ELECTORAL DESPOTISM in KENYA: Land, Patronage and Resistance in the Multi-Party Context
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ELECTORAL DESPOTISM IN KENYA: Land, Patronage and Resistance in the Multi-Party Context Jacqueline M. Klopp Department of Political Science McGill University, Montreal January 2001 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 2 Abstract In Africa, the new electoral freedoms of the 1990s often usherd in not less but more violence and corruption. Somewhat paradoxically, democratization appeared to lead to greater despotism. Current theories of democratic transitions fail to adequately explain this negative “fall out”. On the one hand, by focusing on formal institutional change, most transitions theory marginalizes the “informal” politics of patronage and violence. On the other hand, theorists of “informal” politics tend to assume that formal institutional change does not impinge on patrimonial dynamics. This thesis explains how the advent of electoral freedom challenges patrimonialism and, in the process, deepens local despotism. By a careful look at the Kenyan case, this thesis argues that the re-introduction of multiple political parties posed a genuine challenge to highest level patronage networks. This challenge consisted of “patronage infla- tion”: competitive elections escalated demands for and promises of patronage just as international conditionalities and economic difficulties led to a decline in tradi- tional supplies of patronage. Further, with multiple political parties, voters gained bargaining power to demand both resources and accountability. A critique of patri- monialism emerged into the public realm, particularly from those who had lost out in the spoils system, the growing numbers of poor and landless. These challenges were met by counter-strategies on the part of those most set to lose by a turnover in elections. With the introduction of alternative political parties, President Moi and key patronage bosses instigated localized but electorally beneficial violence in the form of “ethnic clashes”. In their struggle to maintain patrimonial dominance, they also increasingly turned to less internationally scrutinized public lands as a patron- i ii ABSTRACT age resource, leading to increasing and increasingly violent “land grabbing”. This triggered counter mobilizations which aimed at reasserting local control over pub- lic lands. Containing schools, clinics, forests, and other public goods, these lands for many represent the “fruits of independence” and the Kenyan nation at a local level. As a result, movements against their appropriation tended to be articulated in a bricolage of class and nationalist terms. By appealing to a Kenyan nation and by demanding local accountability and debate about land, these movements pose a challenge to the material basis, principles, and practice of patrimonialism and present a potential counter-politics to Kenya’s current electoral despotism. Pr´ecis Au courant des ann´ees 1990, la transition du Kenya vers une plus grande libert´e´e lectorale sous forme de syst`eme multipartiste a engendr´eundespotismepluss´ev`ere au niveau local. Ce “despotisme ´electorale”, li´e au maitien du pouvoir malgr´ela comp´etition ´electorale, a caus´e des ”conflits ethniques” (“ethnic clashes”) violents at le “saisissement de terrains” (“land-grabbing”). Les th´eories sur les transitions d´emocratiques dans les soci´et´es patrimoniales n’ont pas r´eussiapr´ ` evoir, ni par la suite expliquer ces cons´equences n´efastes. Cette lacune est due `a la supposition que le multi-partisme n’aurait aucune influence sur la politique de patronage at `a l’inattention de la recherche empirique `a la politique “informelle”, en particulier au niveau local. Cette ´etude affirme que la r´eintroduction de partis politiques multiples a pos´eund´efi important au niveau le plus ´elev´edelahi´erarchie du patronage du Kenya: l’ “inflation du patronage”, c’est-`a-dire le processus par lequel l’introduction des ´elections concurrentialles a intensifi´e les demandes et les promesses de patron- age, alors que la corruption et les difficult´es ´economiques menaientaund´ ` eclindes ressources traditionelles de patronage. De plus, avec le choix de partis politiques, les ´electeurs ont augment´e leur pouvoir. Simultan´ement, une critique de patrimonialisme ´emergeait dans la domaine politique, issue de ceux et celles qui ont historiquement iii souffert sous la politique de patronage, en particulier la population croissante de per- sonnes pauvres et d´emunies de terre. Ceux qui ´etaient les plus menac´es par le risque d’une d´efaite ´electorale ont introduit de nouvelles strat´egies pour faire face aux d´efis pos´es par l’introduction du multipartisme. En particulier, le President Moi et des chefs de patronage importants ont