1

Mediatising Politics and Democracy:

Making sense of the role of the media in Kenya

George Nyabuga

2

Mediatising Politics and Democracy

Media Focus on Africa FoundationNairobi

3

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................4

Background: Media, society and politics.......................................................................7

Politics and democracy ................................................................................................10

Politics, democracy and participation ......................................................................11

Political parties, democracy and the media..............................................................12

Ethnicity and the media ...........................................................................................15

Mediating politics and democracy ...........................................................................18

The media and Kenya today ........................................................................................21

Moving beyond the norm.............................................................................................22

Format ..........................................................................................................................22

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................28

References....................................................................................................................29

4

Foreword

Democracy and the role the media plays in this ‘popular but yet ‘contested’ and

problematic mode of governance have long been the subjects of intense debate. Does

media influence democracy? Does the media influence political behaviour? How does

the media influence (if at all) voting patterns? How does it impact political processes,

and power? These are critical questions constantly being asked as society deliberates

the role the media plays, or ought to play in political and democratic processes.

Despite the sometimes overwhelming ambivalence over the role of the media in

political and democratic processes, there is popular acknowledgement that the media

plays a significant role in society by providing information upon which critical

decisions are based. In essence, the media is a key instrument in decision making,

providing information, and providing a platform for articulation and aggregation and

formation of (public) opinion. However, what is not certain is whether there is a direct

relationship between the media and journalism, and political outcomes, or what is

now known as ‘democratic’ activities and processes.

The above issues are critical to Kenya, as indeed they are across the world. With the

growing place of democracy (partly due to the fact that it is the only ‘popular’ and

legitimate mode of governance) in the world, there is need to determine what factors

influence democracy.

In Kenya, various issues have come to dominate political discourses. The issues of

political parties (and politicians of course), governance, corruption, violence (this

continues to influence the national political narrative after the 2007/2008 post-

election violence) and related issues of justice (the International Criminal Court (ICC)

and (Louis Moreno-Ocampo), reconciliation, civil society and its role in the political

processes, and ethnicity among others have come to occupy national socio-political

discourses mainly because of the priming and prioritisation by the media and

journalism. And these are critical issues that the Media Round Tables organised by

the School of Journalism and Mass Communication (SoJMC) of the University of

Nairobi, the Media Focus on Africa Foundation (MFAF), Media Institute (MI), and

Kenya Editors’ Guild (KEG) put on the table under the ambit of the Media Round

Tables.

5

The general feeling among the organisers is that these are matters that determine

Kenya’s current and future political processes, and their primacy is derived from their

capacity to define Kenya’s political trajectory. The Round Tables are essentially

conversations between people considered opinion shapers in Kenya (for example,

politicians, civil society activists, scholars etc.) and media as well as ‘ordinary’

Kenyans in an organised forum. Through the Round Tables people debated and

appreciated the role the media plays in Kenya and the factors influencing coverage or

reportage of various issues. People also discussed media power, performance as well

as relationship with society (and various actors particularly politicians, political

parties, government and its various departments, civil society and Kenyans in

general).

Thus as we reflect on the remit and efficacy of the Round Tables as well as their

achievements, we must start to think about the future of the media particularly in the

Kenya. Given the changes not only in Kenya’s political dispensation, but also in

relationships between the peoples of the country, and the growing ‘power’ and

capacity of the media to mediate politics, the Round Tables offer Kenyans an

opportunity to interact with journalists and other actors in efforts aimed at enhancing

public opinion and appreciation of the (sometimes difficult and ‘unappreciated’) role

the media plays.

The success of the Round Tables is based on its open nature, honesty and civility. The

panellists and participants made the Round Tables forums worth attending. The

people’s active participation demonstrated the place of public discussions in

promoting understanding among different groups and actors in Kenya.

We thank the people who have participated thus far, and contributed to the success of

the Round Tables. They fora would not have been possible without the generous

financial support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Nairobi and the National

Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Alliance Francaise provided the space at no

charge. For this support we are eternally grateful.

We of course hope the Round Tables will contribute to national political and

democratic discourses, and enhance public understanding of the media and its role in

society.

6

George Nyabuga, SoJMC

Charles Otieno, MFAF

7

Background: Media, society and politics

That the media play a critical role in society is not in doubt. What scholars and media

watchers have always argued about is the extent or scope of the effects the media

have upon society, and the people that inhabit it. Granted, the truism that media and

journalism are critical the wellbeing of society is based on the fact that information

has become one of the vitally important resources that people and society need to

operate.

The media is also considered a key factor in shaping how society operates by

articulating ideas and influencing perceptions and attitudes. In democratic societies,

media and journalism act as vehicles that reflect public opinion by highlighting public

concerns and making people aware of state policies and important events and

viewpoints. Sometimes media and journalism are catalysts for change. They play a

facilitative role by ‘reflecting the political order in which [people] are situated’ and

‘promote dialogue among their [audiences] through communication’ (Christians et al.,

2009: 158). In other words, the expansion or development of democracy is based on

an educated and informed public which acts on what it knows and that information

plays an important role in society.

In any democracy, information and communication are considered vital organs

without which this system of governance would not survive. In fact, democracy is

considered a communications-intensive mode of governance in which there is

continual discussion, analysis, debate, and study. With access to reliable information

from a variety of perspectives and a diversity of opinions on current affairs, people

will arrive at their own views on important issues and thus prepare adequately for

political participation. The media are thus the vehicles through which people receive

and disseminate this information. The media is considered an effective tool of

communication, providing a powerful channel of information between the political

elite and the electorate. It makes it possible for widely dispersed citizens to receive,

disseminate and act on the information availed to them by the mass media (Wheeler,

1997; Grossman, 1996).

To Hartley (1992: 1) and indeed many people, both scholars and practitioners,

“Television, popular newspapers, magazines and photography, the popular media of

8

the modern period, are the public domain, the place where and the means by which

the public is created and has its being”.

