Indigenous Languages as a Prerequisite Tool for Democracy: The Case of Kenya

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.

Indigenous Languages; Freedom of Expression; Multilingualism 1.0

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Boston: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Flaubert, G. (1869). L’education sentimentale. Paris: Bordas, 1974. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. FIPLV. (1991). Fundamental Principles for a Universal Declaration on Language Rights. Pecs, Hungary. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System. Boston: Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Habermas, J. (2018). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development. (2017). Basic Education Curriculum Framework. Nairobi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kenya Institute of Education. (2012). Primary Education Syllabus: Volume 1. Nairobi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the Vernacular. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mill, J. S. (1998). Considerations on Representative Government. Harper. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mose, P. (2018). Language-in-Education Policy in Kenya: Intention, Interpretation, Implementation. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 26(3), 215–230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of Environment – Environment of Language. London: Battlebridge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Ngugi, T. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Boydell & Brewer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Requesens-Galnares, R. (2023). Why Indigenous languages matter: The International Decade on Indigenous Languages 2022–2032. UN Policy Brief No. 151. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sebane, Z., & Zitouni, M. (2018). Is Linguistic Democracy Possible? English and Chinese at the Heart of the Subject. RAIS Conference on Social Sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Maffi, L., & Harmon, D. (2003). Sharing a World of Difference. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (Eds.). (1994). Linguistic Human Rights. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Starkey, H. (2002). Democratic Citizenship, Languages, Diversity and Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. The Constitution of Kenya. (2010). The National Council for Law Reporting. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. (2018). Indigenous Languages. United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Viatori, M., & Ushigua, G. (2007). Speaking Sovereignty: Indigenous Languages and Self-Determination. Wicazo Sa Review, 22(2), 7–21. University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Young, I. M. (1993). Justice and Communicative Democracy. In R. S. Gottlieb (Ed.), Radical Philosophy, 23–42. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests