INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2498
www.rsisinternational.org
Indigenous Languages as a Prerequisite Tool for Democracy: The
Case of Kenya
Dr. Beverlyne Asiko Ambuyo*
Maseno University, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Department of Kiswahili and other African
Languages, P.O Box 333 – 41050, Maseno, Kenya
*
Corresponding Authors
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100200
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 20 November 2025; Published: 04 December 2025
ABSTRACT
Democracy is an integrated political system which came about through the infusion of two political traditions;
liberty which is often called freedom and popular sovereignty or self-government. Liberty belongs to
individuals, while popular sovereignty is a property of the community as a whole. Therefore, democracy is a
systematically structured form of freedom. It is about justice, equality and the freedom of expression. Freedom
of expression fosters publics to clearly put forward their needs and demands on governance. This is only made
possible through a language that the citizens understand best. Language embodies knowledge, identity, and
human relationships, it creates and is created by society. Therefore, democratic politics is politics in vernacular.
It therefore implies the use of a language that encourages all players to make an effort to understand each other.
This involves the willingness to overcome the barriers to mutual understanding, including the linguistic ones.
Using the three communicative democratic theory tenets discussed by Young (1996): greetings, rhetoric and
storytelling, this paper analyses the strategies that are used to enhance the possible democratic space by our
leaders through the use of the indigenous languages having in mind that Kenya is a multilingual society. Data
was purposively sampled through You-tube to get a leader who used indigenous languages during various
public meetings. The Right honourable Raila, Amolo, Odinga strategically used greetings in the indigenous
languages of every community before addressing them. He also used rhetoric and storytelling/narration to
bring the people together to appreciate an intimate experience that brings out a deeper understanding and
respect for each other’s language.
These enhances inclusivity and tolerance despite the linguistic differences, hence a democratic society.
Democracy; Indigenous Languages; Freedom of Expression; Multilingualism 1.0
INTRODUCTION
Democracy can be defined as a government in which sovereignty lies with the people either directly or via
representatives. Ambuyo, Okal & Amukowa (2017) argued that globally, the spread of democracy has been
accompanied by the global spread of criticisms of democracy. They continue to argue that freedom and
democracy, while suitable in some parts of the world are by no means universal goods. Democracy is an
integrated political system which came about through the infusion of two political traditions; liberty which is
often called freedom and popular sovereignty or self-government. Liberty belongs to individuals, while
popular sovereignty is a property of the community as a whole. Liberty involves the dos and don’ts of the
government to its citizens whereas self-government has to do with the way those who govern are chosen.
Therefore, we can summarize that democracy is a systematically structured form of freedom. The more
democracy is applied beyond the state, in regional and transnational governance, the more we need conceptual
tools to decide whether we are actually talking about increased democracy or prerequisites to create and
enhance democracy.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2499
www.rsisinternational.org
This is because democracy is the one form of government which evolves constantly to ensure that it is possible
through a self-correcting system. Kasimi (2020) explains that a democratic country is not possible without
justice, equality and the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression fosters publics to clearly put forward
their needs and demands on how the authorities should perform their duties. Freedom of expression is only
made possible through a language that the citizen understand best. Language embodies knowledge, identity,
and human relationships. It creates and is created by society, hence responsible for creating social realities
through understanding of different social phenomena which can shape thoughts and actions in a variety of
ways. Moreover, Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi, and Harmon (2003) explains that language is a vital and
fundamental expression of people’s culture and our way of being and seeing the world. It is one of the most
fundamental ways in which we strengthen community wellbeing, reaffirm our sense of belonging, express our
culture, and sustain our family connections and our communities place in society. In addition, language stores
our history and knowledge, progressed over thousands of years, and ties us to our country and each other.
The foundation of this work is the relationship between language and democracy, which constitutes a
fundamental part in human life. Kymlicka (2001) argues that “democratic politics is politics in the vernacular.”
This statement can be challenged positively and or negatively through answering some pertinent questions.
What happens in a multilingual community? Does it mean that democratic politics is impossible in a
multilingual community, whether at the local, national, regional or global level? Nakata (2024) explains that in
the global era, the diverse cultures, languages and knowledge of the worlds’ entire population, not just the
Indigenous population, are rapidly disappearing into a much smaller number of homogenised cultures,
languages, and knowledge systems. However, sharing in the views of Kymlicka (2001) this paper assumes and
maintains that democratic politics implies the willingness of all players to make an effort to understand each
other. This involve the willingness to overcome the barriers to mutual understanding, including the linguistic
ones. Any time that there is a community of fate, a democrat should search for methods that allow deliberation
according to the two key conditions of political equality and participation. If linguistic diversity is an obstacle
to equality and participation, some methods should be found to overcome it. This is to be evaluated by looking
at the possible democratic space exhibited in Kenya by our leaders, through the use of the indigenous
languages.