Media often refers to institutions and technologies that perform various functions. In

their most basic form, media are apparatuses that ‘come in-between’ or mediate

between two or more parties. In fact, we have become used to the term ‘mass media’

which refers to the ‘organized means for communicating openly and at a distance to

many receivers within a short space of time’ (McQuail, 2005: 17). Today, technology

has made it easier and faster to communicate and to reach mass audiences that share

neither space nor time. Technologies such as mobile telephony and the Internet have

made it possible to have instantaneous and interactive communication thus making

the consumption of media real-time. In addition, the use of new technologies has

enhanced the rate at which even ‘traditional’ media like television and radio operate.

The same technologies, however, present challenges that media organisations have

had to grapple with. In short, technologies bring a mixed bag of opportunities and

challenges that media have had to deal with in their efforts to adapt and survive.

Despite the above observations, however, technologies have had a significant impact

on media and journalism particularly on the collection, ‘packaging’, dissemination

and consumption of various products especially news.

Journalism involves the practice of rendering accounts of events that ostensibly

interest the public. It refers to a cultural practice (Glasser, 1999; Wahl-Jorgensen &

Hanitzsch, 2009) that has been institutionalised in particular organisational forms,

mostly news media. Journalism may also refer to a group of people who have

organised themselves in a particular way, for example, into a profession that entails

ascribing to regulations, codes of practice, standardisation of skills, autonomous

control over output, and a distinct set of criteria assessment of quality and quality

control.

Through the ‘Reithian trinity’ of information, education, and entertainment, media

and journalism provide an essential service to society. This is based especially on the

notion that the media and journalism are key purveyors of information that helps to

people make sense of events beyond their sensory experience, information that

influences people’s daily lives and operations, and information that helps people

make sense of their world, and negotiate meaning of events and their society.

9

Regardless of the assertions above, there is an emerging realisation that people often

do not know what media stands for, and whom it represents. Neither do they know

what factors influence its coverage and position on issues of public interest. In other

words, whereas the media constantly claim to be interested in issues of public interest,

what it sometimes offers its consumers cannot be considered to be of significant

public interest. Sometimes what they refer to as public interest issues are matters that

cannot be of genuine public interest. This is especially true of commercial media that

often pursue and obsess about profit at the expense of public good and virtue.

In today’s capitalistic world, the media have acquired a somewhat liberal and

capitalistic reputation where competition, media freedom and commercialisation are

all cherished and promoted at the expense of the public service role. This has perhaps

led to what is seen as the media’s emphasis/obsession with celebrities,

sleaze/scandals, corruption, violence and other anti-social behaviour as they strive to

contain the growing competition for sexy, hot and selling news. In the zeal for to wade

off competition, they have cultivated a reputation of suspicion, dishonesty,

manipulation and indecency.

There is no denying that the media plays a crucial role in education, information and

entertainment although this is continually coming under scrutiny as increasing

competition and commercialisation have put the them under intense pressure to

perform and make profit at the expense of the social responsibility role they should or

indeed ought to have or owe society.

There is of course the so-called public service media, the not-for-profit media

organisations like the British Broadcasting Corporation. Even these, however, are

coming under the spotlight for what is seen as the abdication of its role in society in

the face of cutthroat competition from the private media empires. The need to make

profit and compete in the competitive media world is exerting a lot of pressure on

media to the point where they do not disseminate what is of public interest but what is

perceived as the hottest story, the story that can beat competition and attract as many

viewers, readers, listener, the audience needed to pull in the advertising and

subsequent money required to survive and make a profit. In other words,

media/journalism and societal values are now suffering or they are being ignored

because of the money these media empires are making. The battle for supremacy -

10

increased circulation, sales, advertising and profit - in the media industry has pushed

players to resort to all sorts of dirty tactics, some highly unorthodox and unethical, to

ward off competition and maximise their profits in an increasingly competitive

environment. The demands of the marketplace have driven the content of newspapers

and broadcast journalism towards more expository, revelatory, forms of coverage,

often to the point where McNair (1998: 124) describes it as ‘subversive’ if not

necessarily ‘antisystemic’.

Accordingly, there is little doubt that whatever coverage commercial media offer

issues is often predicated upon the saleability of the content rather than serving

genuine public interest. In other words, as media are profit-centred businesses, it is

the bottom line or profit motive that determines content.

Politics and democracy

Politics and democracy have become buzzwords not only in Kenya but also around

the world. This is due to the import of democracy as a form of responsible and

accountable governance.

Although such concepts as democracy, and transparent and accountable governance

form part of everyday popular and journalistic discourse, they are often hardly

understood, and their application oftentimes quite difficult and sometimes even

impossible. For example, Kenya has gone through a series of serious problems with

the quality of its democracy, and good, accountable and responsible governance and

political leadership. This is based on the notion that the political leadership often fails

to live up to its apparent democratic promises, people’s expectations and is hardly

accountable to the people.

Yet, politics is ubiquitous. In whatever society, wherever in the world, it is almost

inevitable to be involved or affected in one way or the other by politics. The

inevitability of politics lies in the fact that it deals with issues of democracy, good

governance, accountability, justice, liberty, legitimacy, allegiance, authority, among

other matters that affect people in their everyday lives.

11

Politics is defined by the existence of power and authority (Dahl, 1976: 2 - 3) and thus

involves the process (duly called the political process) of the ‘shaping and sharing of

power’. This means the political process extends even to those who confess not to be

involved in politics. The existing human and societal relationships mean that one’s

participation in politics and the political process, whether intentionally or

unintentionally, is inescapable.

Politics is a phenomenon found in and between all groups ofinstitutions and societies, involving all spheres of human endeavour,public and private. It is manifested in the activities of cooperation,negotiations and struggle over the use, production and distribution ofresources. It is an element of all human life: an inescapable dimensionof the production and reproduction of society. Accordingly politics isabout power; about the forces which influence and reflect itsdistribution and use; and about the effects of this on resource use anddistribution. Politics is about ‘transformative capacity’ of socialagents, agencies and institutions: it is not about governments andgovernments alone (Held, 1995: 247).

Heywood portrays politics as a social activity that arises out of interaction between or

among people. He also sees it as “the exercise of power or authority, as a process of

collective decision-making, as the allocation of scarce resources, as an arena of

deception or manipulation” (Heywood, 1994: 17). He points out that politics involves

diversity, the existence of a range of opinions, wants, needs or interests. Diversity is

closely linked to the existence of conflict and involves the expression of divergent

opinions and beliefs, competition among rival goals and ultimately decision-making.

