Karioki, James N. (1990) “University of Nairobi and Demise of Democracy in Kenya” in Transafrica Forum: A Quarterly Journal of Opinion on Africa and the Caribbean v. 7, no. 3. pages 83-93.
Karioki writes from the University of California at Chico (Political Science)
The University of Nairobi as the “political conscience” of Kenya
pp. 83-84: “The government perceives the University as an integral part of national development. It blames the tensions on a handful of students, viewing them as agitators, ingrates and foreign-controlled trouble makers who are bent on importing “little revolutions” from abroad. Given that the problem has now persisted for nearly thirty years, this diagnosis is obviously incorrect.
The students do not have difficulty with the perception of the institution as an agent of national development. What disturbs them is, first, the definition of national development and, second, the strategies that have been adopted in its pursuit. On the whole, they disagree with the direction in which their country is headed. They feel that their future – individually and collectively – has been mortgaged; that, by adopting certain policies, the government has abdicated its central responsibility to Kenyans.”
Post-colonial Kenya – pursuit of modernization – neo-liberalism:
(1) the economy would be Africanized – Kenyans would systematically and purposefully be placed in positions of ever-increasing influence and control so as to become “equal actors” in economic efforts;
(2) the Kenyan economy would be “mixed” (i.e. free market mixed with some manner of state control) – public and private efforts would each be pursued; and,
(3) foreign economic participation would be encouraged – investment (bilateral and multilateral) would be welcomed freely.
(4) Kenya would fully engage in international trade.
The policy outlines above worked well – or seemed to – in the 1960s, up to the 1973 OPEC oil crisis, at which point it would be revealed that Kenya’s economy had done much to boost a small local elite, and almost nothing to assist the average mwananchi.
Oginga Odinga – Not Yet Uhuru (1967) – points out that freedom had not yet come to most Kenyans in the years after independence. In fact, things were getting worse for many people.
Not mentioned by Karioki, but included here for possible use – the murder in 1969 of trade union activist TOM MBOYA, likely by agents of Kenyatta’s government (accused murderer was Kikuyu – he was hanged).
Ngugi wa Thiong’o – Chairman of the Department of Literature at the University of Nairobi. Disagreed with post-colonial transformation of LAND from a shared, communally-managed resource into a MARKETABLE COMMODITY. Commercializing of land was a betrayal to all who had fought for independence and maintenance of local forms of governance.
J.M. Kariuki (murdered in March 1975 – probably by agents of the Kenyatta government): “We do not want a Kenya of en millionaires and ten million beggars.”
Africanization of the White Highlands – based on an ability to pay, rather than on customary, communal practices.
p. 87: “The dependency model finds its unifying theme and justification in its conclusion that the Third World is locked into the global economic system as a junior partner. This dependency occurred first through colonialism and, subsequently, through “voluntary” association in the post-colonial era. Given the dominant position commanded by the economies of the industrialized world in this arrangement, the Third World is inevitably committed to a division of labor in which it provides raw materials, cheap labor, and markets for manufactured goods. The Third World thus constitutes the inferior sector, the “periphery” or “ring of satellites” in the global economic order.”
p. 88: “Kenya’s open door policy to foreign participation in its economy fosters a system of decapitalization by means of repatriated profits and acutely high interests on foreign loans. This fact aggravates Kenya’s balance of payment problems and reduces the resources available to Kenyans.”
p. 89: “The participation of the government in joint ventures with outsiders has resulted in loss of constraints on the foreign partners. Instead of representing public interests in the ventures, the government has encouraged a symbiotic alliance that fosters mutual interests of both top the detriment of Kenyans collectively. As a result of this arrangement, expatriates have gained easy access to the state’s decision-making apparatus, and enjoy extraordinary privileges at the expense of nationals.”
