Post by Onyango Oloo on Oct 7, 2005 20:55:49 GMT 3
Kenya Goes Bananas (and Oranges)
SAEED NAQVI, The Indian Express
Posted online: Friday, October 07, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
Kenya is in the grip of a referendum fever — on a new constitution. Those who will vote ‘‘yes’’ are called ‘‘bananas’’. The opposition is ‘‘orange’’. The fruit symbols are for easy comprehension.
Forty-two tribes are in an almighty scrum. So sharp is the polarisation that armed gangs in the ‘‘orange’’ strongholds have beaten up poor banana sellers mistaking their trade for political affiliation.
The Kenyan drama is being played out against the broader African canvas. The Second Scramble for Africa is on and the early faultlines are both civilisational and East-West. There is a sharpening of the Christian-Muslim contest. The East-West contest is acquiring a profile on another count: the gradual, effective presence of the Chinese across the continent.
One can sense these tensions in the Kenyan air. The country is majority Christian, of course, but (something you would not remark on before 9/11) also has 25 per cent Muslims in a population of 31 million. Muslims, by and large, are with the orange or the ‘‘no’’ vote seeking a weaker presidency. The 50,000 or so Hindus are among the country’s most prosperous businessmen. Some, like Rashmi Chitnis of the RSS, are politically vocal — they are with the ‘‘bananas’’ or the ‘‘yes’’ vote. If Muslims go east, Chitnis goes west.
In normal times, Muslim and Hindu factors would have remained unnoticed. But President Mwai Kibaki has thrown everything into the contest. This includes pandering to communal groups on an unprecedented scale.
Why is the referendum so important to the president? Kibaki comes from the all-powerful Kikuyu tribe. The entire Kikuyu establishment is involved in a do-or-die effort to keep power in perpetuity by bringing in a constitution where the president will have the powers beyond any control of parliament.
When Kenya became independent in 1963, the founding father, Jomo Kenyatta, also a Kikuyu, ruled the country with an iron grip under a one-party rule upto 1978. Under Kenyatta, the Kikuyu, about 30 per cent of the population, consolidated themselves in departments across the state. In 1978, Daniel Arup Moi, of the Tugen tribe came to power. He ruled until 2002. For 24 years, the Kikuyus were kept out of power.
So, in the 2002 elections, Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, forged a coalition including elements from Moi’s party. The rainbow coalition included Raila Odinga of the Luo tribe. An MoU was signed in which Odinga was promised primeminister-ship. Once Kibaki’s coalition won, he reneged on the MoU under pressure from the Kikuyu elite who cornered all the plum jobs. Part of the election promise was to have a new constitution toning down the president’s powers and transferring some powers to the PM. But once in power, the Kikuyus totally denied the MoU. The attorney general was asked to draft a constitution to keep Kibaki and therefore the Kikuyu, on top, forever.
This is what is up for the November referendum. A brilliant Parsee lawyer, Pheroze Nowrojee, has questioned the legality of the proposed Constitution. So persuasive have been his arguments that there is every chance of the orange (‘‘no’’) prevailing and the nation rejecting the constitution.
Sensing electoral defeat, the Kibaki group has changed tactics. It is being whispered they do not mind losing the court battle. They will then be able to blame the courts for blocking the new Constitution! Nowrojee’s supporters have decided to checkmate Kibaki. They would now like to retard the legal process so that victory in the referendum buries the Kibaki project for good. In the unlikely event of the ‘‘bananas’’ winning, the illegality of the constitution can be established in court.
Amid these Byzantine manoeuvres, Kibaki has proposed religious courts for Hindus, Christians or any religious group. This, to meet the joint Christian-Hindu opposition to the Qazi courts for Muslims. The Qazi courts have been in existence from before the British period. They were part of the 1963 constitution. They were being retained in the new constitution too. But Christian fundamentalist groups (to whom has been added the voices of Rashmi Chitnis and Usha Shah on behalf of the Hindu Council of Kenya) have gone to court that the ultimate effect of ‘‘the Qazi courts will be to turn Africa in general into an Islamic continent...’’
The government has set the cat among the pigeons by proposing courts for every religion. The churches have said they will leave the matter to ‘‘individual concience’’. Enlightened Muslims find Qazi’s courts an anachronism but cannot face the majority of their own community besieged by a post-9/11 paranoia.
Meanwhile, front pages of Nairobi newspapers carry a lengthy message by President Kibaki to the country’s Muslims on the sighting of the Ramzan moon. ‘‘It would have been a graceful statement were it not laced with electoral opportunism’’, says a Muslim businessman, wary that some churches and affiliated tribes, in their present state of agitation, may not be too pleased by this gesture.