Issues of power, leadership, influence, leader-citizenship/common-man-woman

relationships, the composition of governments, the management of conflicts,

relationships with other states, all involve politics. Issues of governance,

accountability and responsibility all involve politics and the media are now being

used to make the political process more inclusive and open.

Politics, democracy and participation

Participation lies at the heart of political and democratic processes. This is premised

on the fact that ultimate authority in any state rests with the people and that their

12

participation in the political process is required to fulfil the ‘social contract’ drawn by

both governors and the governed.

Democracy is dependant upon effective participation particularly in a public sphere

where debate is free and public opinion formation is encouraged. The failure of many

countries to democratise is premised upon effective preclusion or marginalisation of

the citizenry from the political process. The desire by some elite to hoard (and often

abuse) power has often been the bane of democracy. Some in fact believe in the

minimalist democratic approach in which their positions are sanctioned by minimal

acts of citizen participation. This is based on the notion that citizens give the rulers

the right to rule (see for example Schumpeter, 1950).

But the consolidation of democracy cannot take place in an environment of minimal

participation, disenfranchisement and marginalisation. Besides, participation and

inclusion are the main ingredients of democracy, perhaps the most sought-after but

somewhat ‘elusive’ mode of governance.

In the modern world in which democratic leadership is determined through the ballot

box, the participation of as many people as possible is the hallmark of legitimacy,

openness, fairness and effectiveness of the electoral and indeed the democratic

process. In democracy, popular participation is key to legitimation of power,

decisions and thus the formation and existence of governments. Popular or mass

participation gives governments the authority or right to exist. A government without

the support of the people cannot be said to be democratic. As great political thinker

John Stuart Mill (1910: 215 - 217) notes, “the only government which can fully

satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people

participate; that any participation, even in the smallest public function, is useful; that

the participation should everywhere be as great as the general degree of improvement

of the community will allow; and that nothing less can be ultimately desirable than

the admission of all to a share in the sovereign power of the state”.

Political parties, democracy and the media

Political parties and political leaders play a vital role in society. Although the

relationship between politicians and political parties and ordinary people is complex,

13

political leadership is indispensable in politics. Political leaders are first and foremost

seen as politicians, mainly those engaged in active politics or those seeking or

occupying political positions in a state and polity.

Politicians or political leaders normally (although not always) belong to political

parties whose role include articulating and aggregating various interests in society;

providing states with political leaders; providing societies with the means to set and

execute collective goals; providing the means for political socialisation and

mobilisation; and, helping with the formations of governments (Dowse and Hughes,

1972: 339-340; Hague, Harrop and Breslin, 1998: 131; Heywood, 1997: 233).

There are numerous methods of gaining leadership positions, for example,

succession, appointment, self-appointment, or elections. Leaders aspire to occupy

positions of power for various reasons. In Kenya’s political environment, leaders

aspire for political office because of self-interest – both material and psychological –

or self-sacrifice although in most instances it is hardly the latter. In most instances,

self-interested leaders realise that their service to others will eventually benefit their

own interests particularly when they have at their disposal public resources from

which they often illegally tap.

Since the re-introduction of multipartyism in Kenya in 1991, there has been a steady

growth of party politics. However, many of these appear to be interested mainly in

contending for political power based on the fact that parties seem to emerge around

time and disappear almost immediately thereafter. This may change, however given

the new rules coming into effect with the ‘new’ constitution and the Political Parties

Act although compliance with these instruments remain to be seen.

In Kenya, as indeed other parts of the world, political parties consider the media and

journalism key to the advancement of their main objective – contend political power.

In this sense, they always seek to, as McQuail (2005: 525) argues, continuously

engage in a “process of news management and competition to define events and

issues. All significant actors employ professional news managers (spin doctors) to

ensure access on favourable terms in normal daily news and put the best gloss

possible on a news story.” Besides, as Franklin (2004:8) posits, parties now employ

“small armies of media advisers to develop strategies for promoting electorally

favourable media images of their leaders and key policies. … Politicians and pundits

14

of every kind have come to believe that the way media report the election campaign

and the ability of parties to incorporate their messages into media coverage is crucial

to the election result”.

The electioneering period is especially crucial for the relationship between politicians,

the media and the target audiences. “Media bias, the ownership and control of the

media industry, the political uses of the media,” says Street (2001, p. 231), “all matter

because they have some effect upon the way the political process works, and the

interests that motivate the media also shape the outcomes of that process. The media

have power: they determine the fate of politicians and political causes, they influence

governments and their electorates. They are, therefore, to be numbered with other

political institutions - parliament, executives, administrations and parties.”

The conduct of democratic (or undemocratic) politics, nationally andinternationally, depends more and more on mass media, and thereare few significant social issues which are addressed without someconsideration of the role of the mass media, whether for good or ill.… the most fundamental question of society - those concerning thedistribution and exercise of power, the management of problems andthe processes of integration and change – all turn on communicationespecially messages carried by the public means of communication,whether in the form of information, opinion, stories or entertainment(McQuail, 1994: 1- 2)

In democracies, scholars (for example McNair, 2011: 67) contend, the media have

become critical to the consolidation and expansion of democracy because they

“perform not only cognitive functions of information dissemination but also

interpretative functions of analysis, assessment and comment”. McNair (2011) has

further argued that:

Not only do the media report politics, they are a crucial part of theenvironment in which politics is pursued. They contribute to policydiscussion and resolution, not only in so far as they set publicagendas, or provide platforms for politicians to make their viewsknown to the public, but they also in judging and critiquing thevariety of political viewpoints in circulation (McNair, 1999: 67).

However, despite the above arguments and the fact that the relationship between

political parties and politicians on one hand, and the media and journalists on the

other operate on a shared strategy of complementarity of interests, the two parties’

relationship oscillate between “trust and suspicion” (Mancini, 1993: 33).

15

Ethnicity and the media

Kenya’s politics is almost synonymous with ethnicity, or to use the more common

term tribalism.

