The land question in Kenya and lessons for Uganda

The political, economic and social crisis that followed Kenya’s presidential and parliamentary elections in December 2007 especially in the Rift Valley Province calls for a clear understanding of the causes in order to prevent a recurrence of the conflict and to draw lessons for other countries such as Uganda.

An attempt to understand the background will have to begin inter alia with the question of land going as far back as the start of the 20^th century when the British decided to settle Europeans in Kenya. The British administration chose the most fertile land with a cool climate suitable for European settlement. People such as the Kikuyu and Masaai after their resistance was crushed were moved into overcrowded reserves. Their ancestral homes in the highlands and the rift valley became the “White Highlands”. The Africans felt that their land had been stolen and replaced with the bible.

By 1948, more than one million Kikuyu had been forced into an area of 2000 square miles while 30,000 whites occupied 12,000 square miles. 

The grievances arising from this decision and the determination to regain their land gave rise to an insurgency mostly by the Kikuyu known as the Mau Mau that waged war against the British in the 1950s. At the end of the insurgency some 11,500 Kikuyu, 2000 other Kenyans, 95 Europeans and 29 Asians had lost their lives. 

The demographic dynamics and the likely impact on the demand for land became dominant issues among Kenyans in the run-up to independence in 1963. Various small tribes especially those on the Coast and in the Rift Valley began to worry that they would be dominated politically by the larger tribes in particular the Kikuyu and the Luo in independent Kenya and possibly lose their land to them as well.

To protect their interests the small tribes formed a political party – the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU). The larger tribes of Kikuyu and Luo formed the Kenya African National Union (KANU). KADU demanded a decentralized system of governance at independence.

To meet the requirements of different tribes and remove the fear that the smaller tribes would be swamped by the larger ones, the British administration proposed a political structure of seven regions: the Coast; the Rift Valley; the Central; the North-East; Nyanza; Western; and Eastern each with a regional assembly.

The Rift Valley, the focus of this article had before colonial rule been occupied mostly by pastoralists such as the Kalenjin and Masaai. They feared that the agricultural Kikuyu would take over their land when the whites left the “White Highlands” because of high population densities in Kikuyu areas – hence the strong desire for regional autonomy.  

In the end the dominant Kenya African National Union (KANU) with the two largest tribes carried the day against regionalism in favor of a central administration.

As feared, the Kenyan Land Army was formed as the new name of Mau Mau. Although it was condemned by African leaders and subsequently abandoned, the idea did not die.

After independence and as expected some white Highlands were vacated by the departing white settlers and many agricultural Kikuyu moved into the vacated lands in the rift valley without taking into consideration the interests of indigenous cultural groups (pastoralists) who lived in the area before the ‘white highlands’ were declared. That decision is believed to be the root cause of tribal conflicts in the area.

The Rift Valley Province accounts for most of the armed conflicts in Kenya and the underlying cause is principally land ownership. The pastoralists had been advising agricultural ‘outsiders’ to vacate the Rift Valley lands and return to their ‘motherlands’.  

According to some commentators the 1992 and 1997 tribal clashes established a pattern of violence targeting non-indigenous residents of the Rift Valley Province. Although efforts were made by the government to end inter-tribal clashes, the fundamental cause – land – was not resolved causing repeated clashes with serious consequences in lives lost, property destroyed and internally displaced persons.

It is believed that the disputed presidential elections in December 2007 provided a cover for the pastoralists to attack the ‘outside’ agricultural settlers. Once again property was destroyed, lives were lost and many people fled the area – and many had not returned at the time of writing in November 2008. What lesson can we draw for Uganda?

In the name of agricultural modernization and globalization, peasants are being replaced by large-scale developers in a less than mutually acceptable environment. Indirect methods of moving people off their land include municipal expansion into basically rural areas because once that has happened land development becomes the responsibility of municipal authorities who can ask a family to vacate the land at any moment. Cash compensation does not guarantee security as land does.  

The Uganda constitution which allows people to settle anywhere they like in the country is also causing some problems. Although procedures governing human and livestock mobility are in place, it appears that their enforcement has been weak enabling the strong and well connected to take advantage. The weak and vulnerable peasants can only harbor resentment and wait for an opportunity to strike back.  

In Rukungiri district of western Uganda the manner and rate at which land is changing hands is a cause for great concern which has been expressed to the authorities for a solution to prevent unnecessary suffering as has been happening in parts of Kenya. Increasing landlessness is becoming a problem and the indigenous groups are complaining that the immigrants are taking over their ancestral land. They feel they are being cheated because they are politically voiceless thus raising the intensity of resentment. These concerns have been written about and reported to the authorities at various levels for appropriate action.  

To avoid the nasty experiences of Kenya, land matters in Uganda should be handled with utmost care taking into account cultural differences. People are increasingly appreciating the value and security of land. The warnings that are being given should not intentionally or otherwise be interpreted as some people trying to incite the public or fomenting sectarianism as an excuse for inaction.

Uganda needs to create an atmosphere for present and future generations to live together in peace, prosperity and in dignity as members of the same human family.

Uganda also needs to emphasize that security is about protection of the individual and not just of the state. Government responsibility therefore is to protect its citizens and give them equal opportunity to develop their potential – first and foremost.

Ugandans must muster genuine political will and courage to address these challenges and lay a solid foundation for future generations to live in peace and harmony. Short-term gains should not block our ability to develop a long term vision.