Cape Town, South Africa – APATHETIC MIDDLE CLASS TAKES TO THE STREETS
President Jacob Zuma is not going anywhere in a hurry. However, a number of South Africans are battling to understand why not.
As far as they are concerned, factions are rife in the ruling party, there are whispers and dark mutterings about private armies being recruited to defend party headquarters and to infiltrate opposition protests. There have been high-profile sackings from the Cabinet and resignations from parliament. As a result, a normally apathetic middle class has taken to the streets to demonstrate with opposition parties, trade unionists, senior members of the clergy and civil society.
These South Africans are also concerned about what they perceive as the securitisation of the state. The recently appointed police minister is talking about fighting fire with fire in his threats to those who dare protest against the state. The acting police commissioner is dismissive of court rulings allowing protests. There is open lawfare in the courts. Parliament is once more discussing a motion of no-confidence even though the ruling party’s numbers in the House mean it is at best a waste of effort.
Unhappy South Africans can see signs that that their economy is under attack, with international ratings agency after agency giving the country the thumbs down. This middle class coalition of black and white South Africans is hurting and are upset by the stories they read in their newspapers, magazines, see on TV and hear on their favourite talk radio stations about the perceived influence of the shadowy Gupta family in affairs of state.
The recently appointed police minister is talking about fighting fire with fire in his threats to those who dare protest against the state. The acting police commissioner is dismissive of court rulings allowing protests
They are up in arms that a recent reshuffle saw the well-liked finance minister Pravin Gordhan fired and as a direct result the country’s credit rating was revised to ‘junk’ status – meaning hard times lie ahead.
Furthermore, these people are upset that last year, the president was found by the Constitutional Court to have failed to uphold the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the president at the centre of all the dissension and intrigue appears unmoved, unimpressed and unamused as he chuckles and pushes his spectacles higher up on the bridge of his nose using his middle finger. In fact if anything the president is digging in his heels, whipping up sympathy in his substantial constituency of diehard supporters, among whom are the majority of South Africans who make up the grassroots of this democracy. He is also reliant on a top political leadership from with his ruling party that seems unable or unwilling to take him on, in any meaningful way.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if a fly on the wall of the presidency were to report that President Jacob Zuma, in the manner of Effie White – the character from the Broadway musical and film, Dreamgirls, who refuses to accept that her relationship with her boyfriend is on the rocks – was defiantly humming ‘And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going’ to himself in response to the chants of ‘Zuma must go’ coming from the street protestors.
THE FIRST REAL AFRICAN BIG MAN SINCE 1994
If anyone bothered to ask them, many from north of the Limpopo – that place that some South Africans like to refer to as ‘Africa’ as if it were not the same landmass that they live on – could tell these angry, increasingly vocal middle-class South Africans protesting Zuma’s continued reign that in fact what they are experiencing is their first real African Big Man as president since the dawn of democracy in 1994.
The much revered Nelson Mandela was the country’s first black president. He remains a world icon loved and admired by his people and the world. Most importantly he relinquished power after only one term, even though, had he wished to, he could have had a second.
Mandela’s chosen successor, Thabo Mbeki was renowned as an intellectual who popularised the African Renaissance idea in his famous ‘I am an African’ speech. However, he displayed very ‘un-African’ tendencies by not fighting tooth and nail to cling to power when he was challenged by his former deputy. Mbeki was just not cut out to be an African Big Man.
Thabo Mbeki was renowned as an intellectual who popularised the African Renaissance idea. However, he displayed very ‘un-African’ tendencies by not fighting tooth and nail to cling to power when he was challenged by his former deputy. Mbeki was just not cut out to be an African Big Man
Mbeki was briefly succeeded by Kgalema Motlanthe. Aware he was a stop-gap, Motlanthe served as South Africa’s president for only six months, during the ANC’s most tumultuous period in post-apartheid South Africa – the recalling of President Mbeki by the ANC in 2008. Motlanthe could have done the African Big Man thing and swindled President Zuma out of the top job, but instead gave in to the party’s wishes and made way for the man who had engineered Mbeki’s downfall.
Jacob Zuma arrived in office a heroic veteran of the struggle against apartheid. He had also been Mbeki’s deputy and was seen by his supporters and others on the SA political scene as a man more sinned against than sinning. This, despite a series of scandals that would have ended the careers of many politicians.
