There is a dangerous hegemonic intolerance within the G7 leadership. Its ugly and real Frankenstein nature has now been exposed. The way in which Kalonzo Musyoka is being unceremoniously ejected from the amorphous G7, clearly shows that the Uhuru-Ruto stewardship is infested with extremely bigoted beliefs that only the two of them can determine for Kenyans who should take over the leadership of this country after Mwai Kibaki.
This is even when it is abundantly clear that none of them can be the country’s next President because they are, for all practical purposes, suspected criminals who don’t even qualify to contest for the top leadership of Kenya. With that in mind, they suspect Kalonzo’s pretended close relationship with them could only be based on the fulfilment of his political ambition of becoming the only acceptable alternative presidential candidate of the G7.
It may well be true that Kalonzo Musyoka is an unwelcome guest in the G7. It may also be true that Kalonzo’s presence in the group is anchored on his own hidden ambition to take over from Kibaki by “slipping through” Uhuru and Ruto. But whichever way one looks at Kalonzo’s association with the G7, his presence in the group strengthens it with millions of Kamba votes. The Kikuyu-Kalenjin power structure is a weaker entity without Kalonzo. Indeed the desired KKK strategy to take over the leadership of this country through tribal grouping remains a mere dream without the Kamba leader.
What therefore is the true reason for all the bitterness against Kalonzo? Between Uhuru and Ruto, it is the former rather than the latter, who speaks with bitterness whenever he makes references to the VP’s political ambitions. He can simply not swallow the idea of being born the undisputed prince of the House of Mumbi, and therefore the unquestionable heir to the Kikuyu throne, ending up in jail and an insignificant Kamba commoner taking over Kenya’s presidency. To him that position is his birth right.
On the other hand Ruto sees Kalonzo as a dangerous but very necessary enemy. If he ends up in jail the young Kalenjin leader doesn’t really care who takes over the leadership of Kenya as long as that person is not Raila Odinga. Indeed if Kalonzo were to succeed Kibaki the Kalenjin would still manage to get many important positions in the central Government as they would still control the majority of the counties in the Rift Valley which is, by and large, the bread basket of this country. No government can survive without feeding its people.
If, by a miraculous eventuality, Ruto and Uhuru find themselves free to contest Kenya’s presidency, then the two of them can mutually be expected to kiss their relationship goodbye as none of them is really prepared to step down for the other to become Kenya’s next president. The latent animosity between the two is clearly noticeable whenever they address public meetings in the Rift Valley and in the Central Provinces. When they are in the Rift Valley, Ruto is treated by the crowd as the undisputed G7 presidential candidate to face Raila Odinga; and whenever they are facing a Central Province crowd, Uhuru becomes the undisputed candidate. That is why they are not prepared to form one single political party that would unite them as a team.
Each one of them has his own political party and there is no possibility at all that one of them will step down for the other. The idea of them forming the next government as a team is merely building castles in the air and a crowd pulling gimmick. Now they are paddling in the same canoe because they are facing more or less the same criminal charges at the ICC and the purpose of the so called joint prayer meetings is to politicize the cases by mobilizing Kikuyus and Kalenjins by making them feel that their entire communities are facing the criminal charges in The Hague.
If and when Uhuru and Ruto are free to seek presidential ticket from their different political parties, they will all be visiting Ukambani separately to look for votes. At that time they will wish they did not mistreat Kalonzo as they are doing at the moment. But Kalonzo is not as weak as he appears to be. His strategy was indeed to use both Uhuru and Ruto as stepping stones to State House. Now that he has been discovered he must have a plan “B” that will still make him a presidential candidate.
If by that time Uhuru and Ruto will be barred from contesting, Kalonzo will still claim to be their friend who will probably promise to drop all charges against them when he becomes the President.
