African Socialism and the Economic Foundations of Kenya

The document African Socialism and Its Application to Planning in Kenya, popularly referred to as Sessional Paper No. 10, was written in 1965, about eighteen months after independence, to serve several purposes. It sought to end the debate on the path of development Kenya would take at a time when Cold War tensions meant that both the West and the East were actively working to gain allies and undermine perceived and real enemies. The document also served as a diagnosis, or a reality check, on where Kenya stood at the time and why its chosen path was considered ideal. In it, we see a country determined to shape its destiny, borrow what is necessary, discard what it does not want, and achieve its goals on its own terms. Through this document, Kenya was asserting its sovereignty. The paper begins by identifying the objectives of societies, arguing that these objectives are largely similar across societies, though they differ in the weight placed on each objective and in the methods used to achieve them. It then asserts African Socialism as Kenya’s chosen path to achieve these objectives, which include political equality, social justice, and human dignity, among others. The document defends African Socialism as an African-born system, independent of foreign influence. African Socialism, it argues, is grounded in two important African traditions: political democracy and mutual social responsibility. In justifying African Socialism, the document criticizes both Western capitalism and communism for their rigidity and their inability to guarantee political democracy consistent with African traditions. A key emphasis is placed on the adaptability and flexibility of African Socialism. That said, Kenya does not close itself off from working with or learning from other countries. Rather, it seeks to ensure that its growth and development are not dependent on any single country and that its engagement with others does not come with strings attached. On property rights, the document recognizes that land ownership in traditional African society was varied and that this practice would continue. However, it stresses that the most important principle is the proper and responsible use of property, a responsibility the state committed itself to enforcing. The state therefore reserved the power to use the tools available to it to control the use of resources in a responsible manner by both the private and public sectors. The government also committed itself to the delivery of public utilities. The document cautions about the ability and methods required to implement Africanization while balancing competing priorities, such as retaining foreign investment while limiting foreign domination that could create class divisions. In principle, the document is sympathetic to parts of Marx’s diagnosis of the ills of capitalism, while in practice it is keen to avoid blind commitment to ideology over what is practical. It therefore encouraged foreign investors to train Africans, sell shares to them, and be prepared for greater African participation in their investments in Kenya. The document sought to achieve growth at scale while preventing the accumulation and concentration of power. These competing goals are evident throughout the paper, which does a notable job of avoiding an extreme tilt in either direction. Part Two of the document applies these general principles to the post-colonial Kenyan context. It begins by acknowledging the scarcity and limitations faced by the new state, from domestic capital shortages to severe shortages of skilled labour. These limitations stood in the way of rapid growth, which was identified as the only permanent solution to Kenya’s challenges. Out of practical necessity, the document adopts solutions aimed at keeping the country afloat while maintaining a focus on long-term goals. For instance, Kenya needed to borrow externally and rely on foreign capital while building domestic capacity. The labour force relied heavily on expatriates and external recruitment while local capacity was gradually developed. Put simply, the paper called for doing what was necessary to survive in the short term while buying time to achieve long-term objectives. For context, at the time Kenya had only twenty-five surveyors, of whom only two were African; only fifty African doctors out of a total of 811 doctors; and only one African hydraulic engineer out of twenty-two. On foreign exchange, Kenya did not face an immediate reserves problem at the time, but the document recognized that as the economy grew, and as foreign-denominated debt servicing and imports increased, the need for healthy reserves would become a priority. The paper also confronts the question of nationalization, weighing its costs against the circumstances under which it might be justified. The state maintained that nationalization would be avoided unless private interests threatened national security or integrity, productive resources were being wasted, the public interest was harmed by private concerns, or other alternatives were unavailable or ineffective. Africanization was a major concern at the time, and the government reaffirmed its commitment to it. The document adopted several programs aimed at incentivizing African participation while avoiding actions that would violate the constitutional guarantee of equal rights for all Kenyan citizens. It emphasized the need for a sustainable, long-term approach to Africanization rather than rushed measures that could ultimately disadvantage Africans. The goal was to ensure that Africans were equipped to benefit from Africanization through training, direct investment, and other initiatives that gave them a competitive edge. On welfare, the document acknowledges that while African Socialism would support the idea of a welfare state, including free and universal education, free healthcare, care for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and financial aid to university students, such goals were impractical at the time and risked bankrupting the nation and harming future growth prospects. Financial constraints were significant, and the state was also limited by shortages of skilled manpower. Nevertheless, progress toward these goals was being made. This serves as strong evidence that African Socialism, as articulated in the paper, was not a rigid ideology but a form of practical realism. At the time, as is still the case today, the tax structure was considered insufficiently responsive to income changes. The paper explored ways of improving revenue collection, including reforms to the PAYE system, reductions in personal tax allowances, inheritance and capital gains taxes, expanded property taxes, higher taxes on gambling, excise duties, export duties, and charges for public services. It noted that revenues such as school fees were relatively easy to collect until the tax base could be broadened more efficiently. Throughout its discussion of taxation, the document carefully considered incentives and trade-offs, aiming to raise revenue without harming the population or producing unintended outcomes. Particular emphasis was placed on progressive taxes such as inheritance and capital gains taxes. The document briefly touches on self-help, or harambee, before describing agriculture as the best example of African Socialism in practice. It highlights cooperation among various organizations in the agricultural sector and the role of national farms in providing essential services such as hybrid seeds and quality livestock. Cooperatives and companies were also seen as important for achieving scale where needed. The paper further identified the need for agricultural reforms, noting that the sector’s initial design reflected the interests of the United Kingdom and European landowners at the expense of Africans. Beyond agriculture, the document addresses natural resource conservation, views education at that stage primarily as an economic rather than a social service, and expresses concern about the possible emergence of class divisions. It called for a national land-use policy and discouraged the destruction of natural resources. The paper celebrates progress in primary school enrollment, noting that 70 percent of eligible children were enrolled in Standard One. Rapid expansion of secondary education was identified as the immediate objective, in line with Africanization and the growing number of KPE candidates. The document also discusses tourism, industry, and commerce, expresses skepticism toward trade unions, and emphasizes that their priorities should not harm the majority given Kenya’s small workforce. Trade unions were encouraged to focus on training workers and increasing productivity, and the costs of industrial action were highlighted. Consumer protection was also addressed. Ultimately, this was a paper about choices and trade-offs, aimed at transitioning Kenya from a subsistence economy to a monetary economy while pursuing rapid development under significant constraints. At its core were fundamental questions about the role of the state, how much power it should hold, and the direction the country should take. The document ultimately promotes a mixed economy, non-committal to any single ideology but favoring a balanced approach in which the government plays a central role while allowing space for private enterprise.