In fact, it would appear that what some have described as Zuma’s ‘charisma and strength in adversity’ helped buoy him up during his first years in office. To quote the Kenyan teacher, actor and journalist John Sibi-Okumu, who was writing elsewhere on the subject of the African Big Man, ‘The overriding thesis is that the goodies transmogrify themselves into baddies, mainly courtesy of external influence driven by the desire to pillage our considerable resources.’
Today this same ‘charisma and strength in adversity’ continues to attract supporters to Zuma from the ANC grassroots and give the president comfort in the knowledge that the majority of the people are still with him.
The numbers don’t lie – at the last test of Zuma and his party’s popularity, the 2016 local government elections, the ANC was the largest party overall, earning 53.9% of the total vote. The main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, had 26.9% and Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters party garnered 8.2% of the vote.
‘Don’t be scared of them [the opposition parties who have recently been turning up the pressure his presidency] when you see them marching saying Zuma must go… But what has Zuma done?’
These numbers and the way the ruling ANC is run plus the party’s dominance of parliament where at the 2014 general election the ANC acquired 249 out of a total 400 seats are what give Zuma the confidence to say – to loud cheers from the audience by the way, as he did during his 75th birthday celebrations on April 12 this year, ‘Don’t be scared of them [the opposition parties who have recently been turning up the pressure his presidency] when you see them marching saying Zuma must go… But what has Zuma done?’
This is the classic African Big Man stance that sticks in the craw of the country’s middle classes who fill the airwaves on talk radio stations and letters to the editor columns in the serious newspapers around the country calling on President Zuma to ‘do the right thing’ and resign.
THE BIG MAN’S QUINTESSENTIAL TOOL – THE APPOINTMENT OF CRONIES
One of the ways that President Zuma has cemented his grip on office has been by using the quintessential tool in the Big Man’s bag of tricks to cling onto power – the appointment of cronies to the various institutions including parliament, where he has carte blanche.
According to observers and analysts, over the past few years, Zuma has used cadre deployment to his advantage, packing the security services, the public service including parliament, and of course the ANC itself, with loyalist cronies who will support him with their last breath.
At the same time, members of Zuma’s family have amassed vast personal fortunes reportedly through corrupt deals using their family connection to the Big Man.
This centralisation and personalisation of power is being seen to have gradually laid the foundation for the edifice that President Zuma presides over. It is in its way no different from what other Big Men have done through the history of the continent. The likes of Mobutu, Moi, Mubarak, Mugabe and Museveni – to name a few – relied on such patronage and loyalty to ensure their grip on power.
The next big set piece in the battle to remove Zuma or shame him into quitting is yet another parliamentary vote of no-confidence, now set for May. The last motion of no confidence against Zuma, tabled in November 2016, failed when 216 voted against it and 126 MPs voted in its favour.
The likes of Mobutu, Moi, Mubarak, Mugabe and Museveni – to name a few – relied on patronage and loyalty to ensure their grip on power
In the past few years, there have been a number of failed parliamentary votes of no-confidence against President Zuma. Serious political analysts know that the system as it stands today is designed in such a way that makes it impossible for these votes to succeed unless the members of the majority party in parliament rebel en masse and vote with the opposition. As long as the ANC’s rules govern how its MPs behave in parliament, this is unlikely to happen. Zuma will win again.
The South African proportional representation electoral system works in the following manner: Voters vote for a political party, not individuals. The political party then gets a share of seats in parliament in direct proportion to the number of votes it got in the election. Each party then decides on members to fill the seats it has won.
Professor Ben Turok, an ANC stalwart, anti-apartheid activist, economics professor and former South African MP, explained the reasons for Zuma’s confidence during a recent radio interview on the Eusebius Mackaiser show on CapeTalk 567 that featured a discussion on ‘yet another upcoming parliamentary vote of no-confidence against the president.’
Prof Turok said, ‘I think you people [the media] are raising a red herring. We have been down this road [motions of no-confidence in Zuma] quite a few times and in every case, the caucus of the ANC meets and discusses it, and takes a decision and all members are bound by that decision. If you do not follow that decision you will lose your job. It’s as simple as that. So why is there so much speculation about whether people are going to break ranks?’
‘Within the ANC there are many whose conscience is bothering them a great deal and would love to vote against Zuma, but they can’t and will not’
Turok added that hopes for a successful rebellion by ANC MPs against Zuma were unrealistic, ‘I know that within the ANC there are many whose conscience is bothering them a great deal and would love to vote against Zuma, but they can’t and will not.’