He will claim he was the only man who went round the world trying to get the case in The Hague transferred to Kenya. If at that time Uhuru and Ruto will have identified a puppet candidate to face both Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka the puppet’s popularity will be so insignificant because whoever they choose to be their dummy will neither command the total respect of the Kalenjins nor that of the Kikuyus.
Kalenjins want Ruto to be the next president not a puppet chosen by him; and the Kikuyus want Uhuru Kenyatta at State House but not a puppet chosen by him.
If Ruto and Uhuru don’t run in the next election because of the provisions of Chapter Six of the new Constitution, then the race to State House will indeed be between Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka. There is no way Musalia Mudavadi can get the ODM ticket and if he pulls out of the party he will have committed the final political suicide and he knows it.
When all is said and done the politics of personalities will come to a natural end the moment ODM officially nominate Raila Odinga as its candidate and he names Musalia Mudavadi as his running mate. That is when politics in this country will change as ODM insists on debating on issues during campaigns instead of personalities. The millions of unemployed young Kenyans who will determine the future leader of this land will massively back the party of policies and dump the demagogues of tribal gansterism.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Constitution to dominate elections
The next elections will entirely be based on the new Constitution. Not only will it be mandatory to follow it to the letter; but the voters will also be looking for candidates are genuinely concerned with its accurate implementation. So far we have seen very many attempts to change the constitution through the publication of laws that go against its letter and spirit.
The new Land Bill is a case in point. Chapter Five of the Constitution is extremely clear on matters of land ownership. Article 68 (c) says, among other things, Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect of private land. Section 189 (1) of the proposed Bill says that within one year of the coming into force of the Land Act, the Cabinet Secretary shall commission a scientific study to determine the economic viability of minimum and maximum acreages in respect of private land for various land zones in the country.
The purpose of prescribing minimum and maximum land holding by the Constitution was obviously to try and bridge the gap between the huge land owners in Kenya and the landless. It so happens that soon after independence those who found themselves in political leadership automatically became land grabbers. They used very fraudulent methods to acquire very huge tracts of land. With that in mind many people expected the new draft Bill to suggest minimum land acreages an individual could own. But instead the Bill is suggesting the establishment of a scientific study to determine what is economically viable for minimum and maximum acreages.
In essence this means the scientific study may suggest that the huge plantations owned by land grabbers should not be subdivided to benefit the people because doing so would not be economically viable. According to the new Bill the hope of ever thinking of dividing the huge tracts of illegally acquired land to benefit the people will not even take place until after a whole year has passed subsequent to the land law coming into force.
Section 189(2) of the draft Bill says the findings of the study shall be available for the public to make observations and should be modified based on valid representations in accordance with principles of participation of the people, good governance, transparency and accountability. During the electioneering in the forthcoming contest political leaders must tell the people how their parties intend to do that. The proposal of how to make millions of landless Kenyans own some land must come out openly during this election.
After all Article 61 (1) of the Constitution says all land in Kenya belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and as individuals and it further emphasises that land in Kenya shall be held, used and managed in a manner that is equitable, efficient, productive and sustainable, and in accordance with the principles of equitable access to land. The Constitution also protects security of land rights; sustainable and productive management of its resources; its transparent and cost effective administration; and sound conservation and protection of ecologically sensitive areas.
The Constitution suggests the elimination of gender discrimination in law, customs and practices related to land and property in land; and encourages communities to settle land disputes through recognised local community initiatives consistent with the new law. These are issues which voters must demand to be discussed in a more detailed manner during these elections. Political parties must show the people how their manifestos intend to implement controversial land issues suggested by the new Constitution.
The Constitution says these principles shall be implemented through a national land policy developed and reviewed regularly by the national government and through legislation. During the campaign the voters must be told by the candidates what land policies they want to introduce in Kenya. The candidates, and indeed all political parties, must tell the people how they intend to reduce the number of landless people by making them get something from the large landowners who are at the moment not even utilizing productively the land they have.