UNESCO has an essential role to play in providing International frameworks for education policy and practice
on key and complex issues. Language and, in particular, the choice of language of instruction in education is
one such concern and often invokes contrasting and deeply felt positions. Questions of identity, nationhood and
power are closely linked to the use of specific languages in the classroom. Educational policy makers have
difficult decisions to make with regard to languages, schooling and the curriculum in which the technical and
the political often overlap. While there are strong educational arguments in favor of mother tongue (or first
language) instruction, a careful balance also needs to be made between enabling people to use local languages
in learning, and providing access to global languages of communication through education. Significant
changes have taken place over the years, there have been immense political transformations birthing new
language policies especially in postcolonial and newly independent countries. Hundreds of languages have
disappeared throughout the world and many more remain endangered; migratory movements have brought new
and varied languages to other countries and continents; the internet has dramatically affected the way in which
language and languages are used for communication and indeed for learning; and rapidly accelerating
globalization increasingly challenges the continued existence of many small, local identities frequently based
on languages. While some countries opt for one language of instruction, often the official or majority language,
others have chosen to use educational strategies that give national or local languages a chance to enhance bio-
cultural diversity (UNESCO, 1953). This is one way of enhancing the democratic space not just for the
indigenous languages but also the people using the languages, as they can express themselves in a way that
they can comprehend best.
Moreover, At a global level, the World Federation of Modern Language Teaching Associations (FIPLV) and
UNESCO's Linguapax Committee have been active in drafting further instruments and recommendations such
as the Pecs principles (FIPLV, 1991), which informed the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. 10 This
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2500
www.rsisinternational.org
was adopted at the World Conference of Linguistic Rights held in Barcelona 6 - 8 June 1996. It is based on the
concept of equality for languages and therefore avoids the terms regional or minority languages which have
been used to restrict the rights of language communities. Currently, the Declaration has no legal force, but it
sets out an agenda for policy and legislation http://www.troc.es/mercator/main-gb.htm. Its starting point is that
'linguistic rights are individual and collective rights at one and the same time'. It lists five personal rights which
may be exercised in any situation namely: To be recognized as a member of a language community, to the use
of one's own language both in private and in public, to the use of one's own name, to interrelate and associate
with other members of one's language community of origin, to maintain and develop one's own culture. The
four 'collective rights of language groups are: For their own language and culture to be taught, access to
cultural services, an equitable presence of their language and culture in the communications media and to
receive attention in their own language from government bodies and in socio-economic relations. However,
some of this ideas are making basis for policy in the area of language teaching and learning, even if they are
not in a position to guarantee the full range of linguistic rights.
The constitution of Kenya 2010 take cognizance of the diversity of languages. In chapter 2 article 7 states that;
7. (1) The national language of the Republic is Kiswahili. (2) The official languages of the Republic are
Kiswahili and English. (3) The State shall— (a) promote and protect the diversity of language of the people of
Kenya; and (b) promote the development and use of indigenous languages, Kenyan Sign language, Braille and
other communication formats and technologies accessible to persons with disabilities. The promotion and
protection of this languages can only be evident through their usage. Mose (2018) and Abiyo (2024) noted that
Kenya is a multilingual country with over forty different indigenous languages. Initially, its language-in-
education policy for early primary education was enacted in 1976. Subsequent education commissions have
not altered its core content. Mother tongues should be used as languages of instruction up to grade three –
assumedly taking its cue from UNESCO’s (1953) position that mother tongues are ideal for early education.
The Kenya Educational Policies; Kenya Institute of Education (KIE), 2012 and Kenya Institute of Curriculum
Development (KICD) 2017 specifies the use of the language of the catchment area (the language of the school
community) as the language of instruction from pre-primary level to primary grades 1-3. From grade 4
onwards, English is used as the medium of teaching. As much as Education is deliberate on the use of
indigenous languages, this paper seeks to look at the political space as another avenue where the indigenous
languages has a pivotal role as a language that speaks from and to the heart of people and hence a prerequisite
for democracy in Kenya.
2.0 Statement of the Problem
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 has a deliberate democratic provision of the use of indigenous languages in
various places in Kenya. This paper looks at indigenous languages in the Kenyan democratic space as a tool for
linguistic freedom to shaping public opinion, and behavior. Holding onto the argument that democratic politics
is politics in Vernacular, this paper is analyzing the strategies used by political leaders while using the
indigenous languages as a prerequisite for democracy in Kenya.
3.0 Objectives
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the position of indigenous languages as a prerequisite tool for
democracy in Kenya. This is done by analyzing the strategies employed by the leaders to convey their
ideologies and agendas through the indigenous languages having in mind that Kenya is a multilingual society.