A FEW VOICES SPEAKING OUT
Indeed there have been a few voices from within the parliamentary ANC speaking out against Zuma. For instance, ANC MP Makhosi Khoza, chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Service And Administration, recently broke ranks with a scathing critique of how ‘the politics of patronage has claimed the sanity’ of her party’s leaders. In an interview with the Times newspaper she said the ANC had to fix its internal problems before 2019 or face a heavy defeat at the polls.
Reminded that a number of MPs could pursue careers out of parliament if they lost their seats, Turok averred that the reality was a political zero sum game and just simply crossing the floor as in some other parliamentary democracies was impossible in the South African system. He said that while it is true that a number of ANC MPs have professions and other options to fall back on, and here he gave himself as an example (he resigned from parliament to return to academia) the only thing that would change the current situation was if for instance the EFF were to double its vote in the national election, thus gaining 20 seats to offer rebels.
Those who constantly undermine Zuma forget one thing. He is trained in sabotage, having been recruited into Umkhonto we Sizwe, the militant arm of the ANC, in 1962 by a stalwart of the liberation struggle, the late Moses Mabhida
Those who constantly undermine Zuma forget one thing. He is trained in sabotage and if you are taking on the president you must keep in mind that he was recruited into Umkhonto we Sizwe, the militant arm of the ANC, in 1962 by a stalwart of the liberation struggle, the late Moses Mabhida, and participated in sabotage operations in KwaZulu-Natal. He then joined the South African Communist Party in 1963 and as a member received military training in the Soviet Union. He later joined the African National Congress Department of Intelligence where he was the head of intelligence.
Like any other African Big Man, President Zuma is not going to be forced to do anything he doesn’t want to do unless and until the anti-Zuma momentum builds up to become an unstoppable force. But then again, it is not as if the president will be standing by watching this happen without having a few tricks up his sleeve.
Support The Elephant.
The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.
Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.
Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning
Rwandans are welcoming, but the government’s priority must be to solve the internal political problems which produce refugees.
The governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed an agreement to move asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing. This partnership has been heavily criticized and has been referred to as unethical and inhumane. It has also been opposed by the United Nations Refugee Agency on the grounds that it is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention.
Here in Rwanda, we heard the news of the partnership on the day it was signed. The subject has never been debated in the Rwandan parliament and neither had it been canvassed in the local media prior to the announcement.
According to the government’s official press release, the partnership reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protect vulnerable people around the world. It is argued that by relocating migrants to Rwanda, their dignity and rights will be respected and they will be provided with a range of opportunities, including for personal development and employment, in a country that has consistently been ranked among the safest in the world.
A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives. Therefore, most Rwandans are sensitive to the plight of those forced to leave their home countries and would be more than willing to make them feel welcome. However, the decision to relocate the migrants to Rwanda raises a number of questions.
The government argues that relocating migrants to Rwanda will address the inequalities in opportunity that push economic migrants to leave their homes. It is not clear how this will work considering that Rwanda is already the most unequal country in the East African region. And while it is indeed seen as among the safest countries in the world, it was however ranked among the bottom five globally in the recently released 2022 World Happiness Index. How would migrants, who may have suffered psychological trauma fare in such an environment, and in a country that is still rebuilding itself?
A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives.
What opportunities can Rwanda provide to the migrants? Between 2018—the year the index was first published—and 2020, Rwanda’s ranking on the Human Capital Index (HCI) has been consistently low. Published by the World Bank, HCI measures which countries are best at mobilising the economic and professional potential of their citizens. Rwanda’s score is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa and it is partly due to this that the government had found it difficult to attract private investment that would create significant levels of employment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, has since worsened.
Despite the accolades Rwanda has received internationally for its development record, Rwanda’s economy has never been driven by a dynamic private or trade sector; it has been driven by aid. The country’s debt reached 73 per cent of GDP in 2021 while its economy has not developed the key areas needed to achieve and secure genuine social and economic transformation for its entire population. In addition to human capital development, these include social capital development, especially mutual trust among citizens considering the country’s unfortunate historical past, establishing good relations with neighbouring states, respect for human rights, and guaranteeing the accountability of public officials.
