Kenyatta and the Development of African Nationalism in Kenya

Abstract

One of the illusions of 1960 was the widespread belief, particularly in liberal circles, that independence marked a sharp break with the past. In the joy over independence, this was an understandable emotion. But historians will come to see that no such sharp break occurred and that there was considerable continuity from the colonial period into that of independence, even in the most radical countries. A failure to understand the reasons for this continuity leads both to charges of the betrayal of the nationalist revolution and to a bleak and sometimes violent pessimism which is particularly to be found in radical intellectual circles in Africa. In particular, there is a strong tendency to accept Fanon's argument that the anti-colonial revolution in Africa brought to power a black bourgeoisie made in the image of the European civil servant and manipulated by the great powers, particularly the United States, Britain, and France. Inevitably this view has begun to colour the nature of African scholarship. Political scientists who used to be keen on modernizing one-party states are now interested in the inertia of parties and bureaucracy. Charismatic leaders are giving way to generals. The new growth industry is the study of the military in Africa. Pessimism and caution seem to be the order of the day. The tone of innocence shattered which can be seen in the recent literature on Ghana can also be found in that on Kenya. Fanon's general indictment of African leadership is very similar to Oginga Odinga's particular criticism of the government of Jomo Kenyatta. In the case of Kenya, moreover, these criticisms are accentuated, as Ali Mazrui has pointed out, by a