www.Kisii.Com: Syndicated news from only reputable sources [Nation, and Standard Newspapers, Kenya Times, KBC, etc.]

Abagusii may be disappointed but they've no grudge with Narc

Details

Published on Saturday, 02 June 2007 07:19

On the genesis of the Abagusii grudge against the Narc Government intrigued me. In principle I agree with the facts adduced except for a few that may have been misconceived or betrayed a degree of lack of terminological comprehension. My own understanding, and I believe that of many English philologists of the word 'grudge', differs from Prof Ochieng's. The word 'grudge' invariably involves a state of persistent feeling of resentment, especially one due to some cause often related to injury or insult and culminating in ill-will.

His use of the word here portrays Kisiis as chronic miscreants and unrelenting disaffected people. I can hardly detect any injury uniquely caused to the Kisiis that could not have been caused to any other tribe by the previous governments to lead to a permanent state of a grudge. It may be oversimplistic to flaunt a flawed theory to the effect that the Gusii were once a wandering adventurous tribe halted in every corner by militarily better organised tribes. I doubt if there is any truth in this and would like my colleague and friend to carefully read: Charles Elliot, The East Africa Protectorate, London, 1966 (pages 65-66, 131 and 312) or Captain Jenkins' General Report on The Kisii Patrol 1905 C.O.534/1 and C.O. 533/42 to appreciate the resistance and valour of the Kisiis against colonial rule.

If I were Prof Ochieng, I would have preferred the use of the word 'disappointment' rather than 'grudge', especially where it relates to President Kibaki. The Kisiis may be disappointed over the fact that their hero and kinsman has not found time to pay them a visit not to thank them, but to acknowledge the overwhelming support he received in the previous elections. The word grudge has a negative connotation. I fail to see how 'grudge' in the context of Narc as a political party can be transferred to either the President or the neighbours of the Kisiis. In the case of the President and Narc, there is no grudge at all, at least, not in the sense of the connotation of ill-will.

Were this to be the case, every tribe that voted on a tribalist pattern would be guilty of it. And with regard to neighbouring tribes, the grudge Ochieng is reading is nothing but 'suspicion' and this suspicion was general, mutual and not peculiar to any tribe. Also, Ochieng did not explain how the Kisiis made their way into a territory occupied by settled tribes like the Luo, Kipsigis and Masaai. How did they manage to carve out a safe corridor for themselves without being detected and repulsed if, for sure, they were constantly thwarted from making any territorial headway?

Is it perhaps not an instance of historical conjecture to assume that the Kisiis were intruders and that others were already settled? Another flawed argument is the generic assumption that if all the Kisii kinsmen (Kikuyu, Kamba, Meru, Maragoli and Bukusu) are in Narc, the Kisii should also be there.

This is a case of committing the fallacy of hasty generalisation without taking into account the inhibiting circumstances or the political options at stake. In any case, bearing in mind that political affiliations are mere holding tools for tribal survival or even tribal ascendancy to power, it is difficult to see how any tribe can transcend this tantalising temptation. And lumping tribes under one political umbrella would not seem to achieve the objectives of political pluralism. After all, we are told that in politics there are no permanent alliances and, therefore, the Narc of today may very well be the Nakford of tomorrow.