Kenya should be able to debate politics without turning communities into targets of ridicule, suspicion and abuse. Yet recent remarks attributed to former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua during his visit to Embu have reopened an uncomfortable question: what happens when political leaders who have married into a community repeatedly attack that same community in language that demeans its people?
Gachagua’s remarks and the charge of hypocrisy
Gachagua reportedly addressed Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen and Geoffrey Ruku, a leader from Mbeere, noting that both have married women from the Kikuyu community, Mukurweini and Limuru respectively, yet are often perceived as being at the forefront of attacking, criticising and labelling Kikuyus with insults such as “Watu wa Ukabila,” “Watu wa Chuki” and “Watu wa Kisirani.”
Whether one agrees with Gachagua’s, the issue he raised warrants serious reflection. Political disagreement is legitimate. Criticism of leaders is necessary in a democracy. Communities, however, should not become convenient targets for political mobilisation. When leaders repeatedly attach negative labels to an entire ethnic group, they do more than attack individuals. They reinforce stereotypes, legitimise prejudice and create an atmosphere in which ordinary citizens are judged not by their conduct but by their identity.
An insult to one family is an insult to many
An elder once explained this reality through a powerful proverb: when a man points a finger at your mother and calls her a witch, he is not pointing at her alone. He is pointing at the entire homestead, the in-laws and everyone associated with that family by blood.
That wisdom captures how communal insults are understood. In the Kikuyu community, as in many African societies, family identity is deeply interconnected. A child carries the name and dignity of the mother. An insult directed at the mother does not end with her; it reaches the child by extension. It touches the family, relatives, in-laws and all those connected to her. This is why language that may be dismissed as ordinary political rhetoric can be experienced by communities as a direct attack on their dignity.
The same principle applies beyond the Kikuyu community. When a leader calls an ethnic group hateful, tribalistic, corrupt or troublesome, the insult does not remain confined to politicians. It reaches farmers, teachers, traders, students, professionals and children who have never participated in the political dispute. It tells them that their identity is itself a reason for contempt.
That is dangerous. Kenya’s political history has demonstrated the consequences of ethnic labelling. Communities have been praised when politically useful and condemned when politically inconvenient. Leaders have mobilised support by presenting one group as a threat and another as a victim. Such language may generate applause at rallies, but it leaves behind suspicion, resentment and social division.
Marriage does not license contempt
The most troubling aspect is the hypocrisy that often accompanies these attacks. A politician may marry into a community, build a family connected to it and enjoy the trust of its members, yet publicly describe that same community in contemptuous terms. This creates a painful contradiction. If the community is truly as hateful, tribalistic or troublesome as alleged, what does that imply about the families, children and relatives connected to it?
More importantly, what message does such conduct send to the children of those marriages? A child should not grow up hearing one parent’s community described as a national problem while knowing that the same community is part of their own family. Political leaders must understand that their words do not disappear after a rally. They enter homes, schools and family conversations. They shape how children understand identity, belonging and dignity.
Marriage does not erase political differences, nor does it require anyone to defend every action associated with a spouse’s community. But it should encourage humility. It should remind leaders that no community is a monolith and that every ethnic group contains both admirable and flawed individuals. No group deserves collective condemnation because of the actions of some politicians.
The proper target of political criticism should be conduct, policy and accountability, not ancestry. If a leader has acted corruptly, name the leader. If a government has failed, identify the failure. If a political movement has promoted exclusion, challenge its ideas and decisions. But do not convert individual wrongdoing into an ethnic verdict. That is not accountability; it is collective punishment.
Kenya’s Constitution recognises the dignity and equality of every person. It also rejects discrimination and promotes national unity. These principles are not merely decorative words. They impose a responsibility on public leaders to exercise restraint, especially when addressing emotionally charged political questions.
Leaders have a louder microphone—and a greater duty
Leaders have a larger microphone and a greater duty. They should understand that expressions such as “Watu wa Chuki” or “Watu wa Kisirani” do not merely describe political behaviour. When directed at a community, they become instruments of humiliation. They encourage citizens to view neighbours as enemies and families as extensions of political conflict.
The public must also reject the habit of rewarding such language with applause. Political insults may energise supporters temporarily, but they weaken the country in the long run. A leader who wins support by humiliating another community is not building national leadership; he is cultivating permanent division.
This is not an argument for silence. Communities and leaders must be held accountable. But accountability must be specific, evidence-based and fair. It must not be built on stereotypes or inherited suspicion.
The Kikuyu community, like every other Kenyan community, has the right to criticise its leaders without being branded collectively. It has the right to defend its dignity without being accused of intolerance. It has the right to demand respect even from politicians who have chosen to make it a subject of ridicule.
The same right belongs to every community. Kenya cannot continue pretending that ethnic insults are harmless simply because they are uttered during political contests. They are not harmless. They affect families, marriages and children. They revive old wounds and create new ones. They make national unity more difficult and political reconciliation more superficial.
Disagreement without dehumanisation
When a leader insults a mother, the insult reaches her children. When a leader insults a community, the insult reaches every family connected to it, including families within the leader’s own home.
That should inspire caution, not hypocrisy. Kenya needs political leaders who can disagree without dehumanising. It needs public debate that challenges ideas without condemning identities. It needs a culture in which no community is treated as permanently guilty and no politician is allowed to hide behind ethnic generalisations.
The country’s future depends on replacing communal insults with principled accountability. Because when political leaders turn communities into enemies, they do not merely damage their opponents. They damage the families, friendships and nation that bind us all together.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.