Section 189(3) of the proposed Bill says within three months after the publication of the final report of the scientific study commissioned under the law the Cabinet Secretary shall table the report to Parliament for debate and adoption. At that time the Cabinet Secretary shall prescribe the rules and regulations on the minimum and maximum acreages in respect of private land solely based on the recommendations in the report. This does not however preclude political parties from telling the voters what their policies about maximum and minimum acreages of land ownership should be.
Today this country has thousands of people living as IDP whereas they were landowners before the last general election. It was due the erroneous promises made by politicians about land ownership that thugs invaded the IDP’s former land and acquired it illegitimately. Promises made during election time to the voters about land ownership are important and this time they should be examined to find out whether they are lawful promises and whether they fall within what the Constitution says about land.
Voters should demand from all political parties to be told how they indent to implement Article 43 of the Constitution which says every person has the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care; to accessible and adequate housing, and to reasonable standards of sanitation; to be free from hunger, and to have adequate food of acceptable quality; to clean and safe water in adequate quantities; to social security; and to education.
The Constitution clearly says a person shall not be denied emergency medical treatment and that the State shall provide appropriate social security to persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. In every election politicians have made promises about these things in the most reckless manner. In the past however these things were not promised by the supreme law of the land. Now it is incumbent upon all candidates, particularly Presidential candidates to tell the people how they plan to implement the Bill of Rights in the new Constitution in order to achieve the second generation human rights.
Failure to do so in a convincing manner would be a disqualification wananchi should ruthlessly use to throw out candidates who want to be elected on tribal rather than policy tickets. May be the best way of finding out who is most suited to be the future President of this country would be to share platform and debate on how to, most effectively, implement the Constitution.
It is about time the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) came out with a mandatory rule to be obeyed by all candidates about public sharing of political platform in which journalists ask hard question based on the new Constitution. To avoid heckling in those meeting they should be confined to televised debates which should be aired by all stations in the country.
This is the only way of avoiding the hype and hoopla which dominated previous elections in this country. It is about time Kenyans took the substance of elections, in which party manifestos are thoroughly securitised, more seriously.
The new Land Bill is a case in point. Chapter Five of the Constitution is extremely clear on matters of land ownership. Article 68 (c) says, among other things, Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect of private land. Section 189 (1) of the proposed Bill says that within one year of the coming into force of the Land Act, the Cabinet Secretary shall commission a scientific study to determine the economic viability of minimum and maximum acreages in respect of private land for various land zones in the country.
The purpose of prescribing minimum and maximum land holding by the Constitution was obviously to try and bridge the gap between the huge land owners in Kenya and the landless. It so happens that soon after independence those who found themselves in political leadership automatically became land grabbers. They used very fraudulent methods to acquire very huge tracts of land. With that in mind many people expected the new draft Bill to suggest minimum land acreages an individual could own. But instead the Bill is suggesting the establishment of a scientific study to determine what is economically viable for minimum and maximum acreages.
In essence this means the scientific study may suggest that the huge plantations owned by land grabbers should not be subdivided to benefit the people because doing so would not be economically viable. According to the new Bill the hope of ever thinking of dividing the huge tracts of illegally acquired land to benefit the people will not even take place until after a whole year has passed subsequent to the land law coming into force.
Section 189(2) of the draft Bill says the findings of the study shall be available for the public to make observations and should be modified based on valid representations in accordance with principles of participation of the people, good governance, transparency and accountability. During the electioneering in the forthcoming contest political leaders must tell the people how their parties intend to do that. The proposal of how to make millions of landless Kenyans own some land must come out openly during this election.
After all Article 61 (1) of the Constitution says all land in Kenya belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and as individuals and it further emphasises that land in Kenya shall be held, used and managed in a manner that is equitable, efficient, productive and sustainable, and in accordance with the principles of equitable access to land. The Constitution also protects security of land rights; sustainable and productive management of its resources; its transparent and cost effective administration; and sound conservation and protection of ecologically sensitive areas.
