Why splitting Mt Kenya vote could hurt those it seeks to help

Every election cycle seems to produce a familiar political temptation, the temptation to redraw identities in pursuit of short-term electoral advantage. Today, that temptation has resurfaced in calls to split the Mt Kenya region into competing political blocs, often described as East and West.

Supporters present this as a strategy to strengthen particular leaders and protect regional interests. Political history teaches a different lesson. Movements built on division may generate temporary excitement, but they often leave lasting scars. Those scars can outlive the elections that created them. Beyond the slogans, a simple question emerges. Who ultimately benefits from convincing people who have voted together for decades that they are no longer part of the same political family?

The answer is far from obvious. The irony is that the leader many proponents claim to be defending could become one of the greatest casualties of such a strategy. If any national leader from the eastern side of the mountain were to seek the presidency in future, that individual would almost certainly require support not only from his immediate home area, but from the entire Mt Kenya region and beyond.

Kenyan presidential politics rewards coalition builders rather than coalition breakers. No serious presidential contender can afford to shrink his political base voluntarily.

The current conversation deserves reflection. Identity politics has consequences long after rallies end. One development that introduced complexity was litigation surrounding the 2019 Population and Housing Census, in which a case was filed seeking recognition of the Tharaka as a separate community from the Meru.

Whatever its merits or motives, it created a political conversation beyond the courtroom. The case raised broader questions about identity and belonging. If communities increasingly define themselves separately in legal and political forums, political actors may later invoke those distinctions in electoral competition. Court proceedings resolve legal questions. They do not settle political perceptions.

Identity debates rarely remain confined to legal documents. They eventually migrate into politics. Leaders should exercise caution before encouraging narratives that may become difficult to reverse. Political succession requires addition, not subtraction. A leader seeking national office benefits from persuading more people to identify with a common political project.

History across Africa offers examples of leaders who mobilised support through narrower identities, only to discover that those identities became barriers when they sought broader acceptance. A regional coalition that fractures itself may find it much harder to reunite when larger political contests arrive.

Perception also matters. Outside the region, many Kenyans have traditionally viewed the various communities of Mt Kenya as close political partners, while recognising their distinct histories, cultures, and identities. That perception has often translated into electoral influence because the region has frequently acted with substantial cohesion.

Whether that perception is accurate is less important than the political reality it has created. Strength has often flowed from cooperation. If political leaders now spend years emphasising internal differences, they should not be surprised if future voters begin believing those differences are permanent.

Politics has a long memory. Words spoken today may become tomorrow's campaign advertisements. Those advocating permanent political separation should ask themselves an uncomfortable question. If, in six years, a candidate seeks support across the region, how easily will he persuade voters to forget years of messaging insisting that they belong to different political camps? Bridges are harder to rebuild than to burn.

This is not an argument against diversity. Communities should celebrate their histories, languages, and cultural identities. Kenya's Constitution protects that diversity because it enriches the nation. But cultural pride need not become political fragmentation. One can proudly affirm being Meru, Embu, Tharaka, Kikuyu, Mbeere, or from any other community while recognising the practical value of regional cooperation on development, representation, and national leadership.

Those objectives are not mutually exclusive. They reinforce one another. Politicians should remember that alliances are temporary, but relationships endure across generations. Children growing up today will inherit the political language leaders choose to normalise. If leaders normalise division, future generations may inherit unnecessary suspicion. If leaders normalise cooperation despite differences, future generations inherit stronger foundations for peaceful democratic competition.

The wiser course is to compete on ideas, performance, and vision rather than drawing internal boundaries. Leadership should be measured by the ability to expand trust, widen alliances, and inspire confidence beyond one's immediate constituency. That is how national leaders are made.

Leadership requires foresight. You may have a deputy president today. You may need a president tomorrow.

Political rhetoric can burn the granary because one is satisfied today. Kenya has paid too high a price for leaders who underestimated divisive narratives. The future belongs not to those who perfect separation, but to those who master bringing people together.