Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:36:44.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-help: the state and peasant leverage in Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2011

Frank Holmquist
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The literature on general peasant–state relations in history, in Africa today, or in Kenya in particular, tells us that the peasants have little systematic political leverage over state policy. While I broadly agree with this assessment, I would like to comment on an exception. The changing nature of self-help in Kenya is analysed in order to argue, first, that peasants, in collaboration with other classes in self-help, have had some leverage on state policy and budgets in the realm of basic needs; second, that the fact of peasant initiative and political strength over time has served to alter subtly some aspects of everyday peasant–state relations to peasant advantage; and third, that self-help has historically been a doubleedged political sword. But, before proceeding to the Kenya context, it is essential to review theoretical and empirical aspects of peasant political weakness in contemporary Africa.

Résumé

‘Self-help’: l'état et le pouvoir de pression paysan au Kenya

Le cas de prise en charge des besoins de la communauté par la communauté est utilisé pour démontrer que les paysans ont un pouvoir de pression sur l'état en dépit des assomptions du contraire. Les coalitions paysannes avec d'autres classes ont influencé la politique de l'état ainsi que l'allocation de budgets concernant les ressources sociales, et au travers du ‘self-help’ l'etat a été forcé d'allouer plus de fonds à l'égard de ces besoins définis par les paysans, qu'il n'en aurait été le cas autrement. Egalement, l'initiative en cours de ‘self-help’ paysan a quelque peu tourné à l'avantage du paysan les aspects des relations au niveau de la gestion quotidienne du village par rapport à l'état. L'époque coloniale est utilisée pour illustrer les différentes implications politiques du ‘self-help’ tenant compte du déploiement des forces engagées. Le mouvement des écoles indépendantes Kikuyu fut un véhicule d'opposition au régime, tandis que les développements de communautés soutenus par l'état tendirent à maintenir le status quo. Le ‘self-help’ subséquent à l'indépendance est mieux nommé en tant que variété à mi-chemin, car il n'est généralement ni autonome et oppositionnel, ni strictement contrôlé par l'état et les classes dominantes. Au lieu de cela on trouve des éléments de chaque lorsque l'on considère le phénomène en tant que tel, ou lorsque l'on considère un projet en particulier. Le résultat est que le ‘self-help’ n'est pas un instrument d'un segment de la société mais qu'au contraire il embrace les contradictions multiples de l'économie politique. De récentes interventions négatives de l'état y sont discutées, mais il est avancé que le caractère fondamental de ‘self-help’ subséquent à l'indépendance n'a pas lieu de changer. Dans le contexte courant de répression politique le ‘self-help’ est regardé comme un outil de pression puissant malgré son caractère souvent compromis. Le ‘self-help’ a eut des répercussions matérielles positives pour le paysannat et il a été utilisé comme base politique d'opposition modérée à l'état et même comme activité ouverte anti-régime, réminiscente des mouvements populaires au cours de l'époque coloniale. Par conséquent le ‘self-help’ pourvoit un espace politique appréciable à une époque où cet espace est sous une pression sévère. N.B. ‘Self-help’: prise en charge des besoins de la communauté par la communauté elle-même.

