Kenyans are poring into the draft constitution starting from the top. They have collectively identified the cancer of unchecked powers exclusively resident at State House which they want tamed. On the same frequency they abhor reserving the weighty task of choosing PM to selfish politicians.
The CoE would kill many birds with the same stone by amending that clause to indicate that the PM will be the leader of the party with majority MPs. That single provision will sound the death knell of briefcase parties while promoting policy-based parties. What is more, voters will vote with be priori knowledge of whom their prospective PM would be. That will minimize political wheeler dealing and arm twisting.
That said the prospect of two centres of power MUST be addressed if the present inertia and tension is to be eradicated. Instead of narrowing power sharing to two offices, the executive authority is better best executed from one office with empowered independent institutions as watchdogs. Independent institutions rather than gullible MPs are a safer bet to objectivity and continuity devoid of electoral tensions.
While Kenyans rightfully remain fixated to the proposed two centres of power, chapter two of the draft constitution is a study in paradox per excellence. First the chapter spells out devolution which captures the hitherto loathed majimbo in all but name.
With devolution come deserved superlatives like sovereignty of the people and supremacy of the constitution itself. The three layers of governance is just too costly for a poor country like Kenya. But again, the CoE must have been alive to our ethnic loyalties and regional disparities.
The draft declares that the governments at the various levels will be distinct and interdependent. Then comes the rider that the same governments must conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation. That paradox must be clearly spelt out to avoid any regional conflicts that will inevitably impact on the national fabric.
Also chapter two of the draft hits a masterstroke by reducing national holidays to three: Madaraka, Mashujaa and Jamhuri days. Makes sense if only they would do away with the obsession to specific dates and instead opt for days of the week (e.g first Monday of June ....) to avoid disruption of economic activities.
But this structuring and reduction of holidays is a first step to kill deity and destructive sycophancy that saw previous presidents patent Kenya in their own names. Besides disabusing previous imperialists of personalized rule, this is a recognition of all who selfishly contributed in different ways to liberating Kenya.
In a nutshell, while all are tackling the draft head first, the document provides us with the best opportunity to RECLAIM Kenya for ourselves and the future generation. We must not allow the pettiness of the present politicians to take us back to MISRI. The first generation leaders failed big time to steer Kenya to her right heights and we are paying the painful consequences.
Let us seize this unique moment to retrace our steps and redefine the glorious Kenya for posterity. We owe it to ourselves and the future generation.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Draft Constitution: Good-Looking Juice Laced with Poison
By Guest Writer
Dear Committee of Experts (CoE),
First, let me commend the CoE for a job well done in coming up with a harmonized draft that is middle ground for advocates of presidential and parliamentary system of Government. However, in my view, the draft looks like a good-looking orange juice but laced with a dangerous poison.
I have gone through all sections of the draft and I like all, especially one on devolution. However, I have a borne of contention with the aspect of executive authority. Kenyans need to take a critical look at the executive authority aspect since this is the nerve centre of any nation. It is make or break of any country. My argument is this:
1. Kenyans wanted powers of president reduced but not transferred to another centre of power. What will stop the new centre of power from abusing power like happened under the imperial presidency? Executive authority should be shared with other institutions like Parliament and Judiciary and not shared amongst politicians.
2. Kenyans wanted to vote for the person to be the CEO of their country regardless of whether the person is a premier or a president.
3. Creating two centres of power – executive premiership and president – will create permanent tensions in Kenya due to power struggle between the competing forces. The lessons of Kibaki and Raila putting Kenya on permanent tension since the signing of the 2008 National Accord should have informed your decision. The same situation happens in Zimbabwe. The good thing is that the National Accord comes to an end with the expiry of Kibaki/Raila term. But the draft you came up with will become law, if Kenyans vote YES for it, and it will guide Kenyan generations for many years. Who will invest or visit as a tourist a country that is permanently gripped by tension arising from power struggles? Many tour operators and other business have suffered greatly after the 2007 disputed presidential polls. The National Accord was signed to bring peace and it achieved that. But the country has remained tensed due to bickering by politicians and the tourism and hotel industry has suffered heavily. The country’s economy is in limbo.
4. I do not know of any country in the world which has a hybrid system of Government like the one you propose. Why do you want Kenya to experiment a suicidal system of Government that is likely to lead Kenya to war and extinction?