4.0 Communicative Democracy Theory
Dewey (1916, 1927), Habermas (1984, 1987, and 2018) and Young (1993, 1996) conceptualized Democracy
and Communication. In Dewey’s view of democracy, communication is the anchor. His conceptions of the
social life, communication, and democracy are closely related. Democracy is not just a set of institutional
arrangements but is a communicative form of social life. Against an individualistic ethos, Dewey argued for a
democracy that has a communal dimension and needs communication of facts and ideas. Coeckelbergh (2024)
argues that in a democracy, there needs to be free and open communication between people with different
backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, which leads to both moral growth and democracy as people come
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2501
www.rsisinternational.org
to share concerns and hold more in common. Dewey (1916) insists that democracy is not just a form of
government but ‘a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicative experience.’ His emphasis on the
importance of communication for democracy is anchored in the conviction that society does not only use
communication instrumentally but it exists in communication. Communication is about what we have in
common. Supporting social life is in turn necessary since ‘what one is as a person is what one is as associated
with others’. He explained that Education should play a key role, where its main aim being a social one and
personal growth is seen in that light; one should grow towards seeing common interests. Dewey writes, that
instead of pursuing utilitarian ends, education must present situations where problems are relevant to the
problems of living together. Education should therefore promote interests and insights in the very problem of
living together.
Habermas (1984) agrees with Dewey that communication is constitutive for democracy. His deliberative
democracy is a development of his theory of communicative action (Habermas, 1984). When people engage in
political argumentation and justification regarding the organization of their living together, they engage in
argumentative communicative practices. Anyone can take part and introduce challenges, that others must be
seen as equals, and that no-one is coerced by others. There is a mutual search for understanding. The so-called
“ideal speech situation,” which Habermas also formulated in terms of a ‘discourse ethics,’ derived from the
presuppositions of argumentation – a transcendental argument (Habermas, 2018). The ideal speech situation is
grounded in communicative action rather than strategic action. If these conditions are not met, a political
argument would not be justified in a democracy. He paid more attention to discourse used in different spheres,
which Habermas (1987) calls ‘the system’. Language is used to give orders, to bargain, manipulate, etc. In the
‘lifeworld’, by contrast, people try to understand each other and reach consensus. Habermas’s discourse ethics
is meant to guide us in achieving communicative action and therefore also in realizing democracy.
Building on Dewey’s (1916, 1927) and Habermas (1984, 1987) ideas Young (1993, 1996) proposed a version
of deliberative democratic theory that she calls ‘communicative democracy’ a version of democracy in which
communication is understood as including not only argument but also greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling. With
‘greeting’ she refers to communications that aim at recognition, without specific content. Rhetoric, in turn,
refers to (and constructs) the particularities of the speaker, audience, and occasion. And narrative helps those
who do not share the same experiences to understand the situation of others by exhibiting experience, values,
and social knowledge related to a specific social position. Young (1996) refers to it as communicative theory,
where communication is understood in a broad and plural sense as ‘any forms of communicative interaction
where people aim to reach understanding,’ as well as those that are passionate and emotional.
This study anchored its analysis on communicative theory as expressed Young (1996). The focus being
political democracy as democracy in Vernacular (Kymlicka, 2001) hence analyzing how indigenous languages
are used by the leaders in Kenya during their public engagements with the citizens.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Language possesses its own dynamics and is constantly undergoing processes of both continuity and change,
impacting upon the communication modes of different societies as it evolves. Archibugi (2005) quoting
Flaubert (1869) who tells how, during the European riots of 1848, there were people in Paris, the city that had
triggered the revolutionary rumble, who posed the problem of finding a language capable of becoming a means
of communication for the new Europe: Michel-Evariste-Népomucène Vincent, a former professor, proposes
that European democracy adopts a single language: a dead language might come in handy, an updated form of
Latin, for example. Latin was widespread throughout Europe, but was always known by the same social
classes: aristocrats, intellectuals and priests. In each country, it served to exclude the majority of the population
from religious, scientific, civil and political rites. More than French, and certainly more than English or
German, Latin brought together the members of the community of letters, but at the cost of excluding the great
majority of the population. The Roman Empire was made up of a myriad of tribes, each with its own different
language. Prior to “liberal neutrality,” the Romans granted each tribe ample religious and linguistic autonomy,
provided they paid tribute and supplied soldiers. To preserve their empire, the Romans would take some of the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2502
www.rsisinternational.org
most promising sons of aristocratic families’ hostage and provide them with education in Latin, without even
asking them to pay tuition fees. The young men thus often became go-betweens for collaboration and
dominion: to the Romans it was quite clear that, since they were the dominators, their language should
therefore be the dominating one. Even though such dilemmas always arises in multilingual set ups, it is
important to note that in a democratic society, every voice counts and these voices can be expressed better in a
language one identifies with better, and that is their native language.
Starkey (2002) observes that Languages are particularly an important component of cultural heritage. The
diversity of languages contributes to the richness of Europe's culture. As one of the fundamental standard-
setting instruments, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed in 1948
https://www.un.org/en/aboutus/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, lays down the basic principle against
discrimination on the grounds of language: ‘Article 2.: Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as… language. Language is not only a tool used for
communication and knowledge but also a fundamental attribute of cultural identity and empowerment, both for
the individual and the group. In any multilingual society, which is evident in most parts of the world, the
acknowledgment of languages of persons belonging to these different linguistic communities is the cornerstone
to peaceful coexistence. This applies both to majority groups, to minorities (whether traditionally resident in a
country or more recent migrants) and to indigenous peoples. The claims for language are among the first
rights that minorities have. Such are basic issues to consider if we are to have a progressive democratic society.
Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (2008) notes that in the language of ecology, the strongest ecosystems are
those that are the most diverse. Diversity is directly related to stability; variety is important for long-term
survival (Baker, 2001). Understandings of language/linguistic ecology range widely. Skutnabb-Kangas and
Phillipson (2008) discusses that many researchers use “ecology” as a reference to “context” or “language
environment”, to describe language-related issues embedded in (micro or macro) sociolinguistic, economic and
political settings rather than de-contextualized. Others have more specific definitions and sub-categories (e.g.
articles in Fill & Mühlhäusler, 2001; Mufwene, 2001; Mühlhäusler, 1996, 2003).
Nevertheless, Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (2008) looks at Bio-cultural diversity (= biodiversity +
linguistic diversity + cultural diversity) as essential for long term planetary survival because it enhances
creativity and adaptability and hence stability. They note that today, we are killing bio- cultural diversity faster
than ever before in human history. The seriously endangered languages disappear with little trace, at the same
time as other notyet-endangered languages, though official, are undergoing domain loss in high-status areas
when English is being extensively used in research, universities, businesses, media, and now even in
households etc. Their speakers start experiencing what many minorities have experienced earlier when national
official or “big” languages have spread subtractively. The alternative is maximal support for linguistic diversity
and additive multilingualism. Basing on these arguments more avenues rather than Education should be
encouraged to drum support for the continuous learning and use of the indigenous languages, together with
good teaching of an official language as a second language. This will not only present the indigenous
languages as a tool for identity, but as something that fights for its space in democracy as well as an enabler of
democracy.
Rubio-Marín (2003) explains the two types of language, “the expressive interest in language as a marker of
identity” and an “instrumental interest in language as a means of communication”. Expressive language rights
“aim at ensuring a person’s capacity to enjoy a secure linguistic environment in her/his mother tongue and a
linguistic group’s fair chance of cultural self-reproduction”; He continues to say that it is only these rights that
she calls “language rights in a strict sense.” These could in other words be seen as linguistic human rights. The
instrumental language rights aim at ensuring that language is not an obstacle to the effective enjoyment of
rights with a linguistic dimension, to the meaningful participation in public institutions and democratic
process, and to the enjoyment of social and economic opportunities that require linguistic skills.” Just as Ngugi
wa Thiong’o (1986) equated speaking in one’s Mother Tongue as speaking from the heart. In the sense that
deep and profound issues can be expressed and understood better when spoken in Mother Tongue. This means
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2503
www.rsisinternational.org
that we can’t have any meaningful social and economic inclusivity without considering Mother Tongue in all
spheres of the human being.
Verhasselt (2025) discusses that the understanding of the relationship between multilingualism and deliberative
democracy remains thin. Embracing multilingualism then becomes a fundamental step toward creating a more
robust deliberative democratic framework. Whereas language rights and policy are important elements in the
ongoing debate concerning multilingualism, the language question must be approached independently.
However, her work aimed to first, provide a framework for considering multilingualism in the theory of
deliberative democracy. Second, move beyond theory, to explore the practical reconciliation between
multilingualism and deliberative democracy by focusing on deliberative mini- publics (DMPs). She looks at
multilingualism in the general sense of the word; the use of multiple languages in society. Henceforth,
multilingual deliberation is a complex and varied practice that can occur in official and non-official, national
multilingual contexts, as well as on the transnational and global levels. Her article does not delve into these
different contexts but it analyzes the challenges and opportunities of multilingual democratic deliberation in a
broad sense.
Verhasselt (2025) notes that Multilingual DMPs based on a shared understanding are likely to be most effective
in official multilingual nations where participants have at least a passive understanding of the other
language(s). Examples of such nations include Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. She explains that the
Luxembourgish Biergerkommitee 2050 is an excellent example of a multi lingual deliberative consultative
process based on a shared understanding, partially facilitated by state investment in multilingual education.
Participants were required to have a passive knowledge of the country’s three official languages:
Luxembourgish, French, and German. During discussions, members were free to use the language they were
most comfortable with, eliminating the need for translation. This language- neutral environment was
appreciated by both participants and moderators, who claimed that the multilingual aspect of the deliberation
worked well. Many even argued that the use of multilingualism was a plus and added more value to the
deliberations (Verhasselt et al., 2024).
Ferguson and Sidorova (2023) agreeing with the ideas of Viatori and Ushigua (2007) that many indigenous
nations have successfully used their languages as tools for uniting their communities, fostering indigenous
identity, and defining the boundaries of their self-determination hence the ability of indigenous nations to make
decisions about their identity, religion, culture, economy, and legal system without interference from external
actors. They assert that Indigenous languages are important tools for stressing the cultural and historical
uniqueness of indigenous communities as well as indigenous peoples’ cultural distinctness from non-
indigenous governments. Indigenous leaders have stressed this uniqueness when arguing for the establishment
of greater indigenous sovereignty, as well as special rights for indigenous persons and communities. However,
Viatori and Ushigua illustrates these by exploring the role that indigenous languages have played in advancing
indigenous self-determination in the Americas. Specifically, by discussing how the Zápara nationality of
Ecuador used their language to petition for greater administrative and cultural autonomy from Ecuador's
government. The revitalization of the Zápara language also has been an invaluable platform from which the
Zápara leader have been able to gain recognition and support from Ecuador's national indigenous movement,
international support networks, and the state, which have provided valuable resources for the augmentation of
local Zápara selfdetermination. Using examples from the Zápara, they demonstrate that indigenous languages
can be a vital component of strengthening communities' and individually' identification with an indigenous
language. This paper, shows that the strengths embodied in indigenous languages cannot be wished away. They
have an integral role in the understanding of any individual and community as well as a tool for negotiating
where it matters, and for that matter expanding the democratic space.