Rwanda aspires to become an upper middle-income country by 2035 and a high-income country by 2050. In 2000, the country launched a development plan that aimed to transform it into a middle-income country by 2020 on the back on a knowledge economy. That development plan, which has received financial support from various development partners including the UK which contributed over £1 billion, did not deliver the anticipated outcomes. Today the country remains stuck in the category of low-income states. Its structural constraints as a small land-locked country with few natural resources are often cited as an obstacle to development. However, this is exacerbated by current governance in Rwanda, which limits the political space, lacks separation of powers, impedes freedom of expression and represses government critics, making it even harder for Rwanda to reach the desired developmental goals.
Rwanda’s structural constraints as a small land-locked country with no natural resources are often viewed as an obstacle to achieving the anticipated development.
As a result of the foregoing, Rwanda has been producing its own share of refugees, who have sought political and economic asylum in other countries. The UK alone took in 250 Rwandese last year. There are others around the world, the majority of whom have found refuge in different countries in Africa, including countries neighbouring Rwanda. The presence of these refugees has been a source of tension in the region with Kigali accusing neighbouring states of supporting those who want to overthrow the government by force. Some Rwandans have indeed taken up armed struggle, a situation that, if not resolved, threatens long-term security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. In fact, the UK government’s advice on travel to Rwanda has consistently warned of the unstable security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.
While Rwanda’s intention to help address the global imbalance of opportunity that fuels illegal immigration is laudable, I would recommend that charity start at home. As host of the 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for June 2022, and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office for the next two years, the government should seize the opportunity to implement the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, particularly the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, political and civil rights, and a vibrant civil society. This would enable Rwanda to address its internal social, economic and political challenges, creating a conducive environment for long-term economic development, and durable peace that will not only stop Rwanda from producing refugees but will also render the country ready and capable of economically and socially integrating refugees from less fortunate countries in the future.
Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement
The elite’s ‘solution’ to the climate crisis is to turn the displaced into exploitable migrant labour. We need a truly internationalist alternative.
“We are not drowning, we are fighting” has become the rallying call for the Pacific Climate Warriors. From UN climate meetings to blockades of Australian coal ports, these young Indigenous defenders from twenty Pacific Island states are raising the alarm of global warming for low-lying atoll nations. Rejecting the narrative of victimisation – “you don’t need my pain or tears to know that we’re in a crisis,” as Samoan Brianna Fruean puts it – they are challenging the fossil fuel industry and colonial giants such as Australia, responsible for the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions.
Around the world, climate disasters displace around 25.3 million people annually – one person every one to two seconds. In 2016, new displacements caused by climate disasters outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. By 2050, an estimated 143 million people will be displaced in just three regions: Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Some projections for global climate displacement are as high as one billion people.
Mapping who is most vulnerable to displacement reveals the fault lines between rich and poor, between the global North and South, and between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialised others.
Globalised asymmetries of power create migration but constrict mobility. Displaced people – the least responsible for global warming – face militarised borders. While climate change is itself ignored by the political elite, climate migration is presented as a border security issue and the latest excuse for wealthy states to fortify their borders. In 2019, the Australian Defence Forces announced military patrols around Australia’s waters to intercept climate refugees.
The burgeoning terrain of “climate security” prioritises militarised borders, dovetailing perfectly into eco-apartheid. “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally; it is through them that we will save the planet,” declares the party of French far-Right politician Marine Le Pen. A US Pentagon-commissioned report on the security implications of climate change encapsulates the hostility to climate refugees: “Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” The US has now launched Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast and created Homeland Security Task Force Southeast to enforce marine interdiction and deportation in the aftermath of disasters in the Caribbean.
Labour migration as climate mitigation
you broke the ocean in
half to be here.
only to meet nothing that wants you
– Nayyirah Waheed
Parallel to increasing border controls, temporary labour migration is increasingly touted as a climate adaptation strategy. As part of the ‘Nansen Initiative’, a multilateral, state-led project to address climate-induced displacement, the Australian government has put forward its temporary seasonal worker program as a key solution to building climate resilience in the Pacific region. The Australian statement to the Nansen Initiative Intergovernmental Global Consultation was, in fact, delivered not by the environment minister but by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Beginning in April 2022, the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme will make it easier for Australian businesses to temporarily insource low-wage workers (what the scheme calls “low-skilled” and “unskilled” workers) from small Pacific island countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Not coincidentally, many of these countries’ ecologies and economies have already been ravaged by Australian colonialism for over one hundred years.