5. I favour one centre of power, but weakened – either presidential or premiership. The current Constitution is abused because the presidency overrides everybody else and other institutions. The president makes any appointment and he imposes his personal views on the rest of Kenya. In the new constitutional order, I propose we can have a president or premier elected by Kenyans but have strong institutions for checks and balances like Parliament and the Judiciary. Like in US, the country’s CEO should not make unilateral appointments or major decisions. All appointments must be subject to Parliament approval and you must seal loopholes like the ones Kibaki exploited in re-appointing Ringera for an illegal second term. This will ensure the CEO doesn’t fill public offices with his cronies, tribesmen and women, friends and relatives. This has been the borne of contention with an imperial presidency. Another is sharing of Kenya’s resources and you have addressed it well in the devolution chapter.
6. A country’s CEO should derive his mandate from Kenyans and not MPs. Going by the history of our Parliament, a PM elected by MPs will be a hostage of the same people who elected him and not be accountable to Kenyans. If Kenyans have always opposed the election of mayors by councillors why do we want to do the same for a PM who will run Kenya and make major decisions affecting our lives? Mayoral candidates have for years been herding councillors to secret locations and held them like hostages so that they vote for the person who held them hostage. There has been a clamour for mayors to be elected directly by Kenyans. Why do we want to reverse the way we elect our country’s CEO? Do we want candidates to turn out be civic authorities? If mayors elected by a college of councillors have failed miserably, why do you want Kenyans to be ruled by proxy?
7. You propose stringent voting process for a president but a PM will be elected by MPs. Yet the PM will appoint Cabinet, chair Cabinet meetings and run the Government. Why should a president go through a rigorous campaign and voting process and end up performing duties that look purely ceremonial? The Government – composed of the Cabinet – is what makes major decisions on behalf of the electorate. Why should Kenyans go to vote for somebody whose work will be to the commander in chief of armed forces, receive foreign guests and other ceremonial duties? Yet the person who makes decisions that affect their lives will be elected by a caucus of MPs. Where is the logic and wisdom in this school of thought? What democracy is this?
8. Kenyans need one centre of power – whether premier or president – who will be accountable to them. As long as that CEO derives the mandate to rule from Kenyans, will never make appointments or major decisions unless ratified by other arms of Government, Kenya will remain a stable nation. Such a CEO will be the country’s symbol of unity and stability. Two centres of power is recipe for chaos and anarchy due endless power struggles.
9. A constitution is for posterity and not for short time fix to solutions. We can’t afford to risk with a trial and error constitution or gamble with our lives. The power games played out by Kibaki and Raila are a lesson to all. Who wants such kind of power games and tensions through out his/her lifetime? In Israel, the Government led by the PM collapses now and them. For them, they have resources to conduct new elections and attract investors. For our struggling economy and deeply tribal nation, an unstable Government will erode all the gains we have made since independence and make Kenya isolated by investors, donors and tourists. There is a saying that when two bulls fight, it’s the grass that suffers. When politicians engage in power struggles, ordinary folks will suffer. Let’s not rush to adopt what looks like a suicidal form of Government in our hurry to address an imperial presidency abused by Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki. There is no doubt the constitution making process is heavily influenced by Kibaki and Raila. Kenya is larger than Kibaki and Raila and it’ll be suicidal to form our thinking based on the two men. I would rather remain with the current Constitution than vote for one that will drive us into the grave a few years later.
10. The draft by CoE looks like it is tailored for certain politicians and political parties in mind. Kibaki and Raila and ODM and PNU should not form the basis of a new Constitution. Anyone who wants to rule Kenya should get our mandate. I care less who or what tribe the country’s CEO comes from - as long as he/she has a mandate of a majority of Kenyans to rule us and rules by the Constitution. CoE can make that happen by refining the draft to reflect that. In a true democracy, the losers concede defeat and agree to be ruled by the person who has won the majority vote. To ensure the winner doesn’t take all, you can borrow Rwanda example where the Opposition nominates people to Cabinet. The winner can take ¾ while the Opposition can take ¼. Why did Kenyans fight for multipartism? The remaining Opposition can keep the Government on its toes in Parliament.
11. I humbly appeal to CoE to cast their eyes 100 years ahead. Let’s make a Constitution for posterity and for future generations and not one to suit the power greed of certain politicians, tribes or selfish groups.
12. Lastly, I favour one Parliament since two chamber parliaments will be creating more jobs for MPs at tax payers’ expense. A constitution should not reward greedy politicians. A constitution should help govern a country and at the same time give key priority to those being ruled.
