed by all of us and more so those of us who believe in the beauty of multi-ethnicity. I proposed that we cannot afford to sweep our differences under the carpet or entrust our destiny to anybody else but us. Several questions still remain unanswered. Isn’t leadership a public and a sacred trust? What happens if that trust is betrayed? What future do we have as a multi-ethnic Republic? Does the Christian Church have a role to play in this future? I will try to answer some of these questions at a later time. For now I want draw attention to dialogue as a tool that is yet to be tried in the Kenyan socio-ethnic scene. But before I can offer some of my thoughts in regard to dialogue, let me first do a reality check on our progress as a nation.

In the last few weeks, we have witnessed politicians in a rare show of unity crisscrossing the country in an attempt to rally communities to embrace tolerance and forgiveness. Ironically, these same politicians now championing for peace and good neighborliness spent most of the past five years traversing the country fanning unnecessary ethnic tension and hatred for political expediency. Curiously none among the political elite appears to be willing to face the tougher choice of addressing causes of the recent ethnic mayhem. Considering all that is happening in Kenya, politicians want us to believe that our problems evaporated into thin air the moment a coalition government was formed. It is scandalous to assume that Kenyans have miraculously learned the art of living together as brothers and sisters with the formation of a “grand coalition”. Recent experiences should serve as a clarion call. Kenyans cannot afford to continue disregarding problems that arise out of our ethnic diversity. We must as well acknowledge that ethnicity is here to stay and no amount of denial or self-negation will erase this reality.

While the politicians continue to misread and misrepresent this diversity, Church leaders as well seem to have abdicated their responsibility as the moral voice and conscience of the nation. Rather than become actively engaged in the process of finding a lasting solution, we hear them plead (or should I say beg?) with the politicians to hasten the healing and reconciliation process. To sooth our disappointment and helplessness the Church anesthetizes our wounded souls with the “shauri ya mungu” doctrine. We rationalize that God must be working through our pain and suffering in order to do something greater and eternal. In some other circles the blame is squarely laid at the feet of the devil. But must we always blame God or the devil for our self-inflicted predicaments? I have found myself wondering if the Kenyan Church has in any one time in history involved itself in seeking long-term solution(s) to the problem of ethnicity. The Church is called to the world as a prophetic voice that awakens the moral conscience of a nation. When the church fails in its prophetic role, then it loses its moral voice. The Church in Kenya seems to have lost its moral voice.

We know that the Church down history lane has not always lived up to this prophetic call. In the Medieval period, a slight deviation from the given dogmas was reason enough to send one to the gallows or to the furnace. Great men of the cloth such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox and others are known to have at one time or another sided with the ruling class in order to crush and silence religious dissenters. It is no secret also that Western Christendom sanctioned colonialism and imperialism as divinely instituted establishments for the benefit of the “uncivilized” other. Closer home, Christians supported and even financed genocide in Rwanda. Ministers of religion and priests are known to have harbored perpetrators of one of the most heinous acts of genocide in modern Africa. We recently also witnessed in Kenya men of the cloth coming out in public to endorse their preferred presidential candidates based not on reason or policy but purely on ethnicity. Religious leaders are known to have taken side with their “own” and never quick to condemn politicians who are known to have preached hatred and warmongering. In my opinion, the church, having lost its moral and prophetic voices can only watch from the periphery as politicians take charge. Can the Church redeem itself? Absolutely! What the Church in Kenya needs is to be more intentional and be a little imaginative in order to construct conducive environment that promotes dialogue and constructive engagement.

I wish now to suggest some concrete ways in which the Church may adopt in order to address issues affecting us as a multi-ethnic republic. In the first place, our diversity and the complexities thereof, demand that we begin putting in place a system that values openness and dialogue in a country where opinions are diverse. Practice of dialogue is foundational in quest for a meaningful existence as a diverse community. As a matter of fact, the importance of dialogue in meaning making cannot be underestimated when we bear in mind that as humans we respond dialogically to our environment. Yes, dialogue is an art that is learned and nurtured. Psychologists tell us that the family into which we are born is the rudimentary learning center where we learn to practice dialogue. Through body communication mostly between mother and the baby, the child picks up initial dialogical response to the other. Over time this response evolves into actual conversation. A child who grows in an environment where genuine love is expressed tends to respond positively to every other human being who comes into her life. More so, if the child experience lively conversations around the fire place or at the dinner table where people speak passionately but without animosity about differing opinions, the child is definitely going to develop the art of differentiating between arguing and discussing. On the other hand, a child who thrives in a violent environment, particularly where the father is always absent and when at home never speaks to anybody, most likely that child will never learn to hold conflict well or talk things out. Apart from psychologists, we may as well learn a lesson from our ancestors. Whenever, the Africans of old held a baraza, it was a general rule that whoever took the floor to argue a point was not to suffer any interruption. Even when he stopped speaking, the “muthamaki” would say to him “Have you finished speaking?” Only after this question would the “muthamaki” give the floor to the next speaker.

