/
and civic. Whereas the Bill of Rights in Chapter Four of the new Const and civic. Whereas the Bill of Rights in Chapter Four of the new Const

and civic. Whereas the Bill of Rights in Chapter Four of the new Const - PDF document

trish-goza
trish-goza . @trish-goza
Follow
391 views
Uploaded On 2017-02-24

and civic. Whereas the Bill of Rights in Chapter Four of the new Const - PPT Presentation

Challenges of Nationhood Identities citizenship and belonging under Kenya ID: 519094

Challenges Nationhood: Identities citizenship

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "and civic. Whereas the Bill of Rights in..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

and civic. Whereas the Bill of Rights in Chapter Four of the new Constitution can be viewed as an attempt to generate some sort of perpetual peace, it is the attempt to balance Ôcivic citizenshipÕ against Ôcultural citizenshipÕ that stands out as providing an avenue for further contestations. Drawing examples from everyday life in Kenya, opinion reviews and the new Constitution, this paper proposes a more critical and interpretative approach to the concepts of vertical and horizontal pluralism. The questions posed at the end of the paper invite reßection on politics beyond the sovereignty of the various cultural formations and mis-governance, both of which have ailed Kenya for 20 years at the expense of statecraft. The perspectives Challenges of Nationhood: Identities, citizenship and belonging under KenyaÕs new ConstitutionSID Constitution Working Paper No. 1011.0 Introduction According to the World Fact Book 2008 (CIA, 2009), roughly 109 constitutions have been written (or re-written) in the world since 1989. The vast majority of these have been done in post colonies like Kenya. In addition, there are now some 44 con s ti tutional courts functioning ac ross the planet (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2009). This quest for constitutions and their accompanying institutions has on many occasions been based on a belief in the salvational abilities of new constitutions, i.e., that constitutions in and of themselves they are able to deliver equitable, just, ethically-founded, paciÞcied polities. Yet constitution making projects are not just about salvation missions. That is to say that a constitution making project, more so in the post-colonial1 state, is also the place where wreckages of failed ideas of state-making and new experiments are evidenced. Daniel arap Moi, KenyaÕs president between 1978 and 2002, and William Ruto, his ideological soul mate and political progeny, who is also the current Member of Parliament (MP) for Eldoret North constituency, were the de-facto leaders of those opposed to the new Constitution Kenya adopted in August 2010. They contested the then Proposed Constitution of Kenya (PCK), claiming that it was Ôtoo experimentalÕ. Ruto was quoted in a leading local daily, The East Africa Standard, as challenging the United States of America (USA), to incorporate some of the ideas in the PCK into their own constitution if they thought that the ideas contained in it were that good (The East Africa Standard, 2010) There is little to see themselves as part of the broader entity of Kenyans rather than as members of a speciÞc tribe. And it was for this reason that the 2010 Constitution was scrutinized Ð to ensure that the Ôpeculiar interest(s)Õ of diverse groupings were catered for. The KAF function was convened to serve this very purpose. The mythology of Ôpeculiar interestÕ citizenship and belonging is about Ôthe groupÕ that one belongs to. It is corporate. That is, an individual belongs to Kenya if the interests of their group (most often read to refer to a given ethnic, religious and/or racial group) are catered for. ShabirÕs case and the campaigns around the 2010 Constitution also illustrate how the state conditions an individualÕs subjectivities and identities The state through its ofÞcials does have a common narrative of representing Kenyans and Kenyan-ness. Yet those who want to express or get proof of their citizenship are often presented with little choice besides the common ofÞcial narratives and bureaucratic categories, which invariably pigeon people according to their origins. the World Cup series and other global phenomena. Football is not the only site of these contestations in the global arena; they include religion, politics and other areas of competition that reproduce a sense of either inclusion or exclusion. The rationale for oneÕs choices seems to be anchored on as many fronts as are presented by everyday life. At one level they may be based on primordial assumptions about the ethnic or racial identities of others. Other times the choices are inßuenced by opportunities, circumstances, histories, etc. 2.3 KenyaÕs National dress. The quest reached Parliament in April 2004, Sociologist Gordon Wilson was employed by the colonial government to work amongst the Luo in the 1950s.Mamdani (1996) seems to have expanded on MudimbeÕs (1988) epistemology of colonialism in his book, The Invention of Africa: Gnosis, philosophy, and the order of knowledge, in which Mudimbe states that ÔColonialism and colonialization basically mean organization and arrangementÕ ( p. 2). was mostly used in instituting difference in KenyaÕs pre- and post-colonial state. Native Kenyans could therefore only belong to their ÔhomelandsÕ; their identity was emphatically attributed to some ÔnaturalÕ and ÔbiologicalÕ belonging, and a unitary citizenship was imposed against this background.The architectural structure