Dear Committee of Experts (CoE),
First, let me commend the CoE for a job well done in coming up with a harmonized draft that is middle ground for advocates of presidential and parliamentary system of Government. However, in my view, the draft looks like a good-looking orange juice but laced with a dangerous poison.
I have gone through all sections of the draft and I like all, especially one on devolution. However, I have a borne of contention with the aspect of executive authority. Kenyans need to take a critical look at the executive authority aspect since this is the nerve centre of any nation. It is make or break of any country. My argument is this:
1. Kenyans wanted powers of president reduced but not transferred to another centre of power. What will stop the new centre of power from abusing power like happened under the imperial presidency? Executive authority should be shared with other institutions like Parliament and Judiciary and not shared amongst politicians.
2. Kenyans wanted to vote for the person to be the CEO of their country regardless of whether the person is a premier or a president.
3. Creating two centres of power – executive premiership and president – will create permanent tensions in Kenya due to power struggle between the competing forces. The lessons of Kibaki and Raila putting Kenya on permanent tension since the signing of the 2008 National Accord should have informed your decision. The same situation happens in Zimbabwe. The good thing is that the National Accord comes to an end with the expiry of Kibaki/Raila term. But the draft you came up with will become law, if Kenyans vote YES for it, and it will guide Kenyan generations for many years. Who will invest or visit as a tourist a country that is permanently gripped by tension arising from power struggles? Many tour operators and other business have suffered greatly after the 2007 disputed presidential polls. The National Accord was signed to bring peace and it achieved that. But the country has remained tensed due to bickering by politicians and the tourism and hotel industry has suffered heavily. The country’s economy is in limbo.
4. I do not know of any country in the world which has a hybrid system of Government like the one you propose. Why do you want Kenya to experiment a suicidal system of Government that is likely to lead Kenya to war and extinction?
5. I favour one centre of power, but weakened – either presidential or premiership. The current Constitution is abused because the presidency overrides everybody else and other institutions. The president makes any appointment and he imposes his personal views on the rest of Kenya. In the new constitutional order, I propose we can have a president or premier elected by Kenyans but have strong institutions for checks and balances like Parliament and the Judiciary. Like in US, the country’s CEO should not make unilateral appointments or major decisions. All appointments must be subject to Parliament approval and you must seal loopholes like the ones Kibaki exploited in re-appointing Ringera for an illegal second term. This will ensure the CEO doesn’t fill public offices with his cronies, tribesmen and women, friends and relatives. This has been the borne of contention with an imperial presidency. Another is sharing of Kenya’s resources and you have addressed it well in the devolution chapter.
6. A country’s CEO should derive his mandate from Kenyans and not MPs. Going by the history of our Parliament, a PM elected by MPs will be a hostage of the same people who elected him and not be accountable to Kenyans. If Kenyans have always opposed the election of mayors by councillors why do we want to do the same for a PM who will run Kenya and make major decisions affecting our lives? Mayoral candidates have for years been herding councillors to secret locations and held them like hostages so that they vote for the person who held them hostage. There has been a clamour for mayors to be elected directly by Kenyans. Why do we want to reverse the way we elect our country’s CEO? Do we want candidates to turn out be civic authorities? If mayors elected by a college of councillors have failed miserably, why do you want Kenyans to be ruled by proxy?
7. You propose stringent voting process for a president but a PM will be elected by MPs. Yet the PM will appoint Cabinet, chair Cabinet meetings and run the Government. Why should a president go through a rigorous campaign and voting process and end up performing duties that look purely ceremonial? The Government – composed of the Cabinet – is what makes major decisions on behalf of the electorate. Why should Kenyans go to vote for somebody whose work will be to the commander in chief of armed forces, receive foreign guests and other ceremonial duties? Yet the person who makes decisions that affect their lives will be elected by a caucus of MPs. Where is the logic and wisdom in this school of thought? What democracy is this?
8. Kenyans need one centre of power – whether premier or president – who will be accountable to them. As long as that CEO derives the mandate to rule from Kenyans, will never make appointments or major decisions unless ratified by other arms of Government, Kenya will remain a stable nation. Such a CEO will be the country’s symbol of unity and stability. Two centres of power is recipe for chaos and anarchy due endless power struggles.
9. A constitution is for posterity and not for short time fix to solutions. We can’t afford to risk with a trial and error constitution or gamble with our lives. The power games played out by Kibaki and Raila are a lesson to all. Who wants such kind of power games and tensions through out his/her lifetime? In Israel, the Government led by the PM collapses now and them. For them, they have resources to conduct new elections and attract investors. For our struggling economy and deeply tribal nation, an unstable Government will erode all the gains we have made since independence and make Kenya isolated by investors, donors and tourists. There is a saying that when two bulls fight, it’s the grass that suffers. When politicians engage in power struggles, ordinary folks will suffer. Let’s not rush to adopt what looks like a suicidal form of Government in our hurry to address an imperial presidency abused by Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki. There is no doubt the constitution making process is heavily influenced by Kibaki and Raila. Kenya is larger than Kibaki and Raila and it’ll be suicidal to form our thinking based on the two men. I would rather remain with the current Constitution than vote for one that will drive us into the grave a few years later.
10. The draft by CoE looks like it is tailored for certain politicians and political parties in mind. Kibaki and Raila and ODM and PNU should not form the basis of a new Constitution. Anyone who wants to rule Kenya should get our mandate. I care less who or what tribe the country’s CEO comes from - as long as he/she has a mandate of a majority of Kenyans to rule us and rules by the Constitution. CoE can make that happen by refining the draft to reflect that. In a true democracy, the losers concede defeat and agree to be ruled by the person who has won the majority vote. To ensure the winner doesn’t take all, you can borrow Rwanda example where the Opposition nominates people to Cabinet. The winner can take ¾ while the Opposition can take ¼. Why did Kenyans fight for multipartism? The remaining Opposition can keep the Government on its toes in Parliament.
11. I humbly appeal to CoE to cast their eyes 100 years ahead. Let’s make a Constitution for posterity and for future generations and not one to suit the power greed of certain politicians, tribes or selfish groups.
12. Lastly, I favour one Parliament since two chamber parliaments will be creating more jobs for MPs at tax payers’ expense. A constitution should not reward greedy politicians. A constitution should help govern a country and at the same time give key priority to those being ruled.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What I have against a new constitution
Guest post by Lucas Mboya
For some reason. We, Kenyans have believed...fallen for the hype that a new constitution is the panacea for the problems bedeviling our nation.
Much as I can see the need for change and a re-examination of our constitutional dispensation, I have a certain unease with a new constitution and the promises it offers. I do think that our real problems are far more related to the loss or erosion of our values than to poor legislation and outdated laws.
There is an inherent and very real danger about the way that we are approaching this issue.
African and indeed our traditional values, honesty, sincerity, hard work, generosity and more have been under attack by the advent of capitalism for the last 50 odd years. Constitutions worldwide have been adopted as the best way to ensure the proper functioning of a nation and or republic and the equitable distribution of resources as well as the inalienable freedoms of all people, the right to create wealth and many other checks and balances in a free society.
But try as I might I do not see how better legislation will improve our values. Values can only be instilled. They cannot be legislated. Legislation may be there to guard our collective values as a nation and can be improved and moulded over time to adapt with the fast changing pace of life....but can never be a substitute for an inherently good value system.
Japan is a wealthy country and one of the most ancient civilisations on earth with what would undoubtedly be one of the most diversified and vibrant economies on earth. We associate this country with good governance and all that comes with it. But I want to point out that despite laws being in place for the detection, and effective prosecution of crime and more so in this vein corruption, those implicated in the same often choose to take their lives.
This stems from a deep seated sense of justice in society ,such that one who has gone against the ‘moral code’ even in a moment of weakness finds more ‘honour’ in self inflicted death than the indignity of a public trial. I use the example of Japan because it also has in its constitution a official dynasty, in fact the very one that unchecked, 50 years ago, led to their involvement in the second world war and their subsequent ‘punishment’ by the USA being the only country to date to have seen the devastation of atomic bombs.
The point I am making is that it is very dangerous for us to put more reliance on a constitution, than on our own moral and ethical codes. Why limit ourselves to what is written in law. Shouldn’t we have in all of us our own ‘law’ that has a higher bearing on how we live than a written code?
What did Jesus tell the Pharisees when they accused his disciples of ‘working’ by ‘harvesting’ on the Sabbath day when they ate grains of wheat from the fields as they walked. Laws are made for man not man for laws. Let the overriding law be that in our own values rather than a constitution. It’s safer that way. A constitution or law should never be superior to your own value system. They should work in tandem to create a cohesive society. But your own values come first.