The examples given help us to appreciate the importance of learning and nurturing dialogue. When this lesson is rightly applied people learn to genuinely allow themselves to understand the position held by other. They learn to see and feel the world from the point of view of their “enemies”. Therefore, it is important for the Kenyan Church to develop a plan of action that can bring this to fruition. It can happen through organizing intercultural, interethnic, and interreligious conversations. The best place to begin, however, is at the school and churches. Religion, culture and appropriate education system are of utmost importance in the process of learning to practice dialogue. But the Church must be instrumental in revising pedagogical approach already in use. Most Kenyans have been schooled in a system where knowledge is mystified and learning centers including churches become galleries where pastors, teachers, tutors, politicians and administrators play superstars. As students we learn to passively receive and only expected to parrot back what has been given to us by the ever-knowing teachers and college tutors. Students are never expected to question knowledge as imparted. The cliché of our time was “if I tell you to jump, first jump and while up in the air ask how high.” We must accept that this is not a healthy way of developing individuals who would be willing to respond to others dialogically. The pedagogical approach must change and allow the student, the parishioner, the constituent or the mwananchi to play an active role in the learning process. Right pedagogical approach is fundamental in order to enhance art of sensing and responding to the concerns of the other and learning to see things through the eyes of the other. Educational system should not just train students to take up their place in the job market but must also prepare us to be citizens of the world. Education must help us appreciate the human person and the person’s unique value. This last point brings me to my next suggestion.

It is Aristotle who first described human beings as political animal designed by nature to live in an ordered community. When perfected, according to Aristotle, the human “is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all. Injustice is most dangerous when armed with intelligence, and without virtue man becomes the most unholy and most savage of all animals” (Politics, i. 2.) We can draw two lessons from Aristotle. The first lesson we can learn from him is that a person is not an isolated monad. We exist in multiple relationships. As humans we are called to live and work with others in the family, church, political community and other broader human social communities such as ethnic as well as multi-ethnic groups. As social beings we live in relationship with all other human beings and with everything that God has made. This social aspect of human existence is an essential part of the human reality and for our proper human development. Translated into our discussion on dialogue, this means that as human beings we are called to be open to differences of culture, language, education, and viewpoints. As Kenyans, we can no longer afford to see each other in such non-personal terms as “Kikuyu hii” or “Njaluo hii” but instead we must begin to see each other as human beings. The sacredness of the human in Kalenjin, Giriama, Kikuyu, Luo, among others is received from graciousness which God has abundantly outpoured onto us. Let me be a little dogmatic here. As Kenyans we must bear in mind that God given dignity has been given to each of us in the person of Jesus Christ and received through the Holy Spirit to renewal and redeem. Each of us whether Luhya, Kisii, Meru, Turkana or Taveta is a gift from God. If we can grasp this understanding that our human relation is a reality actualized in the world through Christ we would appreciate the deeper conception and reality of our ethnic diversity. It calls for a conversion of the individual human mind to take up “the mind of Christ” as Apostle Paul required of the Philippians. Habitual communion with Christ’s words and spirit would serve to increase our interethnic relations and service to God through fair-mindedness, goodwill and friendliness. While dialogue, fair-mindedness and friendship are important, the converted mind must also be zealous for justice. This brings us to my second lesson that the Church can learn from Aristotle.

Aristotle helps us appreciate the distinguishing characteristic of the human being from that of the animal world. By nature the human is “a political animal”, so Aristotle argued. This is to say that, human being has the capacity to develop an ordered social life, in which justice is administered and the competition of the jungle has restraint put upon it by practice of law. Violence and use of force as recently witnessed in Kenya must be substituted for the appeal to justice. Injustices done to communities from colonial days and perpetuated by succeeding governments must as well be addressed in order to avoid anarchy and ruin. The land issues and ethnic differences must not be settled by the callous pursuit of material, murder and violence but by reasoned appeal to justice and equity. Dialogue would only be functional if applied to the rule law and justice. The internally displaced must be resettled immediately and unconditionally; Murderers and arsonists must face the full force of the law; land laws must be reformed and be brought to the modern standards among other things. But most importantly, “Come, let US reason together.” There is no shortcut to bringing healing and reconciliation to our wounded nation.

The Great One

The wind blew,
From the northern carrying with it deathly spell,
Howling and wailing as the gust passed,
Taking with it roof tops and leaving the sheep
Naked, uncovered and shaky;

The chimney was gone taken into the heavenly
Like Elijah, clouds of darkness swallowed it.
Gushing rain and wind dampened the hearth;
All silence, deathly silence
In a distant, a dog howled
An owl hooted;
The great one had fallen.

The hearth reassembled,
Fire of eternity burnt
Bringing with it warmth untold.
The joy of knowing her rekindled
Beauty, laughter, tears filled the room
No longer to depart
Forever yours
She muttered…
- Kinyua.

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

Faceless

Elohim
God or gods…
They say that the Most High lives on High
He of Ages
Rock of our salvation
I accept

Jehovah
Omnipresent, Omniscient so they say
Silhouette
Like Amin, Moi, Mobutu,
Him I fear and tremble
Omnipotent and Mighty
Like Brits, Japs, and The Eagle
Sweeping through Falluja
Like an African Whirlwind
Marching, Singing, Crushing
Under their boots, enemies of freedom -
Him I loathe

But wait!
In the Book, I glean
Like the eagle broods over her young ones
So Emanuel spreads Her wings
She Who Is
Like a mother
She, I love and embrace
Melting in Her everlasting arms
Knowing too well that She Who Is
Is but a dream
For in his cassock he decrees
No human terms can help grasp Him
For God is Unknowable
She-He … Unfathomed
A Mystery…
- Kinyua.