KANYADUDI: Diaspora’s once-major influence wanes on local politics

It is said that all politics is local, and this is more of a Kenyan parlance. Kenyan politics has been influenced by international strategic interests since Independence. Its strategic positioning within the Horn of Africa has always made the country a key player in geopolitics.

Independence in 1963 came at the height of the Cold War. Kenya had a strong presence and extensive business investments of the settler community. The colonial heritage tied the newly independent state to her former master, the British.

The UK was already in an alliance with the US and other western powers through the NATO. It is therefore not a coincidence that independence arrangement talks were negotiated at Lancaster House in London and the constitution writing chaperoned by the iconic American lawyer and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

The linkages had been established through the efforts of local independence leaders and international human rights activists and liberal political leaders. At the same time, the East as led by the USSR was making inroads into the hearts of the new leaders.

They sought to portray the US and its allies as imperialists and neocolonialists. The USSR and allies came along as liberators from colonial oppression. Both sides therefore spared no resources to entice and keep close their agents on the ground.

Tom Mboya through his labour movement organisations and the Kennedy Airlift (1959-1963), or Airlift Africa was the leading champion of the interests of the West. Jaramogi Odinga, on the other hand, leaned East. He entered into agreements for military assistance with the USSR and arranged similar student airlifts to eastern European and east Asian universities.

The first president of the country, Jomo Kenyatta, initially cut the image of neutrality and sought to be nonaligned. However, over time he cast his lot with the Mboya-led wing. While formal agreements were entered into between the counties for development projects, a lot of resources were channelled directly but discreetly to the leading political players.

The covert support for political activities in favour of partisan leaders amounted more to espionage than institutional capacity building. History records that the meddling by the international actors led to political careers jeopardised and instances of assassinations. The jettisoning of Jaramogi and allies from Kanu in the1966 Limuru Conference, together with the gruesome killings of Pio Gama Pinto, Mboya and JM Kariuki, must be seen in this light.

Even so, the country moved firmly to the West under Kenyatta, parties and lobbyists from the West continued to play ping-pong games with local politics. The right- and left-wing political cleavages sought to influence the outcome of elections and social civic processes.

The country’s political orientation would then be forced to align with the governing party in Washington and London together with Brussels.

The ideological standing of the party in power influenced how it designed its foreign policy and thus international development agenda. Each of the parties would then have different priority areas for projects in developing nations, Kenya included.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1990 dramatically altered the dynamics of global politics and international relations. The West united in demanding more open societies as opposed to propping up stooge dictatorial regimes. Kenya, like many other developing countries, had a one-party political system.

The clamour for pluralistic politics and more democratic space gained momentum. Political parties and civil society organisations in the West openly supported civic activism to return to the country multiparty democracy. Local civil society and political activists benefited generously from funding by their NGO benefactors from the metropoles.

Political careers were built on the backs of civic activism. The Westtherefore had a heavy bearing on the content, process and outcome of the politics. President Daniel Moi endured heat and survived by the skin of his teeth in the first two multiparty elections of 1992 and 1997.

While the opposition forces received lavish resource support from foreign sources, Moi had to rely solely on his personal wherewithal and local lobby networks.

The civil society became a fledging sector employing thousands of young people and putting food on many tables. These organisations had linkages with Kenyans who had fled the country in search of greener pastures or out of fear of repression, or both.

At the height of single-party tyranny, many Kenyans left the country clandestinely to escape political persecution. Many found themselves in the capitals of European countries and set up bases there.

They would later on provide easy conduits to channel foreign aid to civil society actors. They fundraised from international organisations and individual philanthropists to bankroll local activist movements. They also leveraged their close ties with influential leaders and organisations to lobby for diplomatic action against bad governance.

The resources that they amassed in foreign lands was very impactful in financing political activities on account of the comparative strength of the foreign currencies against the Kenya shilling. They also organised publicity and fundraising events in the major cities of Europe and the US.

The caucuses in their many forms also sponsored candidates for various other positions, including parliamentary and local government seats. The endorsement by the Kenyan citizens leaving and working outside the country went a long way in guaranteeing legitimacy for a presidential or any other candidate in the general elections.

Serious candidates therefore pulled out all stops to secure the public approval of their quest from their compatriots away from home. Kenyans abroad christened the diaspora that wielded real influence on local politics. They also used their advantage to stake claims to strategic positions within the anticipated government.

Opposition leaders headed by Rigathi Gachagua, Fred Matiang’i and Kalonzo Musyoka are seeking to replay Raila Odinga’s effectiveness in mobilising foreign support. In the run up to 2007 general elections, then Orange Democratic Movementleader established the most elaborate campaign network that has ever been at play in Kenya’s history.

Having benefitted from the referendum momentum of 2005, he formed the broad-based nationalist political party, ODM. He brought in regional leaders from across the country to establish what became the pentagon.

This collegial leadership style enabled him to draw support from the grassroots with a lot of ease. Therefore, local resources and volunteers were easily mobilised. Through these leaders, Raila was also able to tap into their leaders’ community networks abroad. Funds thus streamed in from many sources and channels.

Many donations flowed in from governments, lobbyists and individuals with interests in the future government. This international network would come into play in resolving the disputed presidential election results. They exerted pressure on both the ODM leader and President Mwai Kibaki to agree to share power in the grand coalition government.

However, after the enactment of the 2010 Constitution, the diaspora got fatigued with the endless whining of the opposition forces. Many of the Kenyans abroad also joined the government and became prime movers of the government agenda.

Foreign governments and international civil society organisations chose to channel their resources through government agencies. They established frameworks whereby development projects were jointly designed and financed together.

There also emerged China as a strong economy with abundance of cash to support developing countries. Kenya became an early beneficiary of these loans that came with no strings attached.

The global politics shifted from pro-democracy to pro-trade. Trade was negotiated bilaterally or multilaterally among governments. The opposition therefore lost crucial access to foreign support for their political activities.

Concurrently, the local economy grew and the Kenya shilling strengthened against foreign currencies. Digital space suddenly emerged as labour and trade markets greatly reduced and therefore dependence on diaspora remittances.

The influence of the diaspora has been significantly eroded. The efforts of the opposition to woo Kenyans living abroad for endorsement is an exercise in futility. They cannot successfully replicate Raila’s international networks.