The ethnicisation of government, the civil service and even political parties has for

years been considered one of the major contributors to poor governance and

unaccountability in Kenya, and of course conflict (Ogude, 2002; Omolo, 2002; Oyugi,

2005).

In a country with more than 42 ethnic groups, ethnicity has often been considered

critical to power, and distribution of resources. During the Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel

arap Moi regimes, the distribution of state resources was often based on ethnic

alliances. The distribution of civil service jobs, development funds and projects, and

government positions became the preserve of certain communities although in a

majority of times those of the president and other government mandarins. This led,

and continues to contribute to the entrenchment of tribalism in Kenya’s political

psyche. To this day, there is a common belief that membership to the ‘right tribe’

brings political benefits that other tribes can only dream of in Kenya. Ministerial and

senior government positions, project funds, development projects are normally

allocated along ethnic lines in what has become a difficult balancing act in a country

polarised by tribalism.

The ethnicisation of the civil service was particularly divisive under Moi even though

there is little doubt that Kenyatta and his cabal cronies lay the foundation for this

trend immediately after independence, and continued to provide vital patronage for its

growth and survival until his death in 1978. After ascending to power, Moi took the

mantle and sought to follow Kenyatta’s footsteps, adopting the Nyayo (a Swahili word

literally meaning footsteps) maxim as he vowed to follow the political trajectory set

by his predecessor. One thing he did differently though was the dismantling of the

Kenyatta’s Kikuyu hegemony – although he was literally following the example

already established – as he set out to entrench his leadership by bulwarking his

position using his Kalenjin tribesmen and women. As Carey (2002) observes,

Once in power, he [Moi] launched an affirmative action programmeto loosen the power of the Kikuyu … which was so powerful underKenyatta. However, moving Kenya from a Kikuyu hegemony to a

16

Kalenjin-centred state increasingly caused political instability. Itresulted in greater control by the presidency over every otherinstitution. … . Since Moi became president, the government hasoverly pursued ethnic politics (Carey, 2002: 58-59).

As Carey observes, Moi’s behaviour had far reaching consequences for the political

process. Apart from the serious polarisation caused by his actions, he set in motion a

serious deterioration in the quality of public administration and the confidence people

had in government and the political leadership.

To this day ethnicity and poor leadership are still strongly conjoined. Even though

some aspects of ethnicity, like language and culture are and should be celebrated,

tribalism is associated with bad governance, and political unaccountability. For this

reason, there have been efforts, including Moi’s proscription in the early 1980s of

tribal alliances like the Gikuyu, Embu, Meru Association (GEMA), a powerful tribal

grouping under Kenyatta, the Baluhya Association, Luo Union, and the New Akamba

Union to annihilate tribal associations as part of efforts to reduce their impact and

influence on the political process. However, recent developments have birthed these

tribal associations as the basis for political leveraging. The association of such

political figures as Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta with Gema, and Eldoret

North MP William Ruto with the Kalenjin, Maasai, Turkana and Samburu

(Kamatusa) demonstrates the rise of ethnic politics. It also shows the inability of

Kenya’s political leadership to steer clear of ethnicity or tribalism particularly when

such associations can ostensibly deliver political and electoral results. As regular The

Standard commentator Barrack Muluka recently put it in The Standard, “The re-

emergence of Kamatusa conjures up frightful memories on the herd instinct and the

politics of ethnic mobilisation”.1

Accordingly, the inability of the country’s leadership to steer clear of ethnicity is seen

as part of selfish attempts to play an ethnic game to maintain the status quo. Even

though it is difficult to eliminate ethnicity from Kenya’s political equation, it has

1 Muluka, B. (2012) ‘Kamatusa re-emergence brings back ethnic cleansing memories in Kanu era’, TheStandard [online], 6 April. Available at:<http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000055709&cid=489&story=Kamatusa%20re-emergence%20brings%20back%20ethnic%20cleansing%20memories%20in%20Kanu%20era> [20 April2012]

17

become imperative among discerning Kenyans that positions of power ought to be

allocated on merit in order to address problems of unaccountable and inefficient

administration. For example, Murunga (2004) posits that

…(T)he interests of every citizen, irrespective of ethnoculturalbackground, are expected to be given equal consideration; a societyin which merit, achievement, and credentials, rather thanethnocultural background, are considered the basis for the offer of ajob or a rank; a society in which the idea of the equality ofopportunity is appreciated by all and is given practical translation inthe allocation of awards, public offices, and educational facilities …and, thus, gives no cause to an individual to feel cheated because ofher ethnocultural affiliation. A society that … avoids tyranny …cherishes not only open government and public accountability butalso consensual politics. (Murunga, 2004: 201)

Ethnic conflict has also been part of Kenya’s political process. The problem became

worse once Moi acceded to multipartyism. The first multiparty elections were

preceded by serious ‘state-sponsored’ conflict. Opposition strongholds, particularly in

parts of the expansive Rift Valley Province, were rocked by ‘state-sponsored’ ethnic

clashes meant to intimidate and deny people opportunities to attend opposition

meetings and rallies (Human Rights Watch/Africa Watch, 1993; Throup and Hornsby,

1998; Ogude, 2002). Thousands of people were either killed or displaced from their

land ostensibly because they did not support KANU. Described as “widespread ethnic

cleansing” (Throup and Hornsby, 1998: 188) the clashes had by 1993 officially

claimed 1,500 and displaced 300,000 people, mostly the Kikuyu, the Luhya, Kisii and

the Kamba and others suspected of being opposition supporters. The most serious

cases of ethnic animosity in Kenya’s history emerged after the 2007 general election.

Following the announcement of the disputed vote, Kenya erupted into severe violence

and conflict never seen before. In the end, more than 1,000 people were left dead,

thousands of women (and some men) raped, and over 300,000 Kenyans were evicted

from their homes and farms and left internally displaced. Some of these people still

languish in camps for internally displaced people months after the end of the violence

and only a few months to the next poll.

In part the violence was a result of ethnicity, and parties founded on tribalism. It is

noteworthy that the ethnicisation of political parties has made multipartyism farcical

18

as the ‘new’ dispensation somewhat represents ethnic and regional loyalties.

