A
recent article by a Kenyan columnist proposing the country’s break-up
into ethnic enclaves attracted much criticism, but this is a subject
that perhaps requires greater scrutiny.
A
lot of the criticism against David Ndii’s article was simply based on
protection of the status quo and nothing more. Indeed, there is nothing
sacrosanct about the modern state, especially the African version that
was simply the product of European haggling at the Berlin Conference of
1884-85. Africa’s interests were never considered, nor its diversity of
naturally-emerging nation states.
Modern
ideas of sovereignty and self-determination have increasingly
underpinned the idea that the modern nation-state ought to be a
voluntary coming together of peoples who share a common identity and
vision. The break-up of the former Soviet Union, and closer home the
secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia and South Sudan from Sudan, serve to
drive the point that nationhood cannot be enforced by military means.
Where this is attempted, the result can only be tragic civil war and
discontent.
East
Africa being a Third World region with limited resources, a break-up of
countries into their ethnic components may serve to create economically
unviable units. While this may sound politically attractive, it would
in fact result in greater problems as leaders of small fiefdoms acquire
the trappings of state and attempt to use resources to match that
standard. This is a problem that Kenyans are only too aware of, with
governors living large amid excruciating poverty.
Indeed,
part of the rationale for an eventual East African political federation
– the ultimate prize that regional efforts aim to achieve – is to bury
the ethnic competition within our partner states in a larger entity. The
thinking is that this will kill destructive competition between Hutu
and Tutsi, Dinka and Nuer, and Kikuyu and Luo.
While
there is some merit in this argument, this stand is not without
weaknesses. For instance, East Africa has done little to stop the crisis
in Burundi, or to directly influence the course of events in South
Sudan. Given nationalistic sentiments and mutual suspicions between
partner states as evidenced by problems in achieving a fully functional
Common Market, each of the East African countries will want to maintain
significant autonomy within a future federated entity.
If
a federation of partner states cannot be a panacea to harmful ethnic
competition, we must then look for new ways of countering this growing
evil. If not, the destruction of the basic fabric of partner states will
harm regional integration and make it ineffective.
The
alternative is that the petty inter-ethnic squabbles within partner
states will gain traction at the regional level as matters of resources
and representation become increasingly important at the regional level.
This is not a far-fetched thought, as a recent case involving Burundi
shows. The Speaker of the country’s parliament wrote to the Speaker of
the East African Legislative Assembly seeking to cease the membership of
four members from that country. Fortunately, EALA stood its ground and
rejected that request. This, nevertheless, showed how ethnic and
partisan differences can be played out on the regional stage.
It
may be prudent, then, to go along with David Ndii’s thesis at a
regional level, but with some modification. As the process of political
federation is initiated, national borders between East African countries
can be disregarded. Smaller, more viable entities can then be created
that cut across these borders – along the lines of Tanzania’s regions or
Kenya’s former provinces. These can then become the basic units of the
new East African Federation.
Such
a move will spell the death-knell for the European-mediated
nation-state, creating a more acceptable delineation of nation-states
within a larger East African framework. The people at the grassroots
will have their desired autonomy, yet still benefit from membership of a
larger economic and political framework that can better articulate
their interests at the international level.
If
this is done, there will be little incentive for secessionist
tendencies or inter-ethnic competition within the new political
federation. No ethnicity will be significant enough to influence events
except in concert with other groups and units in the federation. At the
local level, however, each entity will have sufficient power over its
own resources, and any competition can only be between its own elites.
Moreover,
the larger federation will provide a flood of opportunities, dispersing
each group far and wide from its home base. This will drastically
reduce the motivation for destructive competition arising from limited
opportunities.
First, however, is for East Africans to open their eyes to possibilities beyond their current political set-ups