Kymlicka (2001) democratic politics is politics in the vernacular. The average citizen feels at ease only when
he discusses political questions in his own language. As a general rule, only elites are fluent in more than one
language and feel at ease discussing political questions in different languages in a multilingual atmosphere.
Moreover, political communication has a large ritual component and these ritual forms of communication are
characteristic of a language. Even if a person understands a foreign language in the technical sense, he may be
incapable of understanding political debates, if he has no knowledge of these ritual elements. For these and
other reasons, we can believe, as a general rule, that the more the political debate takes place in the vernacular,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2504
www.rsisinternational.org
the greater the participation and the more the freedoms of individual and group needs are communicated and
by extension taken into consideration. It is not possible to ignore the fact that, albeit with some difficulty,
democracy has managed to solve problems of linguistic communication. On the basis of these premises, how
must democratic practice be modified to deal with the existence of multilingual political communities? To
think that, in order to survive, democracy requires specific linguistic conditions is to underestimate its
versatility and its capacity to evolve. To master a universal language is not to relinquish the language of one’s
own ethnic group.
However, the dissenting voices and assumptions argue that democracy requires a single language is not new.
The idea dates to the ancient Greeks who believed that non-Greek speakers were barbarians and incapable but
also forbidden from partaking in the Athenian democratic political scene. John Stuart Mill expressed his view
over 160 years ago that a shared public opinion cannot exist if citizens ‘read and speak different languages’
(Mill, 1998 [1861], p. 428). Several other authors share in this sentiment that linguistic pluralism is a hindrance
to democracy because it is regarded as complicating the establishment of a public sphere, perceived as a
necessary condition for democracy.
Doerr (2009, 2012) and Sebane, Z. & Zitouni (2018) explains that multilingual settings have an increased risk
of misunderstandings. Although, relations between language communities can be a source of tension and
misunderstanding within and between nations, the achievement of collaboration in multilingual communities is
a demonstration of the possibility of success of democracy and may be considered exemplary of the very
essence of democracy. Although language is sometimes perceived as a sign of difference, the linguistic
capacities of human beings are a unifying feature, distinguishing humans from other species and bringing with
them an automatic entitlement to human rights. Despite this Baker (2001) reminds us that cultural diversity is
strength. Kenya’s diverse linguistic landscape is its’ strength as every community has distinct space to express
their freedoms.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a qualitative research design to explore the position of indigenous languages as a
prerequisite of democracy in Kenya. This paper systematically reviews related research on language,
indigenous language and democracy. Guided by the tenets of communicative theory by Young (1996) where
communication is understood as including not only argument but also greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling.
Purposive sampling was done on various public gatherings where indigenous languages were used by different
political leaders to communicate to the audience. The content was analyzed to find out the strategies that were
used by the political leaders to overcome the linguistic obstacle that is possibly brought about by the linguistic
diversity in Kenya. The political leaders were purposively sampled because in this case they are considered
champion democracy in Kenya. The data was searched on You –tube and collected from various meetings to a
point of saturation. The strategies used were then organized thematically; greetings, rhetoric and storytelling.
Using content analysis, the data was discussed and the results presented. As a result, this study shed light on
the different strategies employed by leaders using indigenous languages as a prerequisite to democracy in
Kenya.
7.0 Findings and Discussion
Guided by the tenets of communicative theory by Young (1996) where communication is understood as
including not only argument but also greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling, the public gatherings purposively
sampled included the political rallies, funerals, and impromptu meet ups. One leader who stood out to have
used indigenous languages in every community that he had to address a gathering was the Prime Minister of
Kenya, The Right Honourable Raila Amollo Odinga; as displayed in the following recordings;
Data 1: https://youtu.be/4ojxA2LHgPY? feature=shared
From the Oval Compilation video – showing that the Right honourable could speak more than 10 languages –
Evidence by the greetings in Luo, Kikuyu, Luhya, Turkana, Kikamba, Somali, Maasai
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2505
www.rsisinternational.org
Data 2: https://youtu.be/2k-OEtRS_EM?si=u653sd39YRP36qiD Kalenjin greetings
Data 3: https://youtu.be/OKtRCtv6ryM?si=5lskHUcvtSW1sLM_ Luhya song
Data 4: https://youtu.be/u_B-VLhw_Ww?si=4NYjIL4bEQjVpiBL Kikuyu
greetings https://youtu.be/hj-a_T8hY_4?si=8cNmXV-MLZW4sNwq
Luo dirge during a burial in the Kalenjin community The data sampled above shows how he used greetings to
communicate. These greetings were a strategy of fulfilling various social functions geared towards promoting
the democratic space in Kenya as discussed below; First, greetings in the indigenous languages were used to
establish rapport and connection with the people in the community. The people in the different communities
roared enthusiastically and became livelier as he used their language, for example like in the case of his speech
in Data 2. He spoke in Kalenjin while his indigenous language is Luo. A warm and inclusive greeting helps the
speaker connect with the audience on a personal level. This makes the attendees feel acknowledged and
valued, fostering trust which makes the audience more receptive to the speaker's message. This enhances
inclusivity which contributes to broader social cohesion, which is an important tenet of peace and development
in a diverse society as well as an important indicator of democracy (Dewey, 1927). Moreover, as a national
figure, his use of the indigenous languages to set the pace of his interaction with people at any particular time
brought in a sense of inclusivity in the affairs of the Nation.