The Constitution suggests the elimination of gender discrimination in law, customs and practices related to land and property in land; and encourages communities to settle land disputes through recognised local community initiatives consistent with the new law. These are issues which voters must demand to be discussed in a more detailed manner during these elections. Political parties must show the people how their manifestos intend to implement controversial land issues suggested by the new Constitution.
The Constitution says these principles shall be implemented through a national land policy developed and reviewed regularly by the national government and through legislation. During the campaign the voters must be told by the candidates what land policies they want to introduce in Kenya. The candidates, and indeed all political parties, must tell the people how they intend to reduce the number of landless people by making them get something from the large landowners who are at the moment not even utilizing productively the land they have.
Section 189(3) of the proposed Bill says within three months after the publication of the final report of the scientific study commissioned under the law the Cabinet Secretary shall table the report to Parliament for debate and adoption. At that time the Cabinet Secretary shall prescribe the rules and regulations on the minimum and maximum acreages in respect of private land solely based on the recommendations in the report. This does not however preclude political parties from telling the voters what their policies about maximum and minimum acreages of land ownership should be.
Today this country has thousands of people living as IDP whereas they were landowners before the last general election. It was due the erroneous promises made by politicians about land ownership that thugs invaded the IDP’s former land and acquired it illegitimately. Promises made during election time to the voters about land ownership are important and this time they should be examined to find out whether they are lawful promises and whether they fall within what the Constitution says about land.
Voters should demand from all political parties to be told how they indent to implement Article 43 of the Constitution which says every person has the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care; to accessible and adequate housing, and to reasonable standards of sanitation; to be free from hunger, and to have adequate food of acceptable quality; to clean and safe water in adequate quantities; to social security; and to education.
The Constitution clearly says a person shall not be denied emergency medical treatment and that the State shall provide appropriate social security to persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. In every election politicians have made promises about these things in the most reckless manner. In the past however these things were not promised by the supreme law of the land. Now it is incumbent upon all candidates, particularly Presidential candidates to tell the people how they plan to implement the Bill of Rights in the new Constitution in order to achieve the second generation human rights.
Failure to do so in a convincing manner would be a disqualification wananchi should ruthlessly use to throw out candidates who want to be elected on tribal rather than policy tickets. May be the best way of finding out who is most suited to be the future President of this country would be to share platform and debate on how to, most effectively, implement the Constitution.
It is about time the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) came out with a mandatory rule to be obeyed by all candidates about public sharing of political platform in which journalists ask hard question based on the new Constitution. To avoid heckling in those meeting they should be confined to televised debates which should be aired by all stations in the country.
This is the only way of avoiding the hype and hoopla which dominated previous elections in this country. It is about time Kenyans took the substance of elections, in which party manifestos are thoroughly securitised, more seriously.
Democracy in ODM admirable
The Raila-Mudavadi rivalry within the ODM party is admirable. It is what cannot, and will probably never, take place in other political parties in Kenya. All political parties in this country belong to individuals who use them as ladders to high political offices. When Musalia Mudavadi, the Deputy Leader of the formidable ODM, announced his intention to seek the party ticket in the forthcoming Presidential election, Raila’s enemies thought they had acquired a new comrade in arms.
But Mudavadi has made it very clear that he does not intend to leave ODM even if Raila defeats him at the nomination stage. The spirited countrywide campaigns by Raila and Musalia, seeking support from party members in their fight for the party’s presidential ticket, show the kind of internal democracy needed in all political parties in the country. Unfortunately it only exits in the ODM and that is why it is the most powerful political institution in the country.
Raila and Mudavadi should take their campaigns a stage farther than individual tours of different parts of the country. They should make the tours jointly and address ODM groups together as they answer questions from members from joint platforms. Unless candidates share platforms in contestant debates during party primaries, internal democracy in political parties will not be complete.