of the colonial state was such an important subject within the colony that as early as 1930 the then secretary of state for colonies, prepared and submitted to the Parliament a Harambee was not the all-inclusive movement portrayed by its ofÞcial narratives. Rather, it was a means through which KenyattaÕs handlers (an ethnically organized group) accumulated capital and surged forward the patronÐclient political economy. At the time of KenyattaÕs death Kenyanization and Harambee had produced a nascent middle class with an ethnic image. By the time Kenya had been transformed by President Daniel arap Moi and KANU from a multi-party to a single party state in the mid 1980s, being Kenyan was more an issue of political identity than any other (Widner, 1992). MoiÕs authoritarian government conÞgured new forms of representation. A ÔtrueÕ Kenyan citizen had to be a member of KANU. Anyone who was not in possession of a KANU membership card, or who acted in opposition to KANU, was marked (and in certain instances incarcerated).7 Moi was fond of stating, Siasa mbaya, maisha mbaya, a Kiswahili expression that translates to Ôbad politics, bad lifeÕ. If any leader(s) questioned MoiÕs and KANUÕs misrule, then their entire language group would be punished. This was made easy by the fact that the cultural and administrative boundaries created under the colonial administration Ð and left intact after KenyaÕs independence Ð mirrored each other. Moi went further, however, and created additional cultural boundaries in the form of administrative districts. 7 !dent, published by Africa Research Resource Forum. Challenges of Nationhood: Identities, citizenship and belonging under KenyaÕs new ConstitutionSID Constitution Working Paper No. 109Cavallar, 2001: 235). Smith (1969) spoke to the same notion in his ideas of Ôdifferential incorporationÕ in a Ôcommon political societyÕ. In other words, as a country Kenya is not some sort of Ômelting potÕ of difference. Rather, it is a common political society that aspires to accommodate the different formations expressed in terms of ethnic groups, religious afÞliations and other identities. A reading of the ideas of both Kant (Cavallar, 2001) and Smith (1969) arguably afÞrms the idea of the constitution-making process in Kenya, as having been informed by the desire to establish principles of human rights and governance that would accommodate differentÕ groups, while at the same time enabling a common political society. On the subject of citizenship, the idea of perpetual peace raises three major questions: How do we ensure cultural diversity that is tolerant and co-existential? How do we accord dignity and human rights to all Kenyans? How do we inculcate ÔKenyan-nessÕ in an era of globalization8? These are all questions that come into play in attempting to create a uniform mould of citizenship Ð Kenyan-ness Ð in an era of pluralities. The three ethnographic scenarios described earlier are useful in responding to these questions. First, however, it is important to understand the concept of ÔpluralitiesÕ in order to understand its implications within the 2010 Constitution. Martin LegassickÕs (1977) Concept of Pluralism: A critique, provides a framework that may be useful in gaining an understanding of the question of pluralities. He builds on an analysis by M.G. Smith (1969), distinguishing between vertical and horizontal pluralities. Here horizontal pluralism refers to a situation in which people are different by choice (e.g., as a function of religious beliefs, different interests, etc.) or primordially (i.e., as a function of innate differences in skin pigmentation, blood group, language, etc.). Vertical pluralisms, on 8 As Arjun Appandurai (1999) has demonstrated, globalization and identities of local belonging, such as Kenyan-ness, do not necessarily form alternatives to each other. Rather, what has been most manifest as attested by calls for dual citizenship in Kenya is that globalization seems to have created an upsurge in quests for a local belonging that goes hand in hand with belonging to some transnational community. Also see AppanduraiÕs notion of ÔglobalocalityÕ (ibid.)the other hand, arise when social distinctions imply differences in access to socially valuable or even livelihood material resources. They are evidenced in cases of domination by one group over another, resulting in hierarchies. The result is that criteria of humanness are perceived not to be the same. In fact, such pluralities imply that human sameness is achieved and not innate. The 2010 Constitution recognizes that Kenya is a plural society and cites gender, cultural, generational and regional (horizontal) pluralisms as such categories. This is manifest in the three scenarios that were raised at the beginning of this paper. But as is illustrated in the Constitution, there are differences that the country has chosen to retain and others Ð more so those associated with economic inequality and differential dignity That parliament shall enact legislation to ensure that communities receive compensation or royalties for use of their cultures and cultural heritage.9 Terence Turner (1993: 413) isolated ÔcriticalÕ and Ôdi#erenceÕ multiculturalism as possible schools of thought. He argues that critical multiculturalism seeks to use cultural diversity as a basis to challenge, revise and put into use basic notions and principles common to dominant and minority cultures. Di#erence multiculturalism, on the be delayed. He calls for a stop to the current vernacularization12 of democracy. It is a bold suggestion for