Ethnic intolerance in African Politics: The Case of Rwanda and Kenya
Ethnicity is used in Africa to refer to a group of people who share similar cultural background or common ancestors. The Hutus of Rwanda, Kikuyus of Kenya, Twas of Rwanda and the Luos of Kenya are referred to as ethnic groups who have their peculiar cultures. For example, it is believed that the Hutus have a cultural identity — occupation — peculiar to them which is farming while the Tutsis are regarded as herders. From this, one would observe that the role of ethnicity in society has been seen as that of mere association. However, as a result of the republican duties it requires from its members, it plays a great role in the marginalisation of minority ethnic groups thereby …show more content…
He emphasises that the ethnic violence that happened in Rwanda was a culmination of the different historical factors that created marginalisation in the country. In Billy Batware’s view, the relationship between the ethnicity of Rwanda and the ecosystem shaped the political system in the country. This situation, coupled with the skewed resources in the country developed into a ticking time bomb for ethnic intolerance and ultimately violence amongst ethnic groups in Rwanda. Batware argues that as a result of their geographical locations, the Hutus were predominantly farmers while the Tutsis were herders. He emphasizes that this difference in occupations became the foundation in which the political system of the country was founded upon. According to Batware, “The Rwandan socio-political system was thus built on a contradictory setting. Most if its Hutu and Tutsi populations, had to depend on the same land resources for their livelihood thank to territorial despecialization as far as agriculture or cattle productions are concerned” (Batware 3). This foundation resulted into the basis for which Tustsis increased their political prowess while stratifying the …show more content…
Ndegwa argues that the role of ethnicity in politics has not been well scrutinized and has not had enough attention. According to Ndegwa, citizenship in countries rife with ethnicity are two different types: ethnic citizenship and national citizenship. In Ndegwa’s view, “[..], the difference between ethnic and nation-state citizenship lies in the Weberian legal, rational and bureaucratic frameworks that uphold identity, legitimacy, and authority in the nation-state, as opposed to the social customs, social practices, and nonbureaucratic structures that define and uphold citizenship in ethnic groups” (Ndegwa 601). In making this comment, Ndegwa argues that there are two distinct types of citizenship—ethnic and national— and they differ in a certain way. Accroding to Ndegwa, these distinctions are the best places to start in order to observe the root cause of ethnic intolerance. He claims that there are certain responsibilities that come with ethnic citizenship and they range from respect of ethnic authority to adherence to social customs and social practices. Ndegwa states, “Members of larger ethnic groups, exercising the republican duty to vote for their community, propel their group to electoral dominance and therefore benefit from liberal democracy with majoritarian institutions,
Ethnicity is used in Africa to refer to a group of people who share similar cultural background or common ancestors. The Hutus of Rwanda, Kikuyus of Kenya, Twas of Rwanda and the Luos of Kenya are referred to as ethnic groups who have their peculiar cultures. For example, it is believed that the Hutus have a cultural identity — occupation — peculiar to them which is farming while the Tutsis are regarded as herders. From this, one would observe that the role of ethnicity in society has been seen as that of mere association. However, as a result of the republican duties it requires from its members, it plays a great role in the marginalisation of minority ethnic groups thereby …show more content…
He emphasises that the ethnic violence that happened in Rwanda was a culmination of the different historical factors that created marginalisation in the country. In Billy Batware’s view, the relationship between the ethnicity of Rwanda and the ecosystem shaped the political system in the country. This situation, coupled with the skewed resources in the country developed into a ticking time bomb for ethnic intolerance and ultimately violence amongst ethnic groups in Rwanda. Batware argues that as a result of their geographical locations, the Hutus were predominantly farmers while the Tutsis were herders. He emphasizes that this difference in occupations became the foundation in which the political system of the country was founded upon. According to Batware, “The Rwandan socio-political system was thus built on a contradictory setting. Most if its Hutu and Tutsi populations, had to depend on the same land resources for their livelihood thank to territorial despecialization as far as agriculture or cattle productions are concerned” (Batware 3). This foundation resulted into the basis for which Tustsis increased their political prowess while stratifying the …show more content…
Ndegwa argues that the role of ethnicity in politics has not been well scrutinized and has not had enough attention. According to Ndegwa, citizenship in countries rife with ethnicity are two different types: ethnic citizenship and national citizenship. In Ndegwa’s view, “[..], the difference between ethnic and nation-state citizenship lies in the Weberian legal, rational and bureaucratic frameworks that uphold identity, legitimacy, and authority in the nation-state, as opposed to the social customs, social practices, and nonbureaucratic structures that define and uphold citizenship in ethnic groups” (Ndegwa 601). In making this comment, Ndegwa argues that there are two distinct types of citizenship—ethnic and national— and they differ in a certain way. Accroding to Ndegwa, these distinctions are the best places to start in order to observe the root cause of ethnic intolerance. He claims that there are certain responsibilities that come with ethnic citizenship and they range from respect of ethnic authority to adherence to social customs and social practices. Ndegwa states, “Members of larger ethnic groups, exercising the republican duty to vote for their community, propel their group to electoral dominance and therefore benefit from liberal democracy with majoritarian institutions,