By Prof. Karuti Kanyinga
Adapted from an article first published by the Daily Nation
It is widely recognised that the success or failure of development in any society is closely tied to politics. Politics revolves around negotiation, competition, and sometimes conflict, particularly in the production, distribution, and use of resources.
In Kenya, as in much of Africa, political dynamics are less about enhancing productivity and more about gaining access to power and control over resources. Bureaucrats are often tasked with figuring out how to produce, but the question of what is produced—and who benefits—is at the heart of political conflict.
Politics as a Resource Struggle
How societies manage these conflicts determines the trajectory of their development. Countries where political elites advocate for just and inclusive distribution of resources tend to grow stronger and more stable. Those where self-interest dominates often struggle, with weak institutions and recurring political turbulence.
Kenya, unfortunately, falls into the latter category. Here, politics has often been about advancing elite interests, with less emphasis on the public good. The country’s political history offers compelling evidence of this pattern.
From Colonial Struggles to Elite Capture
Take the Mau Mau uprising of the 1950s—a peasant-led rebellion against colonial land dispossession. While it was a significant moment of resistance, the colonial administration brutally suppressed it with the help of local loyalists. These were individuals—often chiefs and their families—who collaborated with the British, sometimes betraying their own communities.
These loyalists had an advantage: access to education, thanks to missionary schools. When the colonial state eventually opened space for African political participation, many of these individuals leveraged their education and ties to authority to enter politics.
As independence approached, it was these well-positioned loyalists who gained power—not the Mau Mau fighters who bore the brunt of the struggle. The loyalists formed the nucleus of Kenya’s first post-independence political elite.
Unfortunately, these elites quickly adopted and deepened the extractive tendencies of the colonial administration. Rather than redistributing land to the landless who had fought for freedom, they secured land for themselves—often using state machinery to do so.
Land, Power, and Patronage
One of the most symbolic betrayals came from President Jomo Kenyatta. Despite benefiting from the struggle for independence, he distanced himself from the Mau Mau, at times referring to them as imaramari—wanderers or vagabonds. When landless veterans demanded land from the former white highlands, he responded bluntly: Hakuna cha bure (Nothing is for free).
Large tracts of land that should have supported land reform were instead distributed to the politically connected. Elites used letters from the Ministry of Lands or soft loans from the Settlement Fund Trustees to acquire vast estates. Loyalty to the ruling party and personal alliances were key to accessing these benefits.
Daniel arap Moi, who later became Kenya’s second President, was among those who acquired land in this way, particularly after dissolving his party to join Kenyatta’s Kenya African National Union (KANU). Many of these estates—complete with settler-built homes—were handed over under the guise of continuing commercial farming. But much of the land fell into disuse, failing to contribute meaningfully to national food security or development.
This pattern was later replicated elsewhere on the continent. In Zimbabwe, political elites cited Kenya as a model when acquiring white-owned farms. As in Kenya, the promises of agricultural productivity were short-lived. Once-thriving farms like those that produced the famous Mazoe Orange juice fell into neglect following elite capture.
The Bigger Picture
The overarching issue is that in many African countries—including Kenya—conflicts and political transitions have often served to entrench elite interests rather than transform societies. Political violence, unrest, or even reform processes frequently become opportunities for political actors to renegotiate their place in the elite bargain—not necessarily to serve the public.
Development falters when politics is not guided by a vision for shared prosperity but by competition for state resources and influence.
For Kenya to move forward, it must confront this legacy. Strengthening institutions, building inclusive governance, and ensuring that political competition centres on ideas and service—not patronage—are critical. Otherwise, the cycle of conflict benefiting the few at the expense of the many will persist.
About the Author
Prof. Karuti Kanyinga is a Research Professor at the Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Nairobi. He is a distinguished scholar in governance, development, and public policy, with extensive research on political participation and electoral processes in Kenya.