Type
Interventions of the state
Information
Africa , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 72 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amey, A. B. and Leonard, D. K. 1979. ‘Public policy, class and inequality in Kenya and Tanzania’. Africa Today 26(4), 3–41.Google Scholar
Anyang' Nyong‘o, P. 1983. ‘State and society in Kenya, 1960–1982.’ Paper delivered at the Conference on State and Society in Africa, Oaxtepec, Mexico, 23–29 October.Google Scholar
Barkan, J. 1979. ‘Bringing home the pork: legislator behavior, rural development, and political change in East Africa’, in J., Smith and L., Musolf (eds.) Legislatures in Development: Dynamic of Change in New and Old States, pp. 265–88. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Barkan, J. forthcoming. ‘Comparing politics and public policy in Kenya and Tanzania’, in J., Barkan and J., Okumu (eds.) Politics and Public Policy in Kenya and Tanzania, rev. edn. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Barkan, J. and J., Okumu 1978. ‘Semi-competitive elections, clientelism, and political recruitment in Kenya’, in Guy, Hormet (ed.) Elections Without Choice, pp. 88–107. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, R. H. 1981. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Clark, N. and O., Nyaga Gakuru 1982. ‘The effect on health and self-confidence of participation in collaborative learning activities.’ Hygie: International Journal of Health Education 1(2), 47–56.Google Scholar
Cowen, M. 1981. ‘Commodity production in Kenya's Central Province’, in J., Heyer et al. (eds.) Rural Development in Tropical Africa, pp. 121–42. New York: St Martins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. 1984. ‘Women's groups and women's subordination: an analysis of polities towards rural women in Kenya.’ Review of African Political Economy, 27–8, 67–85.Google Scholar
Furley, O. W. and T., Watson 1978. A History of Education in East Africa. New York: Nok Publishers.Google Scholar
Gachuki, D. 1982. ‘Harambee in Kenya: A Case for its Regulation.’ Occasional Paper No. 19. Iowa City: Comparative Legislative Research Center, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Godfrey, E. M. and Mutiso, G. C. M. 1979. Politics, Economics and Technical Training: A Kenyan Case Study. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau.Google Scholar
Harbeson, J. W. 1973. Nation-Building in Kenya: The Role of Land Reform. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Holmquist, F. 1980. ‘Defending peasant political space in independent Africa.’ Canadian Journal of African Studies 14(1). 157–67.Google Scholar
Holmquist, F. 1982. ‘State, class, peasants and the initiation of Kenyan self-help’. Occasional Paper No. 18. Iowa City: Comparative Legislative Research Center, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Holmquist, F. forthcoming (a). ‘Class structure, peasant participation, and rural self-help’, in J., Barkan with J., Okumu (eds.) Politics and Public Policy in Kenya and Tanzania, rev. ed. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Holmquist, F. 1983. ‘Tanzania's retreat from statism in the countryside.’ Africa Today 30(4), 23–35.Google Scholar
Hyden, G. 1980. Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania: Underdevelopment and an Uncaptured Peasantry. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyden, G. 1983. No Shortcuts to Progress: African Development Management in Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
International Labour Organization 1972. Employment, Incomes and Equality: A Strategy for Increasing Productive Employment in Kenya. Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
Independent Kenya. 1982. London. Zed Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, R. 1983. ‘Popular theatre and popular struggle in Kenya: the story of Kamiriithu.’ Race and Class 24(3), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mbithi, P. M. and R, Rasmusson 1977. Self-Reliance in Kenya: The Case of Harambee. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.Google Scholar
Monsted, M. 1978. ‘Women's groups in rural Kenya and their role in development.’ CDR Paper A.78.2. Copenhagen: Centre for Development Research.Google Scholar
Newbury, M. C. forthcoming. ‘Ebutumwa Bw'emiogo: the tyranny of Cassava. A women's tax revolt in Eastern Zaire.’ Canadian Journal of African Studies.Google Scholar
Ng'ethe, N. 1979. ‘Harambee and development participation in Kenya’. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Carlton University.Google Scholar
Race and Class. 1983. Special issue: ‘Kenya: The Politics of Repression’ 24(3).Google Scholar
Report and Recommendations of the Working Party 1982. Nairobi: Government Printer.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. W., Scott, J. C., Lande, C. and Guasti, L. (eds.) 1977. Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. 1972. ‘Patron–client politics and political change in Southeast Asia.’ American Political Science Review 66, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swainson, N. 1979. The Development of Corporative Capitalism in Kenya 1918–78. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. 1981. ‘Local organization, politics and participation in rural development: a study of Harambee self-help in Kenya.’ Unpublished Ph.D. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Wallis, M. 1982. ‘Bureaucrats, politicians, and rural communities in Kenya.’ Manchester Papers on Development, No. 6. Manchester: Department of Administrative Studies, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. 1976. Politics of Decolonization: Kenya, Europeans and the Land Issue 1960–1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar