{"id":4092,"date":"2025-04-08T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/burn-the-priest.com\/?p=4092"},"modified":"2025-04-08T11:33:56","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T11:33:56","slug":"new-colonialism-the-digital-id-dilemma-in-kenya","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/burn-the-priest.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/08\/new-colonialism-the-digital-id-dilemma-in-kenya\/","title":{"rendered":"New colonialism: The digital ID dilemma in Kenya"},"content":{"rendered":"
The ongoing debate over Kenya\u2019s Maisha Namba digital ID system<\/a> is not merely about identification, governance efficiency or the modernisation of state services. It represents something much larger \u2014 the encroachment of a new form of imperialism \u2014 digital colonialism<\/a> \u2014 where technological infrastructures, often shaped by external forces, deepen existing inequalities rather than solving them.<\/p>\n At first glance, digital ID systems<\/a> appear to be neutral tools of progress, promising efficiency, inclusion and seamless access to essential services. Governments, donors and private sector champions position these systems as critical components of digital public infrastructure<\/a>, heralding a future where identification barriers are eliminated, financial services are democratised and state services are streamlined. <\/p>\n Yet, the Kenyan experience exposes a crucial gap in this narrative. The real question is: Whose interests are being served? And at what cost to citizens?<\/p>\n Kenya\u2019s digital ID trajectory has been fraught with missteps. The Huduma Namba project<\/a>, launched with much fanfare, ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own inadequacies, leaving behind a $15 billion hole<\/a> and a disillusioned populace. This failure was not merely bureaucratic incompetence, it was symptomatic of a deeper issue \u2014 the prioritisation of procurement, political rent-seeking and external donor interests over the actual needs of the people.<\/p>\n Now, with Maisha Namba, we see the same script playing out. While the government asserts that this new iteration will be different, the core issues remain unaddressed: data security, accessibility for marginalised communities and the fundamental necessity of such a system in a country where 91% of the population already possesses identification. <\/p>\n If the existing Integrated Population Registration System<\/a> and various mobile-based verification systems function adequately, what is the pressing need for another digital ID system?<\/p>\n Maisha Namba, like many digital ID projects across Africa, has received backing from global entities such as the United Nations Development Programme and the Gates Foundation<\/a>. While their advisory roles may seem benign, their involvement raises concerns about how global tech governance is being shaped in the Global South. <\/p>\n Historically, colonial powers imposed administrative systems that served their economic interests under the guise of modernisation. Today, the extraction of data from developing economies mirrors that history except, this time, the resource being harvested is digital rather than physical.<\/p>\n The centralisation of biometric and demographic data in Kenya feeds into a global system where African data is commodified, analysed and leveraged by external actors. This is digital colonialism in practice \u2014 where the infrastructure is funded and shaped by powerful global entities and the benefits flow upwards while the risks remain localised. The fact that citizens have little visibility into how their data will be stored, used or shared only exacerbates this concern.<\/p>\n Beyond the broader geopolitical implications, digital ID systems in Kenya risk entrenching systemic exclusions. Experts have warned that Maisha Namba, like its predecessor, could deny nationality and state services to individuals over minor registration errors. In a country with significant populations of pastoralists, refugees and marginalised ethnic groups \u2014 many of whom already struggle with documentation \u2014 this system could formalise exclusion rather than remedy it.<\/p>\n Globally, we have seen what happens when digital ID systems fail or become tools of oppression. In India, the Aadhaar ID system<\/a> has been praised for expanding financial inclusion but it has also been criticised for its role in welfare exclusions, data breaches and mass surveillance. <\/p>\n