More so. In trying to find the ‘perfect’ legislative environment we run the greatest danger of alienating ourselves community from community, region from region than ever before.
Comments attributed to a number of Mp’s recently show what a deep seated problem we have. Some from both Rift Valley and Central province (not limited to) have openly said the next president should be from their communities/regions. With what has so recently put us at each other’s throats and a new constitution in the offering which advocates albeit in a ‘sober’ tone, the much discredited ‘majimbo’ system, are we not as Kenyans putting the cart before the horse?
Doubtless some will argue that a new constitution guarantees the equitable distribution of resources so it’s a prerequisite to the next election but who and what guarantees our morality? Laws have been broken before and will again.
Additionally we have complained that the current coalition is bloated and a drain on public resources. Pray what then is this new Constitution? Have we honestly looked at how multi layered it is and considered the cost of implementation of the required changes to our governance. More important to me though, is that while our priority right now should be how we can become more cohesive as a nation and rediscover our sense of patriotism from which possibly the seeds of a better value system may be sown, we are busy discussing a document that will undoubtedly divide us more along ethnic and community lines than ever before.
While I agree that changes and reform are necessary I would much rather an incremental change (amendments) to our current constitution that would allow us to go to an election as a unified nation and continue with the process of constitutional reform and or change after that point. Not to mention the fact that a referendum is still an option that would put more strain on our national psyche than we can now bear.
We have yet to identify and try the masterminds of the post election violence which will open up old wounds, the TJRC is supposedly underway, more and older wounds, a referendum possible, new constitution, then an election in 3 years time. Isn’t this too much to bite, chew and swallow at one go considering that in 2012 most of these will still be underway?
Rather than try to enter a long treatise for which in neither qualified nor inclined. I urge my fellow Kenyans, citizens to examine, not the new constitution but our own society and ask whether legislation can bring about or indeed is the appropriate tool, to bring us to the point of a new moral and ethical awakening which is the only sure way our guaranteeing the future of this nation.
As for me my view is that this effort is too little too late. I do not think it is the answer to our problems.
All things considered. I respect the fact that many will disagree with my position. Time will tell.
The writer of this post, Lucas Mboya is the son of the late Tom Mboya.
For some reason. We, Kenyans have believed...fallen for the hype that a new constitution is the panacea for the problems bedeviling our nation.
Much as I can see the need for change and a re-examination of our constitutional dispensation, I have a certain unease with a new constitution and the promises it offers. I do think that our real problems are far more related to the loss or erosion of our values than to poor legislation and outdated laws.
There is an inherent and very real danger about the way that we are approaching this issue.
African and indeed our traditional values, honesty, sincerity, hard work, generosity and more have been under attack by the advent of capitalism for the last 50 odd years. Constitutions worldwide have been adopted as the best way to ensure the proper functioning of a nation and or republic and the equitable distribution of resources as well as the inalienable freedoms of all people, the right to create wealth and many other checks and balances in a free society.
But try as I might I do not see how better legislation will improve our values. Values can only be instilled. They cannot be legislated. Legislation may be there to guard our collective values as a nation and can be improved and moulded over time to adapt with the fast changing pace of life....but can never be a substitute for an inherently good value system.
Japan is a wealthy country and one of the most ancient civilisations on earth with what would undoubtedly be one of the most diversified and vibrant economies on earth. We associate this country with good governance and all that comes with it. But I want to point out that despite laws being in place for the detection, and effective prosecution of crime and more so in this vein corruption, those implicated in the same often choose to take their lives.
This stems from a deep seated sense of justice in society ,such that one who has gone against the ‘moral code’ even in a moment of weakness finds more ‘honour’ in self inflicted death than the indignity of a public trial. I use the example of Japan because it also has in its constitution a official dynasty, in fact the very one that unchecked, 50 years ago, led to their involvement in the second world war and their subsequent ‘punishment’ by the USA being the only country to date to have seen the devastation of atomic bombs.
The point I am making is that it is very dangerous for us to put more reliance on a constitution, than on our own moral and ethical codes. Why limit ourselves to what is written in law. Shouldn’t we have in all of us our own ‘law’ that has a higher bearing on how we live than a written code?
What did Jesus tell the Pharisees when they accused his disciples of ‘working’ by ‘harvesting’ on the Sabbath day when they ate grains of wheat from the fields as they walked. Laws are made for man not man for laws. Let the overriding law be that in our own values rather than a constitution. It’s safer that way. A constitution or law should never be superior to your own value system. They should work in tandem to create a cohesive society. But your own values come first.