Right now the G7 group is indeed travelling together as a group to many parts of the country where their various political parties are popular. They have confined themselves to the Rift Valley, the former Central Province and Machakos where indeed they have shared platforms and addressed public rallies jointly. But they have not done so as rivals competing for joint party nomination. In fact there is nothing like political unity in the so-called G7 group.
Each of the G7 top three leaders has his own political party based on tribal support. William Ruto has the United Republican Party which is a Kalenjin party; Kalonzo Musyoka has his own Wiper Democratic Party which is a Kamba party and Uhuru Kenyatta has his own KANU which is a party in serious leadership problem. Uhuru, however, is assured of the backing of the majority of the Kikuyu people whichever political party he joins as the top leader. That support is not automatic if he joins a party to support another leader.
The problem with the G7 group is that it has no ideology that unites them. They are only together to make sure that Raila Odinga does not become Kenya’s next President. The group does not even seem to agree on why they oppose Raila Odinga. They are not able to pinpoint any ideological stand by Raila Odinga which makes them oppose him. Yet it is common knowledge among all the people of Kenya that Raila is probably the most sincere supporter of the new Constitution and what it stands for.
By inference it stands to reason that what brings G7 together is its continued opposition to the demands of the new Constitution. Among them is William Ruto who spent a lot of money and energy to oppose the Constitution. The manner in which Uhuru Kenyatta and Kalonzo Musyoka supported the supreme law was so half-heartedly lackadaisical that they were branded watermelons.
Today both Ruto and Kenyatta are not sure whether they will meet the required standards of leadership that is stipulated in the new Constitution. With criminal cases hovering over their heads at the ICC in The Hague, it is not even clear whether the Kenyan courts will allow them to seek leadership positions under the new Constitution. Deep inside their hearts, therefore, they must be bitterly opposed to the new Constitution which they obviously must see as a major impediment to their insatiable desire to lead this country.
The continued effort by the G7 to tear this country apart along tribal lines is however likely to miserably fail because the people of Kenya correctly see the new Constitution as the only available vehicle to prosperity, justice and democracy. For a long time the wealth of this nation has been concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who happened to wield political power. Paradoxically they grabbed political power by successfully utilizing the old colonial adage of ‘divide and rule’. After dividing the nation into small tribal clusters through bribery and xenophobic nationalism the rich always managed to use the divided masses as stepping stones to political power.
That scenario has been drastically changed by the people when they overwhelmingly supported the new constitution. The only ideological difference which the voters of Kenya will be looking for when electing their new leaders, will be the ability to correctly interpret the new constitution. That ability will be exhibited in the manner the leaders explain to the people about their commitment and competence to correctly implement it.
It so happens that the only political party that is able to interpret the new Constitution correctly to the satisfaction of the people is the ODM. This is mainly because the party is made up of the people of Kenya who genuinely want change in this country. The people who want to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots, as it is suggested in the new constitution, all happen to be in the ODM. But the party must learn to conduct its primary elections in a more transparent manner through genuine interpretation of the new Constitution by telling the people how it indents to implement it.
If Raila Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi share a platform and answer questions from the people on how they intend to implement the new Constitution n, the two will be speaking the same language. Apart from publicly exhibiting internal democracy within their party, however, Raila and Mudavadi are also dancing to the tune of tribal demands of their people. The Luos would most likely not like to see Raila serving in the Mudavadi administration as the deputy President. And the Luhyas would obviously like their son to take the top position in the next ODM Government. But everything else being equal the Luhyas know very well that their son is not a match to Agwambo and in fact they would be extremely lucky to have Mudavadi as the Deputy President in the next Government.
But Mudavadi has made it very clear that he does not intend to leave ODM even if Raila defeats him at the nomination stage. The spirited countrywide campaigns by Raila and Musalia, seeking support from party members in their fight for the party’s presidential ticket, show the kind of internal democracy needed in all political parties in the country. Unfortunately it only exits in the ODM and that is why it is the most powerful political institution in the country.
