INTRODUCTION

Political participation is involvement of people in political activities. The most notable activity by Kenyans is through voting during elections Other ways include such behaviors as reading or listening or watching the mass media of communications, taking part in political discussions, listening to political speeches, attending party meetings, giving contribution to political parties, writing petitions or letters to public officials or newspaper editors, trying to influence the voters, contesting the election for office etc.

All political systems encourage political participation through varying degrees. By involving the people in the matters of state, political participation fosters stability and order by reinforcing the legitimacy of political authority. People living in a particular society participate in the political system, which they develop. There are many forms of participation and democracy in the form of government that encourages maximum participation in governmental processes. It means their active involvement, which in a real manner influences the decision-making activity of the government.

In this report our main focus is the involvement of the Kenyan youth from Kibera. In Kenya and most other countries, citizens and representatives of the international community view young people as part of the problem and not part of the solution. And thus the youth are marginalized and have little voice in the political participation. Too often the government and elected officials do not engage the youth or rather encourage them to participate. In a democratic system, as the one found in Kenya, everyone should have a right and equal chance and opportunity to political participation. When the Kenyan youth try to express their political wishes government officials

often overlook their issues like employment. This isolation and perception that their problems go largely ignored leads to frustration which often leads to conflict and violence. In countries where the young participate in the political activities it mainly is a huge contribution to the country as their energy, eagerness, cut-edge ideas, knowledge of technology and willingness to take risks mainly brings positive results. Through their participation they can view themselves as partners in the process and stakeholders and not merely by standers.

According to Robert Kennedy in his Day of Affirmation Address in University of Cape town 1966, he said :Our answer is the worlds hope; it has to rely on the youth..It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement of danger. The world demands the qualities of youth; not a time of life, but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of the will over timidity. He argued that the youth are an important significant to political participation. When young people especially young men who are uprooted, alienated, unemployed and have few opportunities for positive engagement represent a pool of recruits for extremists group or those with violent agendas. In the case of the youth found in Kibera most of them are unemployed and are political ignorant thus they are able to be manipulated by the politicians to intimidate opponents. In 1992,Ralia Odinga presently Kenyas Prime Minister had formed a youth army called Baghdad whose sole mission was to counter and intimidate his opponents during the elections.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Slow evolution of democratic culture has been a major challenge to the participation of the youth in political participation. In 1991, Kenya was made a multi party state by the repealing of section 2A of the constitution. However until 2002 is when this amendment came into realization. In the years between Kenya was a multi party state by law but a single state in practice. Political empowerment was a closed affair to only those in government. Youth only participated in political participation when the KANU regime recruited them in the KANU Youth wingers an unstructured organization composed of stone throwers, hecklers. Another major impediment to youth participation is that many Kenyans assume that the younger the person the less prepared he/she is to deal with the mechanics of policy formulation and governance issues. The youth label is associated with political incompetence. Consequently the definition of youth has changed over the years to accommodate the political interests of the politicians to validate their authority of holding office. A good example is our current President Hon.Mwai Kibaki, he is among the youth that assumed power, at the age of 31 and has held onto it till date when he is past 75 years. United Nations defines a youth as someone between the ages of 15-25 years. Currently in the Kenyan government in its National Youth Policy it defines youth as anyone below 30 years. Alternatively, youth is also seen psychologically, as a particular mind set of attitude. That anyone can be referred to, or himself as a youth, regardless of his age, as long as he or she feels physically or psychologically young. The youth thus is somewhat an ambiguous and contested term. For instance the youth to the Kenya National Youth Policy (KNYP) remain at the periphery of the countries affair and their

status has not been accorded due recognition despite the fact that they constitute almost 60% of the Kenyan population. The government have acknowledged that one decade after multipartism the youth have been excluded from designing, planning and implementing programmes and policies that affect them. According to the UN report on the youth in 2009,it estimated that over 45% of the youth in the sub-Saharan Africa are unemployed. In this study we focus on the youth found in Kibera, Langata constituency. The largest slum in African and third largest in the world with an estimated population of 800,000, 60% constituting of the youth. According to UN reports most people found in Kibera are as a result of rural-urban migration. Most of this people have no source of income or very low forcing the youth to be hopeless and frustrated thus becoming careless in life, making them vulnerable to political manipulation, theft and other social ills. Sikula (2006 pg 50) observes that `in electioneering periods, the youth in Kibera are mobilized into vigilante groups like Taliban and Baghdad to intimidate and instill fear in opponents. It shall be noted that the current countrys Prime Minister has been an MP for Langata constituency for more than 10 years. In addition, ethnic affiliations are more compelling and thus there are divisions in the people of Kibera. They tend to align themselves along their tribal lines thus voting along these lines. According to Electoral Commission of Kenyas voting statistics, majority of the youth are not registered voters. This shows ignorance on their part. Young voters lack understanding of the issues causing them to become either angry or violent or apathetic and disinterested candidates. And thus they elect leaders according to popularity but not according to who will

