But, perhaps less obviously, political liberalization has also opened debates about what ethnic identity means in daily politics. Open political debate has allowed leaders and citi zens alike to ask questions, explicitly or implicitly, about who represents the ethnic group and how, what the group's inter ests are, and even how the group is defined. These questions, and the answers that emerge, indicate a democratizing effect of even Kenya's extremely constrained and partial liberaliza tion. Greater competition has emerged among leaders for eth nic or subethnic support. It is possible that even long-term material and political grievances, strongly felt by the citi zenry, may be expressed and resolved via ethnic channels. In John Lonsdale's terms, although political liberalization has clearly exacerbated the negative effects of "political tribal­ism," it has also allowed local debates about "moral ethnic ity" to emerge.1
Kenyan politics have long been among the most "ethnic" in Africa. From the battles over the constitutional formula for independence to the waning days of the one-party regime in the late 1980s, Kenyan politicians sought support from their ethnic or subethnic groups, and citizens perceived most po litical battles to be about dividing the "national cake" among the constituent ethnic groups. Political liberalization since 1991 has not fundamentally changed this atmosphere. Most obviously, it has allowed ethnic politics to reemerge into open, public debate. Ruling and opposition parties represent primarily all, some, or coalitions of ethnic groups. Ethnically marked electoral violence, largely instigated by the ruling regime, has come to be expected, though not accepted, as part of the campaign season. Leaders are far more prone to make appeals to the state for resources in openly ethnic terms than they dared to do in the one-party era.
Stephen Orvis
Moral Ethnicity and Political Tribalism in Kenya's "Virtual