utilis´e leur autorit´e bureaucratique qui datait de l’epoque coloniale, y compris le pouvoir relatifa ` l’allocation de terres, pour inciter des “conflits ethniques” g´eographiquement circonscrits dans leur domaines mais impor- tants pour gagner les´elections. Aussi, en r´eaction contre l’ “inflation du patronage” les terrains publiques, qui n’attiraient peu d’attention internationale, ont ´et´e utilis´es comme ressource de patronage, ce qui a men´e`a la multiplication de “saisissements de terrains”, c’est-`a-dire leur privitisation irr´eguli`ere. Ceci a d´eclenchi des mouvements populaires qui visentar´ ` eaffirmer le contrˆole local des terrains publiques. Ces terrains, sur lesquels on retrouve des ´ecoles, des cliniques, des forˆets et d’autres biens publiques, repr´esentent pour plusieurs la nation k´enyane au niveau local. En cons´equence, les mouvements contre leur appropriation sont souvent concu en termes nationalistes. En faisant appel `alanationek´enyane et en exigeant la responsibilit´e et la discussion locales du sujet de la terre, ces mouvements pr´esent un defi a la base materielle, aux principes et `a la pratique du patrimonialisme, pr´esentent une possibilit´edenouvelle politique de lutte contre le despotisme ´electoral actuel du Kenya. iv ABSTRACT Acknowledgements Shortly after I stepped onto rich, red Kenyan soil for the first time in 1988, the seeds for this thesis were planted. I have since accumulated many mentors, colleagues and friends to whom this project owes a great deal. My advisor Philip Oxhorn improved this work substantially with his insightful comments. His encouragement and un- failing kindness contributed to making the process of creating this tome enjoyable. Despite a daunting schedule, Stephen Ndegwa courageously agreed to be my commit- tee member, read my thesis draft in between trips to Kenya, and provided not only prompt but valuable commentary. My other committee member, Narendra Subra- manian proferred helpful advice and fascinating conversations. I am also grateful to my external reviewer Michael Chege, as well as John Galaty, who provided helpful insight into Maasai land problems. When I first started at McGill, Frank Kunz and John Shingler both took me under their wings. They imparted bits of their immense knowledge, but also reinforced my conviction that a concern with the human con- dition, rather than mere “scientific” imperative, can lead to important scholarship. Bruce Berman and John Lonsdale provided far more help than they are perhaps aware. Their superb work on Kenyan political history was an inspiration, and their immense generosity in taking the time to read and comment on this work in its most infantile forms puts me in great debt. No graduate student should be without others to share the experience of writing. Stephen Brown and Elke Zuern were wonderfully constructive critics and equally wonderful friends. I am grateful for the time we shared in New York going through the thesis process in parallel. In Montreal, Susan Ship shared not only her brilliant v vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS mind, but at various times her home and much laughter. Janai Orina never failed to provide insights drawn from his life in the thick of Kenyan politics as a student activist. It was a great comfort to talk over the complexities, tragedies, and triumphs of politics in his homeland. Despite a difficult life in exile, Janai took time to read my work, respond to my many questions, and, through the simple act of conversing, brought Kenya back to me when it seemed distressingly far away. Many thanks also to Helena Halperin for her encouragement and friendship which started with a shared passion for Kenya. In Kenya itself, there are more people who deserve to be thanked than I can name and who deserve more credit than my words can muster. This includes all those who agreed to be interviewed and who made appearances in my thesis. My dear, brave friend Kang’ethe Mungai shared his contacts, friends, thoughts, and boundless enthusiasm. His vision and heroic will to make Kenya a place free of torture and social injustice often uplifted my spirits and kept me from many moments of despair. The entire utterly courageous staff of Release Political Prisoners welcomed me into their lives and work and suffered me tagging along with them and asking a steady stream of questions. Their influence stretches into this work and has made it richer. I owe a big “asante sana sana” to Grace Gathoni, Okoth Okwany, and Prisca Awori, efficient, thorough, and dedicated research assistants who provided many valuable insights. From my very first visit to the Institute for Policy Analysis, Musambayi Katumanga became an enormous fount of assistance and ideas, generously providing me with his own extremely valuable work. Tom Wolf, that remarkable