look after their interests. The government and the local leaders according to Standard editorial on 4th Jan 2007, remains largely unresponsive and insensitive to the problems and demands of the youth in informal settlements and Kibera in particular. According to George Lutomia (2006) Kibera has the highest unemployment rates in Kenya at 50% with 52% of the population living below poverty line. It is because of this unequal distribution of resource that makes the Kibera youth not able to engage in political participation. Most of them can hardly support themselves, and thus instead of being actively involved in politics they would rather prefer work for the more prosperous in candidate who in most cases are the older, wealthy individuals in society. Unfortunately Kenya lacks the institutional structure evident in the United States of America that would afford a level of order within the political process and would allow the young people to function independently within the system while still holding them accountable. Finally without a properly defined and predictable procedure on issues as internal party nominations, procedures and elections among other topics, elections become chaotic and less connected party members especially the youth get marginalized in the political process.

OBJECTIVES a) General Objective Identify the main contributor that hinders the Kibera youth from political participation

b) Specific Objectives Asses the level of group consciousness among the youth in Kibera. Assess if and how the youth in Kibera seek redress in the decision making processes by aggregating and articulating their demands to the government and local leaders through their youth-based political activities like youth groups and organizations. Examine the response of the government and local leadership to the problems facing the youths in Kibera. Ways of curbing the above problems to increase youth participation.

HYPOTHESIS Low levels of political mobilization and organizations inhibit the ability of the youth in Kibera to influence the government and local leaders in their favour. Lack of resources contributes to lack of youth participation High levels of employment and social illness found in Kibera is as a result of neglect on the part of the government and its officials.

CONCEPT DEFINITTION

LITERATURE REVIEW Political participation is an essential element in any democratic society. Scholars in recent past have emphasized political participation under the rubrics of social capital, civil society and political engagement. Political participation has widely been viewed as the involvement and engagement of the civil society in the decision processes. The youth thus, are conceptualized In this case as part of the civil society; an interest group, which should be engaged and involved in the decision making processes. The general argument among scholars is that the youth either been reluctant to participate in political activities themselves, or they have been marginalized from the decision making processes, by the old and conservative political elites. Several issues have been addressed in relation to the general topic of the youth political participation. With the expanded political space engendered by democracy particularly in developing countries, most scholars have emphasized the primary role of youths and women in the democratization process. In the autocratic era, youths were traditionally viewed as burdensome category that needed to be carefully handled, and whose energies needed to be channeled to productive endeavors, ostensibly by elders and more responsible members of the society (Mwangola 2007). However, this situation has tremendously changed in the democratic era, which has brought to the fore, an aggressive youth discourse that has rejected prevailing

perceptions of youths and demanded a reconfiguring of the social roles and responsibilities of this category in the political realm. Youths are increasingly being viewed as important stakeholders in the democratization process of developing countries, given that they represent majority of most societies.(Mwongola 2006; OBrien 1996;Howana 1999, Kaplan 2000; Sharp 2002) From the general role of the youth in the democratization process, most scholars argue have narrowed down to the role of them in the electoral processes. In most developing countries, the youth have played a peripheral role in elections and political parties (Wanjala 2002; Maillu 2000; Onyango 2003) they observed that during elections, youths are `bought cheaply by political elites and mobilized as youth wingers or vigilante groups to intimidate opponents by unleashing violence. In addition, Brown (1998) in his analysis of the youth participation in the 1992 British General elections concedes that a significant percentage of the youth dont vote. Most are disinterested and reluctant. In the Kenyan case Wanjala blames the reluctance of the youths participation to political parochialism, propagated by political elites. Wajala points at examples like the Baghdad boys in Kibera, Operation Moi Out (OMO) among other groups that misused the youths in the 1992 general elections. On the other hand, most political parties particularly in developing countries dont promote the youth. Mailu (20020 observes that most Kenyan political parties are insensitive and unresponsive to the youth needs and aspirations, given that they lack youths organs and representation. According to Mwangola (2002), the youth at best, play a peripheral role in

