Lead image for Why ethnic nationalism should have no place in our democracy.
Recently, former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua criticised Imenti North MP Rahim Dawood during a roadside rally in Meru. Mr Dawood is a Kenyan of Asian descent, born and raised in Meru, and a culturally integrated, fluent Meru speaker.
Yet the Democracy for Citizens Party (DCP) leader portrayed him as an “outsider” and a “traitor”, urging voters to replace him with what he termed an “indigenous” representative.
Mr Gachagua’s remarks targeted not Mr Dawood’s performance but his ancestry and political allegiance, particularly his support for the former Deputy President’s impeachment and alignment with President William Ruto. More troubling than the remarks is the constitutional worldview they reveal.
The Meru incident was not isolated. Earlier this year, Mr Gachagua made similar remarks about Nyaribari Chache MP Zaheer Jhanda, another Kenyan of Asian descent. Again, he questioned ancestry rather than legislative performance or public service.
In both cases, the underlying message was unmistakable: certain elective offices should be reserved for those regarded as “indigenous” to particular localities. Together, these episodes reveal a coherent political worldview rather than isolated rhetorical excesses.
A defining feature of this worldview is its friend-enemy view of politics, reducing democracy to a struggle between loyalists and enemies.
Supporters are embraced; dissenters branded enemies, traitors or President Ruto’s collaborators. This conflicts with Article 10 of the Constitution, which enshrines national unity, inclusiveness, equality, human dignity and non-discrimination.