Second, the use of the greetings from the indigenous language making reference to shared experiences or
values creates a sense of shared identity and belonging among the group. This is vital in uniting a political base
around a common cause or party, building solidarity and a sense of community. This strategy is vital in that he
acknowledged that despite their linguistic diversity, they are united by the democratic values they share which
strengthened their political base. Without these gestures of respect and inclusion, political discussion can break
down into mere power struggles, where participants refuse to listen to one another as equals, ultimately
undermining the democratic process itself.
Addressing the audience using local languages by the Right honorable Raila was a sign of legitimacy,
authenticity and suitability as a representative. For instance he used Maasai language when addressing the
Maasai community, Kalenjin for Kalenjin Community, Kamba language for Kamba community, basic Luhya
greetings considering the different Luhya dialects and every other community he interacted with to signal that
he was "one of them" and hence gained legitimacy, even if he didn’t understand much of the language itself.
This solidly showed that we can transcend our linguistic differences defined by our geographical locations to
embrace each other as Kenyans. However, it also establishes equality and respect; Greetings are
communicative gestures through which individuals recognize the presence, worth, and equal standing of others
as participants in the democratic process. This is vital for ensuring all voices are considered and preventing
internal exclusion, where some participants might otherwise be ignored or dismissed especially on the basis of
language. An act that is considered undemocratic by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed in
1948 https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
He used the indigenous languages greetings to gauge the audience reaction and engagement. The audience's
response to a greeting (e.g., applause, cheers, verbal response) provides immediate feedback, allowing the
speaker to gauge the crowd's mood and adjust their presentation accordingly. It also eases tensions and foster
an environment of cooperation, even among parties with conflicting interests. Mature democracy gives room
for People to differ ideologically but still work together (Asiko, Odoyo and Amukowa, 2013). Democracy
doesn’t mean agreeing to everything people do and say politically but it also doesn’t mean fighting all the time.
While attending the functions in his political opponent’s communities, he used their indigenous greetings to set
the tone and norms by establishing the level of formality and the rules of interaction for the event. A formal
greeting in a diplomatic setting helps avoid distractions and ensures proceedings run smoothly, while an
informal greeting aimed at creating a more passionate and personal atmosphere.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2506
www.rsisinternational.org
Moreover, the indigenous languages greetings is a strategy of creating expectations of future engagements. The
greetings were used, as an initial act of communication and goodwill, setting expectations for future
interactions, such as promises of future actions or ongoing relationships with the political representatives. As it
has been displayed in Raila’s political journey, there is no permanent enemy but only different political
perspectives, which can offer ground for collaboration for the greater good of the people. It is also a powerful
symbolic gestures that acknowledge the legitimacy of other groups or nations as dialogue partners, even if
substantial disagreements remain.
Nevertheless, the greetings as a strategy of identifying and acknowledging the community as part of the people
of Kenya, in that the linguistic community cannot and should not isolate one from the larger community of
being a Kenyan. This manages relationships and hierarchies as communicates or acknowledges social status
and power dynamics between the speaker and various individuals or groups within the audience as members of
a particular linguistic community before belonging to the wider Kenyan community where the National
language, Kiswahili is used as an identity language. Understanding social status and power dynamics as
expressed by Bourdieu (1992) is key for the meaningful interaction of both individuals and the communities
represented by the individuals.
The greetings are also a strategy of opening lines of communication that have remained closed. This offers a
platform for people to engage in discussions and work towards shared solutions. It also a strategy to facilitate
dialogue across diverse societies with different values and experiences. The formal or informal greetings act as
a starting point for dialogue, helping to bridge cultural or social divides by creating an initial moment of shared
connection before bringing up controversial political arguments.
In addition, the indigenous language greeting used by Hon. Raila was a strategy of politeness to show that he
belonged to the group and he shared in the emotions at hand and he shared in their loss (if in grief) or gains (in
happiness), depending on the purpose of the gathering.
The second Strategy of the indigenous languages was through the use of rhetoric. In a democracy, the
rhetorical use of indigenous languages is a powerful tool for promoting inclusive political participation,
building national unity through cultural identity, and ensuring effective local governance. Politicians use
indigenous languages to connect with the electorate on a personal and emotional level during campaigns. By
employing traditional proverbs, culturally resonant phrases, and local idioms, they build trust and gain support
among specific ethnic or regional groups. Using Kiswahili, which is a national language in his rhetoric was an
intentional strategy meant to bring all Kenyans to the understanding of whatever scenario that he was
communicating. His speech opening style of ‘hayaaa, hayaaa…’ transcended linguistic barriers. It was his
identity of a nationalist, who was ready to interact with everyone irrespective of one’s language or social
formation. The Right honorable Raila Amollo Odinga used several figures of speech not just to catch the
attention of his audience but to prepare them emotionally for the fight for their democratic space. He uses
slogans and rallying Cries like "Tialala!" and "Jowi!" (Buffalo in luo), “Unbwogable” (Can’t be defeated) -
Rallying cries used to express resilience and mark emotional, powerful moments during speeches. Others in
Swahili includes;
"Mapambano!"(Struggle) symbolizing the ongoing struggle for justice and democracy.
"Haki yetu!" (Our Rights) A direct demand for fairness and justice that resonated with his supporters during
protests and rallies. A call for a democratic space and privileges for all. A call that shows concern and
understanding to everyone’s privileges in the society that seems to be ignored by the very people that should
care and implement where necessary.
"Mambo bado" (The Struggle is not yet over) A phrase used to remind supporters that the political struggle and
the fight for change were far from over.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2507
www.rsisinternational.org
"Punda amechoka" ("The donkey is tired"), a slogan that spoke to the exhaustion of millions of Kenyans
carrying the burden of corruption, poor governance, poor service delivery while paying taxes, issues that
define democracy.
Metaphors and Analogies
“Safari ya Canaan” Journey to Canaan" - A prominent biblical allusion reflecting his vision of a just and
prosperous Kenya, with his supporters as the Israelites on a journey to the Promised Land, a land full of
blessings, where justice is served equally to all.
Football Commentary; He often used extended metaphors from football (soccer) in his speeches, describing
political maneuvers, passing the "ball" to different coalition partners, and ultimately scoring a "goal" (winning
the election) to make complex political dynamics relatable and entertaining to the masses.
Riddles and Proverbs; He incorporated traditional oral literature, such as riddles (vitendawili), to engage the
crowd, discredit opponents, and present his own character. An example is using the "night runner" riddle to
explain how his opponents stole the election in the dark, only to be exposed by daylight.
"Raila ni mweupe kama pamba" ("Raila is as white as a cotton wool"), a self-referential metaphor to portray
himself as untainted by corruption, injustices and other ethical issues unlike his opponents.
"War" Metaphors making reference to the various freedom fighters like Koitalel arap Samoei, Mekatilili wa
Menza and others from different communities as well as referring to the tales of the heroes like Lwanda
Magere, Nabongo Mumia, who had powers that specific communities could relate with. He frequently framed
politics or elections as a "war" or "battle" to convey the high stakes and a sense of urgency to his audience.
Thematic Rhetoric
Identity and Ideology His speeches often used emotive language to create a clear "in-group" (his supporters
and allies) versus "out-group" (opponents and the "establishment") dynamic, reinforcing a shared identity and
ideology of liberation and reform.
National Unity and Forgiveness Despite a long history of political struggle and perceived betrayals, he often
used the Swahili proverb "Yaliyopita si ndwele, tugange yajayo" ("Bygones are bygones; let us focus on the
future") to emphasize the need for national unity and a forward-looking perspective.
Populist and Anti-Establishment Language; His rhetoric consistently positioned him as a champion of the poor
and marginalized against a corrupt elite or "cartels" that were allegedly looting the nation's resources.
Songs sung in different communities that resonated with his ideologies of fighting for a just and democratic
society were part and parcel of his speeches (Data 3). “Lero lero ni lero, avolanga mkamba no muvei” (Today
is today, whoever talks of tomorrow is a liar) This song implies the preparedness of the leadership together
with the people to bring about the much needed change to build an inclusive government.
He also used narrations to point out injustices and cry for inclusivity amongst Kenyans despite their social
backgrounds. Hon. Raila narrated focusing on the heroes of various indigenous communities (refer to war
metaphors above) as a way of acknowledging as well as embracing the different cultures.
CONCLUSION
Citizens in a democracy need intercultural and communicative democratic skills for living in communities
where multilingualism and cultural diversity is the norm. They need critical cultural awareness to understand
the world around them and enhance justice, social inclusion and mutual understanding. Communication
democracy as explained by Young (1996) is evident of how greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling are vital
strategies through indigenous languages to enhance democracy. The above discussion shows that greetings are
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2508
www.rsisinternational.org
highly strategic components of political communication, serving as a form of "micro-diplomacy" to manage
relationships, build support, and make the audience more receptive to the overarching political message. In
democratic participation it is a strategy that fosters an inclusive environment by establishing mutual respect,
trust, and acknowledgement among diverse participants. These also amplifies the fact that no vernacular
language is minor or major, in a democratic everyone matters. Rhetoric and storytelling, especially in
vernacular, brings all the people to appreciate an intimate experience which brings out a deeper understanding
of each other. This is pivotal, in serving justice and freedom through the use of indigenous language which is at
the heart of the people concerned and ultimately all. Appreciation of indigenous languages in a multilingual
society by our leaders actually is a prerequisite.
REFERENCES
1. Abiyo, R. (2024). Examining the implementation of the language in education policy in Tana River
County: a case of a Pokomo speakers’ school. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2322086
2. Ambuyo, B. A., Okal, B. O., & Amukowa, D. N. (2017). Is Democracy Possible? A Theoretical
Perspective. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(6).
3. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Boston: Harvard University Press.
4. Archibugi, D. (2005). The Language of Democracy: Vernacular or Esperanto? A Comparison between
the Multiculturalist and Cosmopolitan Perspectives. Center for European Studies Working Paper No.
118, Harvard University.
5. Coeckelbergh, M. (2024). Democracy as Communication: Towards a Normative Framework for
Evaluating Digital Technologies. Contemporary Pragmatism, 21(2), 217–235.
https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-bja10088
6. De Varennes, F., & Kuzborska, E. (2016). Language, Rights and Opportunities: The Role of Language
in the Inclusion and Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples. International Journal on Minority and Group
Rights, 23(3), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02303004
7. Dewey, J. (1916/1980). Democracy and Education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Middle
Works 1899–1924 (Vol. 9). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
8. Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt.
9. Doerr, N. (2009). Language and democracy ‘in movement’: Multilingualism and the case of the
European social forum process. Social Movement Studies, 8(2), 149–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830902770290
10. Doerr, N. (2012). Translating democracy: How activists in the European Social Forum practice
multilingual deliberation. European Political Science Review, 4(3), 361–384.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000312
11. Ferguson, J., & Sidorova, E. (2023). The Usage of Indigenous Languages as a Tool for Meaningful
Engagement with Northern Indigenous Governments and Communities. SPP Research Paper, 15(46).
University of Calgary.
12. Flaubert, G. (1869). L’education sentimentale. Paris: Bordas, 1974.
13. FIPLV. (1991). Fundamental Principles for a Universal Declaration on Language Rights. Pecs,
Hungary.
14. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of
Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
15. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System. Boston:
Beacon Press.
16. Habermas, J. (2018). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. John Wiley & Sons.
17. Kasimi, Y. (2020). Democracy in EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1),
126–136. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712666
18. Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development. (2017). Basic Education Curriculum Framework. Nairobi.
19. Kenya Institute of Education. (2012). Primary Education Syllabus: Volume 1. Nairobi.
20. Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the Vernacular. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Mill, J. S. (1998). Considerations on Representative Government. Harper.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 2509
www.rsisinternational.org
22. Mose, P. (2018). Language-in-Education Policy in Kenya: Intention, Interpretation, Implementation.
Nordic Journal of African Studies, 26(3), 215–230.
23. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
24. Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology. London: Routledge.
25. Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of Environment – Environment of Language. London: Battlebridge.
26. Nakata, N. M. (2024). Indigenous languages & education: Do we have the right agenda? Australian
Educational Researcher, 51, 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00620-0
27. Ngugi, T. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Boydell &
Brewer.
28. Requesens-Galnares, R. (2023). Why Indigenous languages matter: The International Decade on
Indigenous Languages 2022–2032. UN Policy Brief No. 151.
29. Rubio-Marín, R. (2003). Language Rights: Exploring the Competing Rationales. In W. Kymlicka & A.
Patten (Eds.), Language Rights and Political Theory (pp. 52–79). Oxford University Press.
30. Sebane, Z., & Zitouni, M. (2018). Is Linguistic Democracy Possible? English and Chinese at the Heart
of the Subject. RAIS Conference on Social Sciences.
31. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language policy and linguistic human rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ecology
of Language (Vol. 9, pp. 3–14). New York: Springer.
32. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Maffi, L., & Harmon, D. (2003). Sharing a World of Difference. UNESCO.
33. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (Eds.). (1994). Linguistic Human Rights. Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
34. Starkey, H. (2002). Democratic Citizenship, Languages, Diversity and Human Rights. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
35. The Constitution of Kenya. (2010). The National Council for Law Reporting.
36. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. (2018). Indigenous Languages. United
Nations.
37. Verhasselt, L. (2025). Towards multilingual deliberative democracy: Navigating challenges and
opportunities. Representation, 61(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2024.2317781
38. Viatori, M., & Ushigua, G. (2007). Speaking Sovereignty: Indigenous Languages and Self-
Determination. Wicazo Sa Review, 22(2), 7–21. University of Minnesota Press.
39. Young, I. M. (1993). Justice and Communicative Democracy. In R. S. Gottlieb (Ed.), Radical
Philosophy, 23–42. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
40. Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In S. Benhabib
(Ed.), Democracy and Difference (pp. 120–136). Princeton University Press.