Moreover, as Oyugi (2003: 358) points out, the founders of ‘ethnic-based’ political

parties see them as channels through which they could acquire and benefit from state

resources. “… [The politicians] see their parties as instruments for group struggle at

the centre for access to scarce national resources and for struggle for the control of he

state itself”.

Mediating politics and democracy

The use of the media for political communication means that the media are being

utilised to communicate (by politicians, political institutions like parliament,

governments, the state, pressure and interest groups, terrorist groups and other

political actors) to widely dispersed people in the hope of involving them or making

them aware of events or goings-on around them. All these activities are of course

geared towards making people become more interested or involved in politics.

The contribution of media to politics cannot be gainsaid. As McQuail (2005) points

out the conduct of democratic (or undemocratic) politics, nationally and

internationally, depends more and more on mass media, and there are few significant

social issues which are addressed without some consideration of the role of the mass

media, whether for good or ill.

On the other hand, democracy is now gaining currency throughout the world as the

only system of governance that can deliver people from the myriad political maladies

and conflicts. This is because, according to the primary or fundamental principles of

this system, democracy ideally empowers or bestows the right on the people to decide

their own destiny. It is seen as emancipatory, as a means of freeing or ridding

countries or states of dictators, as a way of encouraging participation of the governed

in the affairs of the government, as a means of promoting accountability and

responsibility of the rulers to the ruled. Generally, democracy is hailed as a popular or

best style of political governance.

However, despite the promises of democracy with its emancipatory qualities, many

people in Kenya and Africa still suffer the after-effects of poor leadership, civil

conflict or authoritarian or despotic leadership. People are still highly suspicious of

19

this mode of governance because it is seen as the elevation or maintenance of

oligarchies in power through popular consent or, to be more specific, the ballot box or

elections (Runciman, 1971).

Comparatively though, democracy, unlike other modes of governance (theoretically at

least), provides for comprehensive input from society and provides for individual

decision making on a wide range of occasions. According to Bobbio (1987: 10)

democracy is concerned with the granting of civil liberties against the incursion of the

state and relies heavily on the fact that the citizenry is well informed to make

informed choices especially during elections.

Although the ambiguity and fluidity of democracy makes it difficult to reach an

agreed definition, Lively (1975: 30) draws several criteria against which a regime or

government should be measured for it to be truly democratic:

That all should govern, in the sense that all should be involved in legislating, in

deciding on general policy, in applying laws and in governmental administration;

That all should be personally involved in crucial decision making, that is to say in

deciding general laws and matters of general policy;

That rulers should be accountable to the ruled; they should, in other words, be

obliged to justify their actions to the ruled and be removed by the ruled;

That rulers should be accountable to the representative of the ruled;

That rulers should be chosen by the ruled;

That rulers should be chosen by the representatives of the ruled;

That rulers should act in the interest of the ruled.

These are just but a few requirements although they represent a start point from which

to judge whether a regime is democratic or not or whether it enjoys popular support.

Democracy and popular support should not be confused however. A regime can enjoy

popular support without being democratic although it is hard for it to be democratic

without enjoying or getting popular support.

20

Although democracy is fraught with great definitional (and indeed application and

practical) ambiguities owing to the fact that different people define or apply it

differently (on many occasions to suit themselves), it has captured the imagination of

many people around the world and millions of lives have been lost fighting for it.

Ideally democracy is perceived to be the rule of the people achieved through

maximum participation of all the people in making decisions or choosing their

representatives although this ideal is almost practically unattainable or fiercely

contested (Holden, 1974; Lively, 1975; Diamond, et al, 1988; Bratton and van de

Walle, 1997).

However, as a form of governance in which the people have the right to control their

own destiny and their ability to exercise or control power and have the final authority

and right to make, or at least influence decisions that affect their lives, democracy has

become the only model of government with broad ideological legitimacy and appeal

in the world today.

Democracy is also based on consent as the exercise of political power lies in

people’s consent or obedience to authority. This is premised on the notion that

democracy can only be legitimate if it is based upon the ‘voluntary submission’ of

those subject to the exercise of authority (Steinberg, 1978: 25). The great political

philosopher John Locke (1965: 375) opines that “no man can be subjected to the

political power of another without his own consent.” This view is generally seen

as the foundation on which democracy is built and legitimacy founded.

In the search for consent leaders and indeed the ruled are always seeking ways and

means of achieving or gaining the confidence and respect of the other. Among these is

the search for tools of communication through which massages can be replicated,

disseminated and received in an effort to build general support required for the

survival of authorities or governments in any democracy.

Has democracy been transformed, expanded, bettered (or indeed worsened) by the

media? How do the media and other channels of communication and mass media

benefit democracy? What is the contribution or role of the media and journalism in the

achievement of liberal and participatory democracy?

Participatory democracy calls, allows, enables or empowers people to take an active

21

part in the decision-making process, starting from the choice or election of

representatives, for example, to monitoring their performances and participating fully

in the business of the government. Lucas (1976: 142) posits that participation not only

helps people understand the phenomenon of government as a form of action rather

than merely a kind of event, but also leads them to criticise from the standpoint of

agents rather than spectators.

The media and Kenya today

The above conclusions that put the media in a vantage point from which to observe,

comment and sometimes mobilise action against some issues and ills (for example

crime, corruption, and misrule etc.) in society. However, the obsessions with

profitability, and the media’s sometimes abuse of its enormous power often give

critics ammunition with which to assault it.

As Mancini and Swanson (1996: 11) posit the media are “no longer merely a means

by which other subsystems, such as political parties, can spread their own messages,

mass media emerge in modern polyarchies as an autonomous power centre in

reciprocal competition with other power centers.” In other words, the media possess

power which they ought to use in public service. In other words, journalists and the

media have a role as a watchdog, keeping the public informed particularly about the

operations of the state; they should safeguard public against political excesses,

unaccountable leadership. However, as Kohut (2001: 52) observes, sometimes

journalists and the media act as “an ill-mannered watchdog that barks too often – one

that is driven by its own interests rather than by a desire to protect the public interest”.

