Colonial Kenya - Political Evolution
The protectorate's headquarters, established in Zanzibar in 1895, remained there in the early 1900s despite efforts by Eliot, the second commissioner, to have it removed to Mombasa. The protectorate's major problems were nonetheless on the mainland, and by 1902 Eliot was essentially operating out of Mombasa. By that time he was calling for a move to Nairobi, increasingly the center of economic activity after the completion of the Uganda railroad in 1901 and because of the presence of settlers in the Kenya Highlands. The Foreign Office refused the request, and not until 1907, two years after the protectorate had been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office, was the move to Nairobi formally made.
Settler political interest brought formation of the Colonists' Association in 1902. In 1903 Lord Delamere, recently arrived in East Africa, formed the Planters' and Farmers' Association (in 1905 renamed the Colonists' Association and after 1910 known as the Convention of Associations). This replaced the earlier body and became the dominant political voice of the settler community. In 1905 the association called for the creation of a representative legislative council, which was authorized by the British government in 1906; at that time the title of the chief administrative officer of the protectorate was changed to governor. The first council formed in 1907 included eight members — six official representatives and two appointed to represent the settlers.
The Asian community, which then outnumbered the Europeans about three to one, was not represented on the council. To promote their interests, Asians had formed the Indian Association at Mombasa in 1900 and a similar body in Nairobi in 1906; the coordinating British East Africa Indian Association was established in Mombasa in 1907. From 1914 the East Africa Indian National Congress (later Kenya Indian Congress) acted as the community's most important political organization.
In 1907 the Colonial Office pressed the question of Asian representation, and two years later A.M. Jeevanjee, a successful merchant residing in Mombasa, was nominated to the council. The protectorate's new governor, Sir Percy Girouard (1909-12), and his successor, Sir Henry Belfield (1912-17), were generally unsympathetic toward Asian demands; and when Jeevanjee's term ended in 1911, no new appointment of an Asian was made. Asians were also denied representation on local government bodies and were ignored in appointments to government commissions, such as those concerned with labor and land.
Relations between the European and Asian communities became even more bitter after World War I, as the Europeans insisted on continued exclusion of Asian settlers from the White Highlands, restriction of Asian immigration, and residential and commercial segregation. Settler demands for more direct representation and a greater voice in managing the financial affairs of the protectorate led in 1919 to approval of the elected Legislative Council, which included 11 Eu- ropeans in white constituencies and two appointed Asian representa- tives. The following year, in which the first election was held, the Colonial Office proposed the direct election of Asians, but the demand of Asian leaders for a common voter roll instead of the proposed com- munal voter rolls was not accepted. The two Asian members of the council resigned, and members of the Asian community generally boy- cotted the voting.
In 1920 the East Africa Protectorate was reorganized as the Kenya Colony and Protectorate. The protectorate consisted only of the narrow coastal area formally remaining under the sovereignty of the sultan of Zanzibar. The action setting apart this area served to consolidate the European settlers' hold on the crown colony established in the interior.
In 1923 the Colonial Office issued the Devonshire White Paper (after the colonial secretary, the Duke of Devonshire) that had far-reaching implications for both Europeans and Asians, declaring that the interests of the African population were paramount and that in any conflict African interests had precedence. Formally titled Indians in Kenya: Memorandum, the white paper was published to resolve differences between Europeans and Asians after both parties had claimed that their intention was to protect the best interests of the Africans.
This gave the Colonial Office an opportunity to use a reference to the paramountcy of African interests as a way of avoiding a formal commitment to either the Europeans or the Asians. Although the Devonshire White Paper made it clear that the country was actually held in trust for the Africans and, moreover, that the introduction of responsible government, i.e., self-government in the hands of the settlers, was unlikely, the White Highlands remained the preserve of the Europeans.
The Legislative Council, elected by communal voter rolls, consisted, in accordance with the recommendations of the white paper, of 11 Europeans, five Asians, one Arab (another Arab was to be appointed), and one missionary representative for Africans to be appointed at a later date. A representative for African interests (preferably a missionary) was also added to the appointed Executive Council that advised the governor.