dealing with the dominant ethno-consciences Ð most of which are constructed on false consciousness. This author is reminded of his struggle as a young man at Moi University when he declined to join the Siaya Students Association. His reasons were many, but he refers to two here. and commoditized heritage as envisaged in the Constitution will undermine the project of creating clear and pure cultural boundaries. By ethnic sovereignty this author is referring to a situation in which a territory is deÞned as synonymous with certain people, e.g., the Embu live in Embu land, etc., a notion that Mutua (2010) has stated as problematic. Ethnic sovereignty is a myth and Þction, yet the new Constitution has retained this Þction by awarding sovereignty to communities based on understandings of culture. This assertion was recently given credence in a case where the Maa community in Narok stopped attempts by the government to settle internally displaced persons in what they consider ÒMaasai CountyÓ. The new Constitution goes further to award sovereignty to ethnic groups through administrative boundaries to be under county governments. This formula highlights differences at the expense of the pursuit of perpetual peace. It is not just the boundaries that are problematic. Rather, there is also the idea that cultural laws can be applied within these cultural zones. Couched under the notion of devolution, the suggested 47 counties are not much different from the Maasai country, Akamba country, etc., design under the colonial administration. Annex 1 provides an illustration of the issue, giving the list of counties and their corresponding dominant13 ethnic groups.7.0 Conclusion The Constitution promulgated in August 2010 offers Kenyans a singular opportunity to distance themselves from a past characterized by various forms of human-made barriers. I have suggested that most of these barriers were expressed through 13 These ethnic groups are referred to as dominant because the actual number of ethnic groups in Kenya remains unknown. Even within the so called ethnic groups like Luo or Embu, recent public debate and everyday life have attested that they are neither homogeneous nor bonded. Rather, there are signi!cant internal variations in language and practices. the politicization of what are otherwise horizontal differences. The horizontal differences have been described as non-hierarchical distinctions like language, religion, sex among others. The Bill of Rights and the values articulated in the August 2010 Constitution prohibit the use of these differences in inßuencing or determining how Kenyans enjoy their citizenship and rights. In undertaking its project of uniÞcation, the Constitution is liberal in accepting differences in culture, heritage and other areas considered ÔnaturalÕ. Nevertheless, it is in this liberal notion that we Þnd a new fault line, more so in the notion of culture. That is, the Constitution treats cultural difference as natural, irreversible and mappable. What are otherwise horizontal differences get mapped within political boundaries as counties. Concurrently, these political and cultural boundaries tend to inßuence identiÞcation and selfhood in a hierarchical manner, thus posing a threat of ÔinsidersÕ Garissa Somali Wajir Somali Mandera SomaliEastern Marsabit Borana Isiolo Turkana Meru Meru Tharaka-Nithi AmeruEmbu, Ameru Kitui Akamba Machakos Akamba Makueni Akamba Rift Valley Turkana Turkana HMSO (1930) Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa Cmd. 3573, London: His MajestyÕs Stationery OfÞce.Kymlicka, W. (2007) Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the new international politics of diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langlois, A.J. (2001) The Politics of Justice and Human Rights: Southeast Asia and universalist theorycritiqueÕ, in SID Constitution Working Paper No. 1019Mudimbe, V. (1988) The Invention of Africa: Gnosis, philosophy, and the order of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Mutua, Makau (2002) Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Mutua, M. (2010) ÔWhy Kenya Should Ban Tribal AssociationsÕ, Okechukwu, N. (2011) ÔThe spectacle of aso ebi in Lagos, 1990Ð2008Õ Postcolonial Studies 14(1): 45Ð62. Republic of Kenya (1963) The Constitution of Kenya, Nairobi: Government Printer.Republic of Kenya (2010) The Constitution of Kenya, Nairobi: Government Printer. Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Sichone, Owen (2003) ÔTogether and Apart: African refugees and immigrants in global Cape TownÕ, in David Chidester, Phillip Dexter and Wilmot James (eds.), What Holds Us Together: Social cohesion in South Africa, pp. 120Ð40, Cape Town: HSRC Press.Smith, M.G. (1969) ÔInstitutional and Political Conditions of PluralismÕ, in L. Kuper and M.G. Smith (eds.) Pluralism in Africa, Berkeley: University of California Press.Turner, T. (1993) ÔAnthropology and Multiculturalism: What is anthropology that multiculturalists should be mindful of it?Õ Author(s) Title1 Dr. Joshua Kivuva Restructuring the Kenyan state.2 Prof. Ben Sihanya The presidency and public authority in KenyaÕs new constitutional order. 3 Dr. Obuya Bagaka Restructuring the Provincial Administration: An InsiderÕs View.4 Devolution in KenyaÕs new Constitution.5 Mr. Njeru Kirira Public Finance under KenyaÕs new Constitution.6 Dr. Musambayi Katumanga Security in KenyaÕs new constitutional order. 7 Elections, representations and the new Constitution. 8 Mr. Kipkemoi arap Kirui The Legislature: Bi-cameralism under the new Constitution. and Mr. Kipchumba Murkomen 9