“Don’t be in a hurry to condemn those who don’t think the way you do, or do what you do. There was a time you did not know what you do today.” – Malcolm X
I write this paper conscious of the heightened political conversations and discussions in Kenya today. These discussions and conversations are squarely located in print and digital media spaces, including television stations, podcasts, and radio stations. But nowhere is politics in Kenya discussed more intensely than in social media spaces, where the population engages in politics in different shapes and forms. As the 2027 general elections draw closer, therefore, the divide between the “two‑term” and “one‑term” factions is likely to get wider. Politicians are likely to align differently depending on the position of their political parties, the different positions, ideologies and principles they hold, their route to power, and the different available coalitions. This is but a characteristic of an open and free democratic space such as the one in Kenya – a characteristic crystallised by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
While the political debates by the masses are highly encouraged, there is need to be careful, as there are those (among us) who are likely to think they are better than others, stronger than others, and therefore seek to emasculate others. If you were keen, you must have heard the word “Cancel them.” These are groups of people who feel politically superior and want to emasculate others who may not share their political preferences. If this does not scare you, then perhaps the recent horror and subsequent death of Rachael Wandeto will. The back story is that the lady – a gospel singer – was doused with petrol and set ablaze, resulting in seventy percent (70%) burns on her body. The reason for this heinous crime against her was that she was an ardent supporter of President William Ruto, having tattooed the President’s face on her body. If this story does not scream lack of political tolerance, then what does? And what does political tolerance mean?
Political tolerance has been defined as accepting and respecting the basic rights and civil liberties of persons and groups whose viewpoints differ from one’s own. This means that as other Kenyans sing and dance to the “one‑term” tune, it is only prudent and fair to allow the “two‑term” crowd to also sing and dance in their campaign. It is, in fact, a hallmark of democracy to allow those who want to run for political office to do so within the limits of the law, and to allow those who want to support certain candidates to do so in a free, open democratic space within the limits of the law. I do hold a strong, “educated” view that “cancelling” people who do not think like you do, sending goons to beat and disrupt them, or even spewing hate speech does not make them change their minds. Political intolerance, if anything, only serves to alienate people and bring out our diversity as a society. What are the reasons for the culture of political intolerance?
One of the reasons why the culture of political tolerance is not widely practised in Kenya today is because of the system of “ethnic” or “tribal” mobilisation that has been used since the advent of multi‑party democracy. This, in fact, was one of the fears of President Daniel T. Moi even as he opted to repeal Section 2A of the Constitution so as to re‑introduce multi‑party democracy in Kenya. While the Gen‑Z and upcoming generations may not care much about tribalism and ethnicity, ethnic mobilisation and the “game of tribes” still remain a very big currency in politics. As true as the sun rises from the east, people in Kenya still hold dear to kingpin politics. This is to say that, like in ancient times, there are a few chosen politicians who are seen as the stewards of their communities. Further to this, political coalitions and different groups have always, to a large extent, been created based on different tribes and ethnicities. This reality is further punctuated by political rhetoric such as “cousins” who are expected to come together and seek political power. This is not only exclusionary but also an attempt to band one tribe or a few tribes together against others. This is in addition to the fact that, although the Constitution and the requisite statutory legislations envisage national political parties, the reality is that many of these parties are tribal homes or houses, if not personal companies. This certainly causes or triggers political intolerance, as many Kenyans still resonate with tribal differences often camouflaged as political differences.
Another reason why the culture of political tolerance is minimally practised is exclusion in government. Chief Justice Martha Koome, while undertaking judges’ and magistrates’ interviews, has always been keen on ethnic and regional balance as a key consideration in nominations to the relevant offices. Although on the face of it this appears mundane, it is not only a constitutional imperative but also a reality that the government ought to be inclusive rather than exclusionary. This can easily be traced through the history of Kenya as one of those historical injustices that the current society, through the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, attempts to rectify. I dare say that while the technocrats will always be keen to balance things out, for politicians, political power is a gain “in exclusion of others.” The recent talk of “government by share” only serves as proof of this political attitude. This indeed breeds political intolerance, as those excluded and out of the “kitchen” will always feel like lesser people while those in the “kitchen” feel entitled – the “house negro” and “field negro” philosophy, I presume.
The other reason that curbs the practice of political tolerance in Kenya is the issue of class differences. Although stratification is always part of any society, there is a feeling that politicians in Kenya are of a higher class and do not resonate with the “problems” of their constituencies. As ordinary Kenyans struggle to put food on their tables, those in power have been accused of swimming in luxury – hence the contestations around the Finance Bill, 2024 and the Gen‑Z protests that ensued. When citizens feel that Parliament and those in positions of authority are in a frolic of their own, then political intolerance creeps in. When citizens are frustrated, there is a chance that reason goes out the window and emotions take over, leading to political intolerance.
The inadequate political tolerance is also powered by a lack of proper institutions. The difference between the Independence Constitution and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 is that the later document is anchored on institutions. Institutions are meant to stabilise the governance structure of a country. In Kenya, however, institutions appear to be weak and ineffective. The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), as one of the institutions meant to deal with integration and cohesion, has in my view greatly failed, leading to political intolerance. It is important for Kenya to be a cohesive nation in spite of its diversity and divergent viewpoints.
By Ouma Kizito Ajuong’
Advocate of the High Court of Kenya