More so. In trying to find the ‘perfect’ legislative environment we run the greatest danger of alienating ourselves community from community, region from region than ever before.
Comments attributed to a number of Mp’s recently show what a deep seated problem we have. Some from both Rift Valley and Central province (not limited to) have openly said the next president should be from their communities/regions. With what has so recently put us at each other’s throats and a new constitution in the offering which advocates albeit in a ‘sober’ tone, the much discredited ‘majimbo’ system, are we not as Kenyans putting the cart before the horse?
Doubtless some will argue that a new constitution guarantees the equitable distribution of resources so it’s a prerequisite to the next election but who and what guarantees our morality? Laws have been broken before and will again.
Additionally we have complained that the current coalition is bloated and a drain on public resources. Pray what then is this new Constitution? Have we honestly looked at how multi layered it is and considered the cost of implementation of the required changes to our governance. More important to me though, is that while our priority right now should be how we can become more cohesive as a nation and rediscover our sense of patriotism from which possibly the seeds of a better value system may be sown, we are busy discussing a document that will undoubtedly divide us more along ethnic and community lines than ever before.
While I agree that changes and reform are necessary I would much rather an incremental change (amendments) to our current constitution that would allow us to go to an election as a unified nation and continue with the process of constitutional reform and or change after that point. Not to mention the fact that a referendum is still an option that would put more strain on our national psyche than we can now bear.
We have yet to identify and try the masterminds of the post election violence which will open up old wounds, the TJRC is supposedly underway, more and older wounds, a referendum possible, new constitution, then an election in 3 years time. Isn’t this too much to bite, chew and swallow at one go considering that in 2012 most of these will still be underway?
Rather than try to enter a long treatise for which in neither qualified nor inclined. I urge my fellow Kenyans, citizens to examine, not the new constitution but our own society and ask whether legislation can bring about or indeed is the appropriate tool, to bring us to the point of a new moral and ethical awakening which is the only sure way our guaranteeing the future of this nation.
As for me my view is that this effort is too little too late. I do not think it is the answer to our problems.
All things considered. I respect the fact that many will disagree with my position. Time will tell.
The writer of this post, Lucas Mboya is the son of the late Tom Mboya.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Kibaki succession: The whispered reason for the great interest in the powers of the PM and President
There are things you can hear whispered around inner political circles that are easy to dismiss as nonsense. Like this persistent rumour I have been hearing.
I have realized that too many times “nonsense” and propaganda turns out to be true. Let me remind you folks of a deadly mistake many Kenyans made in the run up to the 2007 general elections. The story started with political columnist Mutahi Ngunyi warning in 2005 that he did not believe that Mwai Kibaki was capable of handing over power peacefully. Then as the elections rapidly approached there was talk that the president’s men were planning massive rigging to keep him in power at all costs. Many people dismissed this as pure nonsense. How could the gentleman golf-playing former don of Makerere University do such a thing? That had to be pure propaganda by ODM fanatics.
This view persisted even when evidence started cropping up all over the place. The most memorable for me was when an angry Musikari Kombo told his constituents in an unguarded moment; “you are wasting your time. The outcome will not be what you think.” I still hear his voice and shudder at those words.
Well we all know what happened next. Mwai Kibaki will go down in history as the president who brought the country to the brink of total disintegration. The mess caused by the honorable member for Othaya will take at least a century to heal—maybe more.
But now other whispers have started emerging.
The story this time sounds like pure fiction. The first time I heard it, I laughed loudly and dismissed it. But it has persisted and now I have started taking it seriously. I have to admit that the motive is there (that is the first thing you look for in a murder and in politics too).
It is whispered that Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki have made a deal concerning the Kibaki succession. Bearing in mind past experiences, there are some kind of irrevocable guarantees that both sides have made to each other.
There are some interesting things that have happened that seem to confirm this. Top on my list is the behaviour of one Kalonzo Musyoka at around the time I am told this deal was sealed. The Vice president was suddenly eagerly talking about 2012 and the alliances he had in place. It seemed that the statement (which angered many Kenyans) came out of the blue. However those who know the VP better will know that he is the kind of politician who always reacts and hardly ever initiates anything. What triggered the VP to suddenly start talking about 2012? Was it this deal that had just been concluded between the president and PM? Was this his move on the political chess board in an attempt to remain relevant?
