We must redefine the term 'marginalisation'

Kenya is frequently mistreated by its leaders. Implementing the 2010 Constitution remains a Herculean task because those who should spearhead this seemingly do not believe in either its letter or spirit.

Kenyans reluctantly passed the Constitution partly because they had suffered excessive Katiba fatigue for more than two decades. Since it was built on quicksand rather than solid rock, it is shaky and enables those harbouring unconstitutional desires to exploit various narratives to deny others the rights.

Among those narratives is one of marginalisation. Sadly, the marginalisation narrative marginalises some Kenyans and areas in the name of protecting some marginalised zones. It promotes the claim that sparse population in some places is evidence of marginalisation, while population density in others proves availability of public resources.

This claim is misleading. Why? Because it makes people who are marginalised by virtue of living in congested areas to become even more marginalised. They get little if any national services and yet are accused of getting what they do not get. 

There is, therefore, need to redefine the concept of marginalisation.

Since those living in urban slums and other congested areas are extremely marginalised in the national discourse, the supposed debate on revenue sharing exposes the hypocrisy of some politicians who do not want the constitution implemented either in spirit or letter.

They instead worsen the marginalisation of poor people in such populated zones such as Kangemi, Mathare, Kibra, Mukuru and Kawangware in Nairobi.

Political contestation

The marginalisation discourse is all part of politics Kenya-style. It brings forth two types of leaders. First are leaders/politicians that play marginalisation politics very well and have the ability to turn an issue that should be straightforward into one for political contestation.

Second are leaders who, fearing to be labelled tribalists run away from defending positions. They cave into collective injustice in order to receive praises from peculiar quarters. The first group craftily takes advantage of the inherent fear of looking bad in the second group that surrenders collective interests in order to look good.

The supposed debate on revenue allocation, for instance, has little to do with the amount of money being allocated to which county but has everything to do with the politics of ‘kusetiana’ na ‘kuchimbiana’.

Selective victimisation

The Commission on Revenue Allocation did its work last year but the Senate dilly-dallied until the last minute, consequently delaying  financial disbursement to the counties. The subsequent political circus, therefore, reeks of mischief and brings out undercurrents of anti-Kenya sentiments.

The undercurrents come in many forms. Although the preamble to the Constitution talks of “We the People”, some “leaders” try to reduce the humanity of other people by ignoring the notion of equity and even encourage selective victimisation.

In search of popularity as petty kings and queens, they promise to visit violence on targeted people in particular places.

Clashes in Mau and Nakuru areas, threats to people in Mpeketoni, tensions in Meru-Tharaka Nithi, and skirmishes in Ndeiya, make security forces appear helpless.

There also are chest thumping “leaders” trying to prove their toughness by threatening to fragment the country through secessionism at either the county or regional levels.

Since they have done so before, such threats cannot be idle talk.

The threats hinge on two misguided beliefs. First, that some regions will suffer or gain more from fragmentation than others. Those calling for fragmentation think that they will benefit individually by becoming big frogs in little ponds or petty kings and queens in little nooks. They do not care whether those places suffer or not as long as they become big men/women.

They also imagine that their counties or regions can do very well in isolation from the rest of the country and that the people who will suffer are in the regions they do not like.

There increasingly are echoes of 43 against one similar to the 2007, 41 against one, without specifying the community to be denied equity in national benefits or to be isolated and why.

- Prof Munene teaches at USIU