Based on the foregoing discussions, various organisations, in this case the School of

Journalism and Mass Communication (SOJMC), University of Nairobi, Media Focus

on Africa Foundation (MFAF), Media Institute (MI), and Kenya Editors’ Guild

(KEG) came together in attempts to promote public understanding of the role of the

media in society, and what informs their coverage of issues. In short, what really is

public interest according to media people? What informs their coverage of issues in

Kenya? Do they understand the issues to be able to inform the public? And what is

the media’s role in society? Is it to inform, entertain and educate or is to make

22

money? Or is it all of these?

This is the basis upon which the Media Roundtables was started in September 2010.

Moving beyond the norm

The remit of the roundtables has been to deeply examine and problematise, in

conversations with various actors – academics/scholars, media

practitioners/journalists, civil society organisations, policy makers, media

stakeholders like Media Owners Association, political practitioners like politicians

etc., and ‘ordinary’ Kenyans – the role of media on various issues.

The realisation that the media and journalists and the people and society they serve do

not often engage in meaningful conversations was the basis for the roundtables. In

essence, it was about giving people drawn from various sectors of society the space

and platform to explore or examine various issues relating to the role of media and

journalism in Kenya. The roundtables are based on clear objectives. These are:

To promote research into Kenya’s media roles, and relationships with different

actors/sectors in the Kenyan society;

To problematise and advance debates into the role of the media into Kenya’s

political, economic, and social development, and political and democratic

process;

To encourage public discourse and interactions among different actors

interested in media’s role in the Kenyan society;

To promote public understanding of the media’s station in the Kenyan society

Format

The two-hour round tables have often consisted of a panel of three or four people

from diverse backgrounds. This is based on the idea that they would give a variety of

views that would form the basis of discussions and upon which plenary debates would

be based.

23

As the fora are organised with the public in mind, the idea was to also open the

platforms to participants drawn from various sectors, particularly professional

organisations, the media, civil society, academia, and even government agencies plus

of course the general populace. This was envisioned as part of enriching the

discussions while offering opportunities to people to engage with the ‘experts’ and the

media on issues critical to the understanding of media roles and performances.

This research is thus an extension of the round tables although its remit is to examine

the content of print media, especially the newspapers with the view of discovering

how they cover critical issues relating to the political and democratic processes. They

are the issues that have formed the agenda of the various round tables held since

2010.

Media and politics in Kenya: what has been achieved by the roundtables

The roundtables have covered a wide range of issues. All the topics, however, relate

to the idea of media and journalism’s effects on political and democratic processes.

As indicated above, the roundtables were built on the idea that public understanding is

critical to the comprehension of media’s place in Kenya’s society. Besides, the forum

was conceived on the premise that the public’s understanding and utilisation of media

are critical to effective participation in Kenya’s public sphere.

Whereas there has been a relative improvement in the coverage of issues that have

been discussed, most notably the media’s coverage and interaction with Kenya’s

politics, Kenya’s political process, political participation, political parties, elections,

democracy, human rights, civil society, the 2010 constitution, ethnicity and the

International Criminal Court, there is still need to improve the content of these issues

particularly as Kenya moves towards the next generation which according to the

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is scheduled for March

2013.

It is evident from the discussions above that Kenya has a fluid political environment

characterised by personality cults, ethnicity, and party affiliation. Although Kenyans

have long agitated for ideology-driven party politics, this has not been achieved due

to weak party political systems, and practices that seem to favour short-term political

24

gains. This is not any better in Kenya’s media. As pointed out above, most of the

media in Kenya are commercial in nature and their pursuit of profit is no secret. As

such, what the media seem to favour is content that sells, and their obsession with

personalities, celebrities, and other ‘soft’ issues that do not require much investment

in terms of time, monetary and even specialised human resources that would offer

deeper and meaningful coverage of issues. This is an issue Linus Kaikai, the

Managing Editor of Nation TV seems to agree with. He, however, points out that the

media is reforming. “One of the biggest problems is, for example, the coverage that is

given to politics; sometimes it is very petty politics,” he said while participating as a

panellist in one of the round tables.2

It is clearly evident that since the round tables started, for example, that the issue of

the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo have

been given massive amounts of space in both print and electronic media. Even the

blogosphere is awash with the trials and their consequences on both the political and

democratic processes in Kenya.

Given the gravity of the ICC issues, the fact that the four accused – Uhuru Kenyatta,

the Deputy Prime Minister, Eldoret North MP William Ruto, former Head of Civil

Service and Secretary to the Cabinet Francis Muthaura, and radio announcer Joshua

Sang3 – are charged with crimes against humanity, there is no doubt that such issues

should be given sufficient space and airtime in Kenya’s media. Moreover, some of

Kenyatta and Ruto have declared their intention to run for the presidency. The fact

that they occupy high political offices in Kenya is also a factor.

Despite the huge amount of content of the ICC though, it is clear the coverage is not

authoritative or informed. As panellists said during one of the round tables, the media

is often interested in who (most often the political elite) says what rather than the real

issues surrounding the court and whether it would dispense justice to the victims of

the post-election violence. In other words, although there are deeper issues

2 The views of Linus Kaikai, the Managing Editor of Nation TV, one of the panellists at the 27September 2011 round table on Media and Implementation of the New Constitution held at AllianceFrancaise, Nairobi.3 The Ocampo list initially comprised six ‘suspect’s. Two of the so-called Ocampo Six PostmasterGeneral Hussein Ali and Orange Democratic Party MP Henry Kosgey were removed from the list afterthe ICC ruled there was no sufficient evidence to sustain their cases.

25

surrounding the ICC, and the crimes involved, the media often offers ‘ignorant’ and

‘sensationalist’ coverage to boost circulation and readership.

It is noteworthy that Kenyatta and Ruto have used their new found ‘infamy’ to

campaign for the presidency, and media reports show how they have coalesced their

issues around their ethnic communities, and their problems are now considered to be

part of their ‘community’ issues. Indeed, the Gikuyu, Embu, and Meru Association, a

tribal association ostensibly bringing together members of those communities, has

recently rallied around Kenyatta with the idea that he is their leader and thus not

worthy of facing the ICC to answer charges of crimes against humanity. Similarly the

Kalenjin have supported William Ruto’s assertion that he should not be charged at

The Hague. The Kalenjin ‘leaders’ have even gone ahead to ask ‘their’ athletes4 not to

participate at the London Olympics this summer if Ruto is charged.

