Introduction  

In Kenya and other countries, actions driven by negative ethnic perceptions, such as ethnic violence, stem from broader frameworks and narratives shaped by the words of leaders and, more powerfully, by how they engage with ethnic identities. State actions significantly shape social norms and narratives, which in turn shape the collective consciousness of citizens and ultimately influence their actions.   

Negative ethnic perceptions persist in many countries due to a failure to address leader- and state-driven actions that worsen divisions between ethnic groups. For example, in Kenya, despite conducting elections in 2022 that received praise for being less rooted in ethnic identity, there continue to be reports and findings of extensive ethnic bias in state decisions and institutions. This is despite constitutional provisions seeking to promote ethnic unity and inclusion and frequent appeals against ethnic discrimination by political and other leaders. The key to disrupting these negative cycles is creating more inclusive participatory processes that can result in inclusive actions, change narratives, and sustain positive engagements between ethnicities and with leaders.   

Ethnic Based Violence in Kenya and Causes   

Following the 2007 general elections in Kenya, ethnic violence erupted. Raila Odinga, the opposition candidate, had an early lead in the polls, but the incumbent candidate, Mwai Kibaki, soon closed the gap and was declared the winner of the election and sworn in less than an hour later. Soon thereafter, protests erupted amid allegations that the election was rigged. Protests became violent and rapidly took on an ethnic dimension. The violence lasted two months, during which time over 1,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. The African Union’s Panel of Eminent African Personalities, led by Kofi Annan, convened the two parties in the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation (KNDR), establishing a peace accord in February 2008 that put an end to the violence. Similar ethnic violence occurred during Kenya’s first multi-party, post-independence elections in 1992 and again in 1997. 

To investigate post-election violence, the KNDR agreed to form a Commission of Inquiry. The Commission found that certain communities felt marginalized by the government due to perceived inequalities in national resource distribution and government positions. Leaders tapped into the feeling of marginalization, which was a powder keg “waiting to be ignited and to explode,” for their own political gain. 

 The KNDR also recommended establishment of the Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) to investigate state human rights violations from 1963 to 2008, explain their causes, and recommend prosecution and reparations. The TJRC found that President Kibaki, like his predecessor Moi, replaced public service nominees with members of his community. As a result, people from regions most affected by the violence felt excluded by the Kibaki administration. Both Commissions’ reports cite government leaders’ actions as a primary cause of ethnic violence. Karuti Kanyinga analyzed a similar trend of ethnic-based exclusion in favor of the community of the president in power and those supporting him.  

There are indications that ethnicity may be losing its influence on Kenyan politics, as seen in the 2022 general elections when ethnic communities such as the Kikuyu rejected President Uhuru Kenyatta’s endorsed candidate, an act which defied previous voting patterns. However, scholars such as Nic Cheeseman and Mwongela Kamencu cast doubt on this trend away from ethnicization, citing historical ethnic allegiances, intergroup prejudice, ethnically rooted clientelism, public dissatisfaction with leadership, economic hardships, and President Ruto’s 2022 campaign, which used the "hustler" narrative to unite supporters across ethnic lines as key to Ruto’s electoral success. 

Similarly, in 2024, Gen Z-led protests against the Finance Bill demonstrated cross-ethnic unity among young Kenyans. Unlike previous protests, these were organic and even spread to perceived strongholds of the incumbent party. Yet in response, suspected government agents framed the protests as a threat to property and peace. In some areas, they mobilized local ethnic community groups to stop the protests and protect the towns, demonstrating how quickly politicians turned to ethnic affiliations to control dissent. 

These events indicate that Kenyans can transcend ethnic divisions, yet politicians often exploit ethnic fears to maintain control. The recent impeachment of Kenya’s Deputy President, tied to allegations of ethnic favoritism, further reflects how ethnicity continues to shape political discourse. While there seems to be a clear movement against ethnic mobilization, its enduring influence in political strategy remains evident, particularly given the absence of consistent government policies against ethnic discrimination.  

Governments can foster healthy ethnic relations by building mutual trust with citizens, creating enduring political identities that... strengthen social cohesiveness.

State Action, Narratives, and Ethnic Cohesion 

Based on the findings of the Waki Commission and the TJRC reports, the actions of a state can set a precedent for the formation of social norms and narratives that shape the collective consciousness of its citizens. Scholars such as Yuval Noah Harari have argued that humans think and cooperate around stories, and these narratives influence how they perceive or understand the world. He deems people’s ability to create stories, believe them, and cooperate around them to be the biggest innovation of humans. 

Wsevolod Isajiw argues that institutional perceptions of ethnicity, reflected in state policies, have a greater impact on societal divisions than interethnic relations themselves. Also, Sinisa Malesevic gives an example of Yugoslavia, where failure to democratize and address economic and political differences, in favor of decentralization, resulted in cultural polarization and institutionalization of ethnic identity, which elites used for political gain. 

Further, Andreas Wimmer argues that ethnicity is a key building block to accessing national power in the age of nationalism as individuals pay more attention to their own ethnic background and that of their rulers. He further argues that citizens will not embrace the idea of a nation as a community of trust and solidarity if it doesn’t involve beneficial exchange relationships with the state. This implies that the policies of state institutions primarily link to strong national attachment. 

Going Forward 

In disrupting negative cycles of ethnic discrimination, states play a pivotal role in shaping positive ethnic relations. As Malesevic highlights, modern nation-states are identity-driven, where ethnic identity, often seen as apolitical, becomes a powerful tool for mobilization and legitimization of political authority. Governments, as Wimmer suggests, can foster healthy ethnic relations by building mutual trust with citizens, creating enduring political identities that mirror and institutionalize the underlying exchange networks, strengthening social cohesiveness. 

Also, state policies and actions should not institutionalize rigid divisions (excessively affirming or denying cultural distinctions), Malesevic observes. Instead, they should promote flexible and equitable recognition of cultural diversity, acknowledging identity without perpetuating exclusion. States can foster inclusive actions, shift damaging narratives, and promote positive ethnic engagement to build a more unified society.