But even as we seek answers to those questions, what is the essence of this deal?
The idea is that Mwai Kibaki will not retire from politics in 2012. Instead he will leave the presidency but defend his Othaya seat. He will then support Raila Odinga for the presidency and Raila will support Kibaki for the premiership. The rationale here is that the political class has a lot to lose if things go wrong in 2012 and so it is a choice between sticking together or hanging separately.
I promptly stopped laughing at this theory when I read the screaming newspaper headlines about the last hurdle to a new constitution being the division of powers between the PM and the presidency which will be ironed out by the two principals. What is not public yet are the hurdles that have been put in place to block the possibility of any pumbavu ever rising to the presidency. What the political class wants is to retain as much control as possible over what will happen in 2012.
The whole problem about this new Kanstitution (as the late Kijana Wamalwa used to call it) is that it is being put together not for posterity as it should but for the benefit of the current political class. If these guys had their way the clause for the presidency would read something like this; the president must either have a gap between his front teeth or be a pot belied golf playing former don of a well-known university. The presidency may (with consultation between the two types stated) descend to some soccer loving MP who represents a Nairobi constituency, but only with assurances that he will not be controlled by a pumbavu public that cannot be trusted to make wise decisions for the country.
I have realized that too many times “nonsense” and propaganda turns out to be true. Let me remind you folks of a deadly mistake many Kenyans made in the run up to the 2007 general elections. The story started with political columnist Mutahi Ngunyi warning in 2005 that he did not believe that Mwai Kibaki was capable of handing over power peacefully. Then as the elections rapidly approached there was talk that the president’s men were planning massive rigging to keep him in power at all costs. Many people dismissed this as pure nonsense. How could the gentleman golf-playing former don of Makerere University do such a thing? That had to be pure propaganda by ODM fanatics.
This view persisted even when evidence started cropping up all over the place. The most memorable for me was when an angry Musikari Kombo told his constituents in an unguarded moment; “you are wasting your time. The outcome will not be what you think.” I still hear his voice and shudder at those words.
Well we all know what happened next. Mwai Kibaki will go down in history as the president who brought the country to the brink of total disintegration. The mess caused by the honorable member for Othaya will take at least a century to heal—maybe more.
But now other whispers have started emerging.
The story this time sounds like pure fiction. The first time I heard it, I laughed loudly and dismissed it. But it has persisted and now I have started taking it seriously. I have to admit that the motive is there (that is the first thing you look for in a murder and in politics too).
It is whispered that Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki have made a deal concerning the Kibaki succession. Bearing in mind past experiences, there are some kind of irrevocable guarantees that both sides have made to each other.
There are some interesting things that have happened that seem to confirm this. Top on my list is the behaviour of one Kalonzo Musyoka at around the time I am told this deal was sealed. The Vice president was suddenly eagerly talking about 2012 and the alliances he had in place. It seemed that the statement (which angered many Kenyans) came out of the blue. However those who know the VP better will know that he is the kind of politician who always reacts and hardly ever initiates anything. What triggered the VP to suddenly start talking about 2012? Was it this deal that had just been concluded between the president and PM? Was this his move on the political chess board in an attempt to remain relevant?
But even as we seek answers to those questions, what is the essence of this deal?
The idea is that Mwai Kibaki will not retire from politics in 2012. Instead he will leave the presidency but defend his Othaya seat. He will then support Raila Odinga for the presidency and Raila will support Kibaki for the premiership. The rationale here is that the political class has a lot to lose if things go wrong in 2012 and so it is a choice between sticking together or hanging separately.
I promptly stopped laughing at this theory when I read the screaming newspaper headlines about the last hurdle to a new constitution being the division of powers between the PM and the presidency which will be ironed out by the two principals. What is not public yet are the hurdles that have been put in place to block the possibility of any pumbavu ever rising to the presidency. What the political class wants is to retain as much control as possible over what will happen in 2012.
The whole problem about this new Kanstitution (as the late Kijana Wamalwa used to call it) is that it is being put together not for posterity as it should but for the benefit of the current political class. If these guys had their way the clause for the presidency would read something like this; the president must either have a gap between his front teeth or be a pot belied golf playing former don of a well-known university. The presidency may (with consultation between the two types stated) descend to some soccer loving MP who represents a Nairobi constituency, but only with assurances that he will not be controlled by a pumbavu public that cannot be trusted to make wise decisions for the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)