In a recent article a Sunday Nation columnist Eric Ngeno (2012: 32) argued that

although there is “nothing wrong with tribalism – the character of having a strong

tribal identity and loyalty to one’s ethnic, or cultural group – … ” ethnicity had run

“amok and becomes altogether cancerous when it is deployed as a basis for exclusion

of others. In the course of primitive tribal mobilization around national resources, it

becomes necessary to claim that one’s community is entitled, and that others are

‘enemies’.”

Ngeno’s (2012: 32) conclusion is that even though Article 44 of the Constitution

implicitly promotes ethnicity, by giving the right to use the language and participate

in the cultural life of their choice, form and become members of cultural associations,

“exclusive tribalism, or tribal competition on the bases of excusive access to power is

lethal”.

Moreover, as former Member of Parliament for Kikuyu and Safina party Paul Muite

says, ethnic ‘kingpins’ have taken Kenyans for a ride. He calls ethnicisation of

politics hollow and lacking substance. Talking at a round table on Media and Political

4 It is noteworthy that most of Kenya’s athletes hail from the Kalenjin community and Kenya wouldperform poorly if the athletes heed the call. However, the athletes also know that not participating atthe Olympics would jeopardize their chances of competing in elite meets in the West and which earnthem millions of shillings. This is something officials of the National Olympic Committee, particularlyChairman Kipchoge Keino and Secretary David Okeyo told the athletes immediately the Kalenjin‘leaders’ asked the athletes to pull out.

26

Parties on 25 October 2011, lawyer, former Member of Parliament for Kikuyu and

Safina party leader Paul Muite said:

The reality is that ethnic mobilization is not for the benefit of thatparticular community, as not everyone from the community benefits;rather a few individuals surrounding the president, the primeminister, the power centre! It is very unfortunate that communitiesare often fooled by these ethnic tricksters that ‘mtu wetuanamalizwa’ [our person is being finished]. You find an ethnickingpin who has totally brainwashed his tribesmen and women andhe totally controls them like a puppet for his own political gain. Heeven goes around bragging to fellow politicians about the magnitudeof followers he commands from his ethnic community. This is thejinx that needs to be broken down if we are going to havedevelopment in this country. One gets very concerned when you seethe same sort of ethnic mobilization that almost brought us to ruinsbeing perpetuated by self-centred politicians. Are they going to letthem reign forever? We have got to break this bad tradition. This isthe message I think the media needs to focus on. As mediaorganisations, you are the experts in packaging information; the ballis in your court; this message has got to be passed across to theKenyan people so that during the next election people will vote onthe basis of issues and merits in terms of what elected leaders can doand not on the basis of ethnic mobilisation.5

The above observation aside, the media, despite their awareness of the negative

consequences of tribalism (or what Koigi wa Wamwere calls ‘negative ethnicity’)

have continued to report pronouncements by politicians even when they border on

hate speech. Such ignorance has often been criticised by critiques who want the media

to research issues before publication. For example, Charles Nyachae, the Chairman of

the Commission for Implementation of the Constitution (CIC) noted at the 27

September 2011 round table that the media sometimes tends to misreport

constitutional issues. He noted that whilst the media shapes public opinion, and

despite wielding great power, they sometimes do not understand the enormity of their

reports and actions.

The constitution itself may not be complicated but it is a documentwhich addresses complexity; therefore I would urge the media to lookat the lessons that have been learnt in terms of the content and thisinvolves perhaps more time to be taken in terms of understanding thespecifics that are within the constitution. There are many things in the

5 The views of Paul Muite, lawyer, politician, former MP as well Safina party leader and presidentialcandidate, one of the panellists at the 25 October 2011 round table on Media and Political Parties heldat Alliance Francaise, Nairobi.

27

constitution which you will not appreciate unless you read and analyzethe entire document.

Sometimes one small error in terms of reporting what theconstitution provides for takes a lot of time and energy to reverse.An example is if a writer says that one of the challenges regardingAugust 2012 as the election date is because new constituencies haveto be in place 12 months before the general election and thereforethese are not in place and we have a challenge. Now, the constitutiondoes have a provision that says that; but in the same constitution …the transition provisions suspend that provision. Therefore there is aneed to have a more detailed understanding of the specific provisionsin the constitution and the only way that can be done is actually byreading the constitution over and over again and understanding howthe different parts relate to one another and how they affect otherlaws that are in the existence.6

Nyachae’s views were echoed by the Executive Director of Uraia Zain Abubakar who

seemed to suggest the media and journalists have neither understood nor internalised

constitutional issues to be able to offer meaningful information, analysis and

commentary. To him, media practitioners, owners and journalists have to deal more

critically with issues offered in the constitution.

Media practitioners, owners and journalists ought to ask themselvesas far as the issue of internalisation of the new constitution isconcerned include: to what extent do our media houses have thecapacity to understand this constitution and the implementationprocess? As media organizations, have we been able to go over andabove politics for the sake of constitutional implementation?7

Constitutionalism aside, the issue of party politics continues to elicit strong views

from pundits who reckon parties in Kenya lack clear ideologies on which to stand and

seek public support. According to Muite parties in Kenya lack vision and strong

ideology as the basis for responsible and accountable democracy. To him:

A strong political party system enhances democracy, and perpetuatesstability in a country. Therefore time has come for Kenyan politiciansto stop misusing political parties to serve their own interests. In othercountries people vote for political parties on the basis of very specificissues; for instance, what is this party going to do to lower interest

6 The views of Charles Nyachae, the Chairman of the Commission for Implementation of theConstitution (CIC), one of the panellists at the 27 September 2011 round table on Media andImplementation of the New Constitution held at Alliance Francaise, Nairobi.7 The views of Zain Abubakar, the Executive Director of Uraia, one of the panellists at the 27September 2011 round table on Media and Implementation of the New Constitution held at AllianceFrancaise, Nairobi.