SAEED NAQVI, The Indian Express
Posted online: Friday, October 07, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
Kenya is in the grip of a referendum fever — on a new constitution. Those who will vote ‘‘yes’’ are called ‘‘bananas’’. The opposition is ‘‘orange’’. The fruit symbols are for easy comprehension.
Forty-two tribes are in an almighty scrum. So sharp is the polarisation that armed gangs in the ‘‘orange’’ strongholds have beaten up poor banana sellers mistaking their trade for political affiliation.
The Kenyan drama is being played out against the broader African canvas. The Second Scramble for Africa is on and the early faultlines are both civilisational and East-West. There is a sharpening of the Christian-Muslim contest. The East-West contest is acquiring a profile on another count: the gradual, effective presence of the Chinese across the continent.
One can sense these tensions in the Kenyan air. The country is majority Christian, of course, but (something you would not remark on before 9/11) also has 25 per cent Muslims in a population of 31 million. Muslims, by and large, are with the orange or the ‘‘no’’ vote seeking a weaker presidency. The 50,000 or so Hindus are among the country’s most prosperous businessmen. Some, like Rashmi Chitnis of the RSS, are politically vocal — they are with the ‘‘bananas’’ or the ‘‘yes’’ vote. If Muslims go east, Chitnis goes west.
In normal times, Muslim and Hindu factors would have remained unnoticed. But President Mwai Kibaki has thrown everything into the contest. This includes pandering to communal groups on an unprecedented scale.
Why is the referendum so important to the president? Kibaki comes from the all-powerful Kikuyu tribe. The entire Kikuyu establishment is involved in a do-or-die effort to keep power in perpetuity by bringing in a constitution where the president will have the powers beyond any control of parliament.
When Kenya became independent in 1963, the founding father, Jomo Kenyatta, also a Kikuyu, ruled the country with an iron grip under a one-party rule upto 1978. Under Kenyatta, the Kikuyu, about 30 per cent of the population, consolidated themselves in departments across the state. In 1978, Daniel Arup Moi, of the Tugen tribe came to power. He ruled until 2002. For 24 years, the Kikuyus were kept out of power.
So, in the 2002 elections, Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, forged a coalition including elements from Moi’s party. The rainbow coalition included Raila Odinga of the Luo tribe. An MoU was signed in which Odinga was promised primeminister-ship. Once Kibaki’s coalition won, he reneged on the MoU under pressure from the Kikuyu elite who cornered all the plum jobs. Part of the election promise was to have a new constitution toning down the president’s powers and transferring some powers to the PM. But once in power, the Kikuyus totally denied the MoU. The attorney general was asked to draft a constitution to keep Kibaki and therefore the Kikuyu, on top, forever.
This is what is up for the November referendum. A brilliant Parsee lawyer, Pheroze Nowrojee, has questioned the legality of the proposed Constitution. So persuasive have been his arguments that there is every chance of the orange (‘‘no’’) prevailing and the nation rejecting the constitution.
Sensing electoral defeat, the Kibaki group has changed tactics. It is being whispered they do not mind losing the court battle. They will then be able to blame the courts for blocking the new Constitution! Nowrojee’s supporters have decided to checkmate Kibaki. They would now like to retard the legal process so that victory in the referendum buries the Kibaki project for good. In the unlikely event of the ‘‘bananas’’ winning, the illegality of the constitution can be established in court.
Amid these Byzantine manoeuvres, Kibaki has proposed religious courts for Hindus, Christians or any religious group. This, to meet the joint Christian-Hindu opposition to the Qazi courts for Muslims. The Qazi courts have been in existence from before the British period. They were part of the 1963 constitution. They were being retained in the new constitution too. But Christian fundamentalist groups (to whom has been added the voices of Rashmi Chitnis and Usha Shah on behalf of the Hindu Council of Kenya) have gone to court that the ultimate effect of ‘‘the Qazi courts will be to turn Africa in general into an Islamic continent...’’
The government has set the cat among the pigeons by proposing courts for every religion. The churches have said they will leave the matter to ‘‘individual concience’’. Enlightened Muslims find Qazi’s courts an anachronism but cannot face the majority of their own community besieged by a post-9/11 paranoia.
Meanwhile, front pages of Nairobi newspapers carry a lengthy message by President Kibaki to the country’s Muslims on the sighting of the Ramzan moon. ‘‘It would have been a graceful statement were it not laced with electoral opportunism’’, says a Muslim businessman, wary that some churches and affiliated tribes, in their present state of agitation, may not be too pleased by this gesture.