The Asian community reacted vehemently to the white paper and refused to vote for, or participate in, the Legislative Council. In 1924 Asians withheld poll-tax payments. This failed as a protest measure, it was claimed, largely because of Asian disunity, and late in the year Asian representatives agreed to join the Legislative Council and the Executive Council.
By 1940 Asians numbered nearly 50,000, more than double the European and three times the Arab population. Discriminatory practices in town property holdings had largely disappeared but not those that prohibited Asians from holding agricultural land in the White Highlands. Moreover, despite their greater numerical strength, Asian representation at the central administration level remained unchanged, and European members of town councils everywhere outnumbered those who were Asian. Frictions within the Asian community continued to weaken its political effectiveness. In 1932 disagreements led to formation of the Federation of Asian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Eastern Africa, which differed over policy with the East Africa Indian National Congress, but their efforts nonetheless tended to be complementary. Differences between Hindus and Muslims in the Asian community also led to the formation of a separate Muslim Association by the latter.
The first organized African political activities began in 1919 with the formation of the Kikuyu Association, whose members included the appointed headmen and chiefs in the Kiambu area who banded together to oppose government alienation of land there. The following year the more militant East African Association was founded in Nairobi under the leadership of Harry Thuku, a government employee. This predominantly Kikuyu organization spoke out against compulsory labor recruitment, against increases in the hut tax, and in particular against the requirement that all adult males carry a kipande (registration certificate).
The Native Registration Ordinance of 1915, enacted by the Legislative Council, had directed universal adult male registration, but because of the war, implementation did not occur until 1920. Buttressed by supplementary work requirement legislation, the system was intended to guarantee an adequate labor supply. The kipande included a record of work periods, wages, employer comments, and other matters related to employment. Loss of the kipande or failure to carry it could result in heavy penalties.
Stimulated by a visit by Thuku to the Kisumu area, Luo and Luhya mission-educated elites formed the Young Kavirondo Association. The association's activities, however, were soon redirected toward social concerns, and the organization was renamed the Kavirondo Taxpayers' Welfare Association in 1923. Meanwhile the government, alarmed at Thuku's activities, arrested him in 1922. A large demonstration by supporters in Nairobi was fired on by the police, and over 20 people were killed. Thuku was kept in exile at remote outposts in northern Kenya until 1931.
The most prominent of the African political organizations before World War II was the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA) formed in 1925. Jomo Kenyatta (then known as Johnstone Kenyatta) became its general secretary in 1928. In 1929 Kenyatta was sent to Britain to lay a petition before the British government calling for elected African seats on the Legislative Council. He was sent again in 1931 in an unsuccessful effort to bring KCA views and African grievances before a parliamentary committee considering the union of Kenya, Tanganyika (present-day Tanzania), and Uganda. Kenyatta remained away from Kenya until 1946, spending the intervening years studying, lecturing, and holding various jobs in Britain. From his academic work in anthropology at the London School of Economics came a well-received book, Facing Mount Kenya, a study of the Kikuyu, published in 1938.
In general, however, he usually discussed Kenyan affairs from a transethnic standpoint. Kenyatta also traveled in Europe and in 1932 visited the Soviet Union where, according to his biographer, Jeremy Murray-Brown, he received instruction in revolutionary techniques. During his long stay in Britain, Kenyatta continued to lobby for change in Kenya and also involved himself in the pan-African movement.
During the 1930s the KCA became the voice of an emerging Kikuyu consciousness. Its preeminence stemmed largely from its espousal of traditional Kikuyu customs in a controversy that emerged in the late 1920s over efforts by missionaries to eliminate such practices as female circumcision and polygamy. The emphasis on Kikuyu culture encouraged the development of Kikuyu ethnic identity. Many Kikuyu Christian church groups broke with their missionary leaders, established independent organizations and, of particular significance, set up an independent Kikuyu school system with which the KCA leadership became closely associated.
When Italy entered World War II in July 1940, an Italian brigade crossed into Kenya and advanced toward Lake Rudolf. By the end of the year, however, the Italians had withdrawn to a defense line at the Juba River in the face of a British buildup in East Africa that included Kenyan battalions of the KAR. These units took part in the British offensive launched in February 1941 that within two months had defeated enemy forces in Italian Somaliland and liberated Ethiopia. The KAR also saw action later in the war in Burma. Europeans from Kenya served with British forces on many fronts and, along with Kenyan Asians, in colonial units.
Until the KCA was officially banned in 1940 as a wartime emergency measure, its political activities remained Kikuyu oriented. In the late 1930s other associations were organized by the Kamba and Taita. They likewise were designed to serve tribal aims and, although they shortly associated themselves with the KCA, they retained their ethnic character and outlook. This emphasis on the ethnic aspect of political activity would continue to be a feature of African politics in Kenya.
The detention of more than 20 leaders of the KCA and of the Kamba and Taita organizations in 1940 as possible subversives, together with the banning of the KCA, muted African political activity during World War II. A small number of European liberals began expressing the view that Africans should be directly represented in a new legislature.
The Legislative Council, seated in 1944, included the first African appointee, Eliud W. Mathu, one of the founders that year of the Kenya Africa Union (KAU). In late 1946 Kenyatta returned to Kenya as the undisputed leader of the nationalist movement, and in mid-1947 he was elected to the presidency of the KAU at a meeting attended by representatives of most of the major ethnic groups. Kenyatta continually attempted to bring the disparate African political and social organizations into the KAU and to broaden the national character of KAU leadership. Oginga Odinga, a leader of the Luo, joined in 1950. By 1951 the KAU reportedly had about 150,000 members throughout Kenya, but most were Kikuyu, and they still constituted almost the entire executive committee.
Insistent African demands, coupled with official concern over growing African disaffection, led to an increase in the number of appointed African council members to two in 1946, four in 1948, and eight in 1951. Africans still were denied direct election, but from 1948 the colonial governor appointed individuals from names submitted by the partly elected African councils that had functioned in many districts as local administrative bodies.
In 1944 the Electors' Union had been formed to represent the increasingly diversified interests of the European population, replacing the old Convention of Associations as the political voice of the settlers.
A principal goal of the new organization was to maintain the unity of the white community by bringing together both farmers and businessmen in the same organization. In a policy statement it emphasized the need for political leadership to continue in European hands. The right of Africans to be represented in the Legislative Council was acknowledged but, significantly, the possibility of direct election was not foreseen for many years—until the African electorate had become qualified in terms of education and economic status. In 1949 the Electors' Union issued its Kenya Plan, which indicated that the European community intended to keep control indefinitely under a hoped-for dominion status similar to that of Canada and Australia.
The political unity of the European community contrasted sharply with the disarray that characterized the African political scene, especially among the politically conscious Kikuyu. By chance, however, an incident in 1949 brought to the attention of the KAU leadership a device for mobilizing mass resistance to colonial authorities. The incident involved the eviction of about 160,000 Kikuyu squatters. In contrast to the usually submissive attitude expressed in similar situations in the past, they presented a solid front against the move and had to be expelled forcibly from the land by the authorities. Their determined resistance was attributed to an oath-taking among the Kikuyu that had welded together the entire community.
Oath-taking in traditional African society was treated with the same general solemnity associated with formal oaths in Western cultures and was held to be just as binding. Indications of a revival of oath-taking created a belief among Europeans that the African population was retrogressing to primitive practices. European fears were heightened by the use of traditional symbols and rituals that were culturally and emotionally abhorrent to Europeans. The result was misinterpretation of the phenomenon and failure to come to grips with the underlying causes of rapidly mushrooming African discontent.
The potential for achieving political unity through oath-taking was immediately realized by KAU leaders and was promoted in Kikuyu rural areas. The response, although great, was not unanimous. Opposition existed among various Christian groups, individuals connected with the administration and their local community supporters, and some better-off African landholders and businessmen. Direction of the rural oath-taking campaign was carried on secretly by an underground group, formerly part of the banned KCA. They were generally political moderates who had preferred change by constitutional means.
Discontent in Nairobi, however, caused by mounting unemployment, brought control of political activities there into the hands of militants, including radical trade union activists ready to use violence to gain self-government, who had taken over the Nairobi KAU branch in 1951. These militants gradually extended their control to some rural areas.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