28

rates? How is it going to reduce unemployment rates, manageagriculture, manage health services? Not just ethnic affiliation which,unfortunately, is the major reason for voting for political parties inthis country.8

The issues discussed above raise serious concerns about the place and capacity of the

media and journalism to midwife change. Although pundits and panellists as well as

participants at the various round tables acknowledged the important role the media

play, they also reckoned the fourth estate had effectively abandoned their public

service ethos due to commercial, political and entrepreneurial pressures. However,

despite the criticism levelled against the media and journalists in Kenya, there is an

overarching view that they still have a place in the development of effective

participatory political and democratic processes due to the important role they play as

providers of information, and public space critical to public opinion formation and

aggregation.

Conclusion

The foregoing arguments have offered a discussion of the role of the media in

political, democratic processes and development in Kenya. The discussions are

offered within the ambit of the media and its place in Kenya as part of a series of

round tables organised by School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University

of Nairobi, the Media Focus on Africa Foundation, the Media Institute, and the Kenya

Editors’ Guild to enhance public participation and understanding of the role of the

media in Kenya. The round tables were also conceived as part of promoting

conversation among and with various organisations and people like

academics/scholars, media practitioners/journalists, civil society, policy makers,

media stakeholders, politicians, and ‘ordinary’ Kenyans on the role of the media in

Kenya.

As indicated above, whilst there is positive feedback on the improvement of the

coverage of various issues, for example political parties and the media,

implementation of the ‘new’ constitution, civil society, human rights, the ICC process

8 The views of Paul Muite, lawyer, politician, former MP as well Safina party leader and presidentialcandidate, one of the panellists at the 25 October 2011 round table on Media and Political Parties heldat Alliance Francaise, Nairobi.

29

and ethnicity (or tribalism) the media have a huge task ahead: to provide meaningful

information that is critical to the consolidation of democratic, responsible and

accountable political leadership that respects the rule of law, human rights, and

promotes good governance at all levels. Besides, journalists are often depicted as

‘watchdogs’ or ‘advocates’. Both metaphors imply that journalists should operate ‘on

behalf of the public’, provide it with information necessary for democratic decision-

making, defend society from corruption, and deal with issues that the public cares

about. In short, the media in Kenya have an important role to play despite the

challenges the currently face.

ReferencesBobbio, N. (1987) The Future of Democracy: A Defence of the Rules of the Game.Cambridge: Polity in association with Blackwell.Bratton, M. and Walle, N. (1997) Democratic Experiments in Africa: RegimeTransitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Carey, S. (2002) ‘A Comparative Analysis of Parties in Kenya, Zambia and theDemocratic Republic of Congo’, Democratization, 9 (3). 53-71

Christians, C., Glasser, T., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K. and White, R. (2009)Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. Urbana andChicago: University of Illinois Press.

Dahl, R. (1976)Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Diamond, L., Linz, J. & Martin, S. (eds.) (1998) Democracy in Developing Countries:Africa. Vol. 2. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Franklin, B. (2004) Packaging Politics: Political Communications in Britain’s MediaDemocracy. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.

Glasser, T. (ed.) (1999) The Idea of Public Journalism. New York, NY: The GuilfordPress.

Grossman, L. (1996) The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democracy in theInformation Age. New York: Penguin.

Hague, R., Harrop, M. and Breslin, S. (1998) Comparative Government and Politics.London: Macmillan.

Hartley, J. (1992) The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age ofPopular Media. New York: Routledge.

Held, D. (1995) Political Theory and the Modern State: Essays on State, Power andDemocracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heywood, A. (1994) Political Ideas and Concepts: An introduction. London:Macmillan.

30

Heywood, A. (1997) Politics. London: Macmillan.

Holden, B. (1974) The Nature of Democracy. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Kohut, A. (2001) ‘Public Support for the Watchdog Is Fading’, CJR (May/June): 52.

Lively, J. (1975) Democracy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Mancini, P. (1993) ‘Between Trust and Suspicion: How Political Journalists solve thedilemma’, European Journal of Communication 8(1), March. 33-53.

Mancini, P. and Swanson, D. (1996) ‘Politics, Media and Modern Democracy:Introduction’ in Swanson, D. and Mancini, P. (eds.) (1996) Politics, Media andModern Democracy. New York: Praeger. 1-26.

McNair, B. (1998) The Sociology of Journalism. London: Edward Arnold

McNair, B. (2011) An Introduction to Political Communication. 5th ed. Abingdon:Routledge.

McQuail, D. (2005) McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. 5th ed. London: Sage.

Mill, J. S. (1910) Utilitarianism. London: JM Dent and Sons.

Murunga, G. (2004) ‘The State, Its Reform and the Question of Legitimacy inKenya’, Identity, Culture and Politics, 5 (1 & 2). 179-206.

Ngeno, E. (2012) ‘Competition for exclusive access to power can be lethal’, SundayNation, April 15. 32

Ogude, J. (2002) ‘Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Making of Democracy in Kenya. AnIntroduction’, African Studies, 61 (2). 205-207.

Omolo, K. (2002) ‘Political Ethnicity in the Democratisation Process in Kenya’,African Studies, 61 (2). 209-221.

Oyugi, W. (2003) ‘The Politics of Transition in Kenya, 1992 – 2003: DemocraticConsolidation of Deconsolidation?’ 345-381. In Oyugi, W., Wanyande, P. andOdhiambo-Mbai, C. (eds.) The Politics of Transition in Kenya: From KANU toNARC. Nairobi: Heinrich Boll Foundation.

Oyugi, W. (2005) Ethnic Relations and the Democratisation Process in Kenya, 1990-1997. [unpublished].

Runciman, W. (1971) Social Science and Political Theory. 2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Schumpeter, Joseph (1950) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York:Harper and Brothers.

Throup, D. and Hornsby, C. (1998) Multi-Party Politics in Kenya: The Kenyatta andMoi States and the Triumph of the System in the 1992 Election. London: JamesCurrey and Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers.

Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Hanitzsch, T. (2009) ‘Introduction: On Why and How weshould do Journalism Studies’ in Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Hanitzsch, T. (eds.)(2009) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York, NY: Routledge. 3-16.

31

Wheeler, M. (1997) Politics and the Mass Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Blackwell.