Raila and Mudavadi should take their campaigns a stage farther than individual tours of different parts of the country. They should make the tours jointly and address ODM groups together as they answer questions from members from joint platforms. Unless candidates share platforms in contestant debates during party primaries, internal democracy in political parties will not be complete.
Right now the G7 group is indeed travelling together as a group to many parts of the country where their various political parties are popular. They have confined themselves to the Rift Valley, the former Central Province and Machakos where indeed they have shared platforms and addressed public rallies jointly. But they have not done so as rivals competing for joint party nomination. In fact there is nothing like political unity in the so-called G7 group.
Each of the G7 top three leaders has his own political party based on tribal support. William Ruto has the United Republican Party which is a Kalenjin party; Kalonzo Musyoka has his own Wiper Democratic Party which is a Kamba party and Uhuru Kenyatta has his own KANU which is a party in serious leadership problem. Uhuru, however, is assured of the backing of the majority of the Kikuyu people whichever political party he joins as the top leader. That support is not automatic if he joins a party to support another leader.
The problem with the G7 group is that it has no ideology that unites them. They are only together to make sure that Raila Odinga does not become Kenya’s next President. The group does not even seem to agree on why they oppose Raila Odinga. They are not able to pinpoint any ideological stand by Raila Odinga which makes them oppose him. Yet it is common knowledge among all the people of Kenya that Raila is probably the most sincere supporter of the new Constitution and what it stands for.
By inference it stands to reason that what brings G7 together is its continued opposition to the demands of the new Constitution. Among them is William Ruto who spent a lot of money and energy to oppose the Constitution. The manner in which Uhuru Kenyatta and Kalonzo Musyoka supported the supreme law was so half-heartedly lackadaisical that they were branded watermelons.
Today both Ruto and Kenyatta are not sure whether they will meet the required standards of leadership that is stipulated in the new Constitution. With criminal cases hovering over their heads at the ICC in The Hague, it is not even clear whether the Kenyan courts will allow them to seek leadership positions under the new Constitution. Deep inside their hearts, therefore, they must be bitterly opposed to the new Constitution which they obviously must see as a major impediment to their insatiable desire to lead this country.
The continued effort by the G7 to tear this country apart along tribal lines is however likely to miserably fail because the people of Kenya correctly see the new Constitution as the only available vehicle to prosperity, justice and democracy. For a long time the wealth of this nation has been concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who happened to wield political power. Paradoxically they grabbed political power by successfully utilizing the old colonial adage of ‘divide and rule’. After dividing the nation into small tribal clusters through bribery and xenophobic nationalism the rich always managed to use the divided masses as stepping stones to political power.
That scenario has been drastically changed by the people when they overwhelmingly supported the new constitution. The only ideological difference which the voters of Kenya will be looking for when electing their new leaders, will be the ability to correctly interpret the new constitution. That ability will be exhibited in the manner the leaders explain to the people about their commitment and competence to correctly implement it.
It so happens that the only political party that is able to interpret the new Constitution correctly to the satisfaction of the people is the ODM. This is mainly because the party is made up of the people of Kenya who genuinely want change in this country. The people who want to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots, as it is suggested in the new constitution, all happen to be in the ODM. But the party must learn to conduct its primary elections in a more transparent manner through genuine interpretation of the new Constitution by telling the people how it indents to implement it.
If Raila Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi share a platform and answer questions from the people on how they intend to implement the new Constitution n, the two will be speaking the same language. Apart from publicly exhibiting internal democracy within their party, however, Raila and Mudavadi are also dancing to the tune of tribal demands of their people. The Luos would most likely not like to see Raila serving in the Mudavadi administration as the deputy President. And the Luhyas would obviously like their son to take the top position in the next ODM Government. But everything else being equal the Luhyas know very well that their son is not a match to Agwambo and in fact they would be extremely lucky to have Mudavadi as the Deputy President in the next Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
