played a guiding role in agriculture too, and for-
mulated national plans. Kenya at the time of inde-
pendence was the most commercially advanced of
the three East African nations. Agriculture pro-
vided the main source of exports, especially coffee,
tea and dairy produce. With Kenyatta placing
national interests above the desire for revenge, the
Europeans were encouraged to stay and to help
the new African country with their knowledge and
expertise. Not so the Asians, who played a leading
role in trade; confronted by Kenya’s efforts to
Africanise, they were driven out and many thou-
sands holding British passports settled in Britain.
Kenyatta encouraged private investment, and for-
eigners were attracted to invest in this one black
country which was politically stable, aligned with
the West and opposed to communism.
The mixed free and state economy overall did
well until the mid-1970s, although agricultural
and industrial progress was uneven. But with one
of the fastest-growing populations in Africa the
loss of Asian enterprise was a serious setback.
Worse still was the growing corruption of those in
power during the Kenyatta years from 1963 to
1978, an inevitable consequence of one-party rule.
On Kenyatta’s death in 1978, Daniel arap
Moi, the vice-president, came to power, and
maintained the one-party rule of the Kenya
African National Union. Economic growth after
1984 was one of the best in black Africa and at
5 per cent kept ahead of the annual population
growth of 3.5 per cent. But Moi developed his
own style of authoritarian rule and cowed all
opposition. Even by African standards his one-
party regime was particularly repressive. There
occurred the murder of the respected foreign
minister, Robert Ouko, in 1990 after he had
attacked government corruption – the results of
an investigation were not made public and a gov-
ernment cover-up was suspected. Pressure on Moi
increased in Kenya and abroad. In December
1991 he allowed the constitution to be changed
to allow the establishment of other political
parties. It was not clear whether genuine political
reform would develop from these reluctant begin-
nings. Stifling bureaucracy and widespread cor-
ruption were making Kenya less attractive to
foreign investors. Moi attributed Kenya’s better
economic performance to the one-party state and
continued to resist Western pressure to introduce
democratic reforms.
David arap Moi ruled Kenya for twenty-
four years with increasing corruption. A divided
opposition allowed Moi to hold on to power
despite the multi-party constitution. Change
came slowly. His vice-president, the academically
trained Mwai Kibaki, left the party and organised
the first real opposition, challenging Moi but
losing in the 1992 election. But a decade later,
Kibaki finally won a convincing majority. In
December 2002 the people of Kenya experienced
democratic change for the first time since inde-
pendence. Kibaki promised to fight corruption
and to better the lot of the people. He faced a
formidable challenge to root out the favoured
elite of Moi’s misrule. The only question is
whether in time they will be replaced by another
corrupt elite of Kibaki’s choosing. It is the African
people who have suffered the dreams and hopes
of independence in stark contrast to the realities
of life, which a flag, a national anthem and a
national airline do nothing to soften.
1
FREEDOM AND CONFLICT IN CENTRAL AND EAST AFRICA 747
Central and East Africa, 1987–2000
Population (millions) GDP per head, Purchasing
1987 2000 Power Parity (US$), 2000
Uganda 15.7 23.3 1,200
Rwanda 6.4 7.6 950
Burundi 5.0 6.4 580
Tanzania 23.1 35.1 500
Kenya 21.1 30.7 1,000
Congo (Zaire) 32.6 50.9 600