It is not an anomaly that Australia is turning displaced climate refugees into a funnel of temporary labour migration. With growing ungovernable and irregular migration, including climate migration, temporary labour migration programs have become the worldwide template for “well-managed migration.” Elites present labour migration as a double win because high-income countries fill their labour shortage needs without providing job security or citizenship, while low-income countries alleviate structural impoverishment through migrants’ remittances.
Dangerous, low-wage jobs like farm, domestic, and service work that cannot be outsourced are now almost entirely insourced in this way. Insourcing and outsourcing represent two sides of the same neoliberal coin: deliberately deflated labour and political power. Not to be confused with free mobility, temporary labour migration represents an extreme neoliberal approach to the quartet of foreign, climate, immigration, and labour policy, all structured to expand networks of capital accumulation through the creation and disciplining of surplus populations.
The International Labour Organization recognises that temporary migrant workers face forced labour, low wages, poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom association and union rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Under these state-sanctioned programs of indentureship, workers are legally tied to an employer and deportable. Temporary migrant workers are kept compliant through the threats of both termination and deportation, revealing the crucial connection between immigration status and precarious labour.
Through temporary labour migration programs, workers’ labour power is first captured by the border and this pliable labour is then exploited by the employer. Denying migrant workers permanent immigration status ensures a steady supply of cheapened labour. Borders are not intended to exclude all people, but to create conditions of ‘deportability’, which increases social and labour precarity. These workers are labelled as ‘foreign’ workers, furthering racist xenophobia against them, including by other workers. While migrant workers are temporary, temporary migration is becoming the permanent neoliberal, state-led model of migration.
Reparations include No Borders
“It’s immoral for the rich to talk about their future children and grandchildren when the children of the Global South are dying now.” – Asad Rehman
Discussions about building fairer and more sustainable political-economic systems have coalesced around a Green New Deal. Most public policy proposals for a Green New Deal in the US, Canada, UK and the EU articulate the need to simultaneously tackle economic inequality, social injustice, and the climate crisis by transforming our extractive and exploitative system towards a low-carbon, feminist, worker and community-controlled care-based society. While a Green New Deal necessarily understands the climate crisis and the crisis of capitalism as interconnected — and not a dichotomy of ‘the environment versus the economy’ — one of its main shortcomings is its bordered scope. As Harpreet Kaur Paul and Dalia Gebrial write: “the Green New Deal has largely been trapped in national imaginations.”
Any Green New Deal that is not internationalist runs the risk of perpetuating climate apartheid and imperialist domination in our warming world. Rich countries must redress the global and asymmetrical dimensions of climate debt, unfair trade and financial agreements, military subjugation, vaccine apartheid, labour exploitation, and border securitisation.
It is impossible to think about borders outside the modern nation-state and its entanglements with empire, capitalism, race, caste, gender, sexuality, and ability. Borders are not even fixed lines demarcating territory. Bordering regimes are increasingly layered with drone surveillance, interception of migrant boats, and security controls far beyond states’ territorial limits. From Australia offshoring migrant detention around Oceania to Fortress Europe outsourcing surveillance and interdiction to the Sahel and Middle East, shifting cartographies demarcate our colonial present.
Perhaps most offensively, when colonial countries panic about ‘border crises’ they position themselves as victims. But the genocide, displacement, and movement of millions of people were unequally structured by colonialism for three centuries, with European settlers in the Americas and Oceania, the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, and imported indentured labourers from Asia. Empire, enslavement, and indentureship are the bedrock of global apartheid today, determining who can live where and under what conditions. Borders are structured to uphold this apartheid.
The freedom to stay and the freedom to move, which is to say no borders, is decolonial reparations and redistribution long due.
The Murang’a Factor in the Upcoming Presidential Elections
The Murang’a people are really yet to decide who they are going to vote for as a president. If they have, they are keeping the secret to themselves. Are the Murang’a people prepping themselves this time to vote for one of their own? Can Jimi Wanjigi re-ignite the Murang’a/Matiba popular passion among the GEMA community and re-influence it to vote in a different direction?
In the last quarter of 2021, I visited Murang’a County twice: In September, we were in Kandiri in Kigumo constituency. We had gone for a church fundraiser and were hosted by the Anglican Church of Kenya’s (ACK), Kahariro parish, Murang’a South diocese. A month later, I was back, this time to Ihi-gaini deep in Kangema constituency for a burial.
The church function attracted politicians: it had to; they know how to sniff such occasions and if not officially invited, they gate-crash them. Church functions, just like funerals, are perfect platforms for politicians to exhibit their presumed piousness, generosity and their closeness to the respective clergy and the bereaved family.