political parties as youth wingers. The youth are rarely integrated in the mainstream party organization, but rather, a peripheral youth organ is developed for them. Researches across Africa have established that the youth are the major participants in wars across the continent (see Molntyre and Thukazane 1998; Finkelner and Hishina 1999;White 2001). The youth given their aggressiveness and vulnerability to political manipulation due to economic hardships, are mobilized and misused by governments, opposition parties and rebel movements in violent acts like wars and riots. For instance, in their research on the youth and Children in Sierra Leone peace building process, Angela Molntyre and Thukazane, established that its the youth who played a major role in the 11years bloody war, as both perpetrators and victims of extreme violence because of their aggressiveness and vulnerability as a result of decades of economic decline and social degradation prior to the outbreak of hostilities between the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the government in 1991. The youth in Sierra Leone were already facing prospects of an uncertain future. As a result, the youth, most of them students were at the forefront of the clamor for the overthrow of the government. The youths have been seen as a set of philosophies intended t enhance civil rights of young people. These include the right to equal treatment like adults, right to employment among others. Youth empowerment on the other hand, presupposes the social investment in the youth, by availing to them the necessary information and resources to enable them effectively participate in the social, economic and political activities. Scholars argue that the youth have been victims of social, economic and political marginalization. Addressing the youth plight

would thus constitute guaranteeing their rights and empowering them socially, economically and politically (Griffin 2000; Brown 1998; Grey 1995). The young in slums for instance in formal settings are seen as a spoilt generation, drug addicts criminals rapists,H.I.V/AIDS victims among other social crimes (Onyango 2002; Momanyi and Wawire 2004; Lutomia and Sikulia 2006). On this basis they are seen as incapable of being objective decision makers rather as a burdensome lot that needs to be guided by older and more responsible generation. As a result, the youth are seen as a generation that cannot be relied upon and entrusted with leadership.(See Mwangola 2006;Onyango 2005;Momanyi 2004) Effective political participation of the youth demands political consciousness about their problems, their demands and their potential as a group. Theoretical Framework This research is associated with theories like Group theory and Elite theory. Group theory advances notion that groups will always act when necessary to further common goals. There are two types of groups primary where it is small, intimate kin based, while secondary groups are large, less intimate and more formal. Its inline with this research as it shows when the youth tend to act more in a group like manner because they possess the same common characteristics and situations.

Elite theory seeks to explain power in a society. It states that a small minority consisting of members of the economic elite and policy planning networks hold the most power.

This small minority is associated with old rich individuals in the society. This theory supports this research stating that the youth have no say in power or politics. METHODOLOGY Kibera has 13 Villages and of these villages 60% consist of youth. Unit of analysis according to Singleton 1988 as who or what is to be analyzed. In this research the unit is the youth. In this research i used probability sampling. First the 13 villages were put together into units or clusters this was done through cluster sampling then they were chosen through simple random thus giving all the units equal chance of being selected.

Methods of Data collection. Qualitative data collection was used in this research. Because it is more dynamic, interactive and generates more detailed explanatory data that contributes to in depth understanding of study. It involved both Primary and Secondary methods of data collection. Secondary methods of data collection. This data was collected from various sources that included: Journals, Newspapers, Internet, Party manifestos. Primary sources Here data is collected directly from the units of analysis. This includes: Interviews

Open end questions were used during the interview to allow variations and flexibility in the answers. Closed end questions would have limited information. Youths were interviewed, also the administration officials that includes one councilor and one chief. ObservationObservation was also used as a form of primary collection. The youths were observed during the interview how they behaved and observation was done during the group discussions. Questionnaires

Methods of Data Analysis The first step after collection of data was made was data editing. This involved revision and examination of the raw data collected from the field to detect and correct errors of spelling, grammar and consistency. Data was then classified by arranging the data into categories, classes or groups based on common characteristics. Classification was made according to attributes such as age, sex and income level. Tabulation was the next step that involved summary and compaction the data into chats. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis to identify main themes that emerged from responses. Manual data analysis was done to establish frequency distribution. Data analysis using the computer through the SPSS software was also done.

Through the data collected from the 50 people interviewed the following was found: Levels of Education

level of education

no education primary level secondary level university level

From the chart above of the 50 youths interviewed shows that 64% did not have any form of education, 20% had primary education,10% had secondary education and only 6% had university education. It shows that the levels of illiteracy were very high.

 Voting participation

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1992 1997 2002 2007 registered voters unregistered voters Column1

From the above table it shows the percentage of youths involved in voting in general elections since 1992, thou the figure has increased youth participation in politics is still very wanting. During the 2007 elections is when the youth had the highest level of participation.