Well, the other reason they were there, is because they had been invited by the Church leadership. During the electioneering period, the Church is not shy to exploit the politicians’ ambitions: they “blackmail” them for money, because they can mobilise ready audiences for the competing politicians. The politicians on the other hand, are very ready to part with cash. This quid pro quo arrangement is usually an unstated agreement between the Church leadership and the politicians.
The church, which was being fund raised for, being in Kigumo constituency, the area MP Ruth Wangari Mwaniki, promptly showed up. Likewise, the area Member of the County Assembly (MCA) and of course several aspirants for the MP and MCA seats, also showed up.
Church and secular politics often sit cheek by jowl and so, on this day, local politics was the order of the day. I couldn’t have speculated on which side of the political divide Murang’a people were, until the young man Zack Kinuthia Chief Administrative Secretary (CAS) for Sports, Culture and Heritage, took to the rostrum to speak.
A local boy and an Uhuru Kenyatta loyalist, he completely avoided mentioning his name and his “development track record” in central Kenya. Kinuthia has a habit of over-extolling President Uhuru’s virtues whenever and wherever he mounts any platform. By the time he was done speaking, I quickly deduced he was angling to unseat Wangari. I wasn’t wrong; five months later in February 2022, Kinuthia resigned his CAS position to vie for Kigumo on a Party of the National Unity (PNU) ticket.
He spoke briefly, feigned some meeting that was awaiting him elsewhere and left hurriedly, but not before giving his KSh50,000 donation. Apparently, I later learnt that he had been forewarned, ahead of time, that the people were not in a mood to listen to his panegyrics on President Uhuru, Jubilee Party, or anything associated to the two. Kinuthia couldn’t dare run on President Uhuru’s Jubilee Party. His patron-boss’s party is not wanted in Murang’a.
I spent the whole day in Kandiri, talking to people, young and old, men and women and by the time I was leaving, I was certain about one thing; The Murang’a folks didn’t want anything to do with President Uhuru. What I wasn’t sure of is, where their political sympathies lay.
I returned to Murang’a the following month, in the expansive Kangema – it is still huge – even after Mathioya was hived off from the larger Kangema constituency. Funerals provide a good barometer that captures peoples’ political sentiments and even though this burial was not attended by politicians – a few senior government officials were present though; political talk was very much on the peoples’ lips.
What I gathered from the crowd was that President Uhuru had destroyed their livelihood, remember many of the Nairobi city trading, hawking, big downtown real estate and restaurants are run and owned largely by Murang’a people. The famous Nyamakima trading area of downtown Nairobi has been run by Murang’a Kikuyus.
In 2018, their goods were confiscated and declared contrabrand by the government. Many of their businesses went under, this, despite the merchants not only, whole heartedly throwing their support to President Uhuru’s controversial re-election, but contributing handsomely to the presidential kitty. They couldn’t believe what was happening to them: “We voted for him to safeguard our businesses, instead, he destroyed them. So much for supporting him.”
We voted for him to safeguard our businesses, instead, he destroyed them. So much for supporting him
Last week, I attended a Murang’a County caucus group that was meeting somewhere in Gatundu, in Kiambu County. One of the clearest messages that I got from this group is that the GEMA vote in the August 9, 2022, presidential elections is certainly anti-Uhuru Kenyatta and not necessarily pro-William Ruto.
“The Murang’a people are really yet to decide, (if they have, they are keeping the secret to themselves) on who they are going to vote for as a president. And that’s why you see Uhuru is craftily courting us with all manner of promises, seductions and prophetic messages.” Two weeks ago, President Uhuru was in Murang’a attending an African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa (AIPCA) church function in Kandara constituency.
At the church, the president yet again threatened to “tell you what’s in my heart and what I believe and why so.” These prophecy-laced threats by the President, to the GEMA nation, in which he has been threatening to show them the sign, have become the butt of crude jokes among Kikuyus.
Corollary, President Uhuru once again has plucked Polycarp Igathe away from his corporate perch as Equity Bank’s Chief Commercial Officer back to Nairobi’s tumultuous governor seat politics. The first time the bespectacled Igathe was thrown into the deep end of the Nairobi murky politics was in 2017, as Mike Sonko’s deputy governor. After six months, he threw in the towel, lamenting that Sonko couldn’t let him even breathe.
Uhuru has a tendency of (mis)using Murang’a people
“Igathe is from Wanjerere in Kigumo, Murang’a, but grew up in Ol Kalou, Nyandarua County,” one of the Mzees told me. “He’s not interested in politics; much less know how it’s played. I’ve spent time with him and confided in me as much. Uhuru has a tendency of (mis)using Murang’a people. President Uhuru wants to use Igathe to control Nairobi. The sad thing is that Igathe doesn’t have the guts to tell Uhuru the brutal fact: I’m really not interested in all these shenanigans, leave me alone. The president is hoping, once again, to hopefully placate the Murang’a people, by pretending to front Igathe. I foresee another terrible disaster ultimately befalling both Igathe and Uhuru.”
Be that as it may, what I got away with from this caucus, after an entire day’s deliberations, is that its keeping it presidential choice close to its chest. My attempts to goad some of the men and women present were fruitless.
Murang’a people like reminding everyone that it’s only they, who have yet to produce a president from the GEMA stable, despite being the wealthiest. Kiambu has produced two presidents from the same family, Nyeri one, President Mwai Kibaki, who died on April 22. The closest Murang’a came to giving the country a president was during Ken Matiba’s time in the 1990s. “But Matiba had suffered a debilitating stroke that incapacitated him,” said one of the mzees. “It was tragic, but there was nothing we could do.”
Murang’a people like reminding everyone that it’s only they, who have yet to produce a president from the GEMA stable, despite being the wealthiest
It is interesting to note that Jimi Wanjigi, the Safina party presidential flagbearer is from Murang’a County. His family hails from Wahundura, in Mathioya constituency. Him and Mwangi wa Iria, the Murang’a County governor are the other two Murang’a prominent persons who have tossed themselves into the presidential race. Wa Iria’s bid which was announced at the beginning of 2022, seems to have stagnated, while Jimi’s seems to be gathering storm.
Are the Murang’a people prepping themselves this time to vote for one of their own? Jimi’s campaign team has crafted a two-pronged strategy that it hopes will endear Kenyans to his presidency. One, a generational, paradigm shift, especially among the youth, targeting mostly post-secondary, tertiary college and university students.
“We believe this group of voters who are basically between the ages of 18–27 years and who comprise more than 65 per cent of total registered voters are the key to turning this election,” said one of his presidential campaign team members. “It matters most how you craft the political message to capture their attention.” So, branding his key message as itwika, it is meant to orchestrate a break from past electoral behaviour that is pegged on traditional ethnic voting patterns.
The other plunk of Jimi’s campaign theme is economic emancipation, quite pointedly as it talks directly to the GEMA nation, especially the Murang’a Kikuyus, who are reputed for their business acumen and entrepreneurial skills. “What Kikuyus cherish most,” said the team member “is someone who will create an enabling business environment and leave the Kikuyus to do their thing. You know, Kikuyus live off business, if you interfere with it, that’s the end of your friendship, it doesn’t matter who you are.”
Can Jimi re-ignite the Murang’a/Matiba popular passion among the GEMA community and re-influence it to vote in a different direction? As all the presidential candidates gear-up this week on who they will eventually pick as their running mates, the GEMA community once more shifts the spotlight on itself, as the most sought-after vote basket.
Both Raila Odinga and William Ruto coalitions – Azimio la Umoja-One Kenya and Kenya Kwanza Alliance – must seek to impress and woe Mt Kenya region by appointing a running mate from one of its ranks. If not, the coalitions fear losing the vote-rich area either to each other, or perhaps to a third party. Murang’a County, may as well, become the conundrum, with which the August 9, presidential race may yet to be unravelled and decided.
Op-Eds2 weeks ago
Tigray is Africa’s Ukraine: We Must Build Pan-African Solidarity
Op-Eds2 weeks ago
Road to 9/8: What Is at Stake?
Culture2 weeks ago
Back to the Future: The Infamous Dangerous, Ugly and Dark Days of “Nairoberry” Are Back
Op-Eds2 weeks ago
Suluhu Successfully Placating Factions. For Now.
Op-Eds2 weeks ago
UK-Rwanda Refugee Deal: A Stain on President Kagame
Culture1 week ago
Creolizing Rosa Luxemburg – Beyond, and Against, the Conventional
Videos2 weeks ago
Between Extremism and Reform: Coastal Kenya Violence
Cartoons2 weeks ago
The Search for the Running Mate Continues!