Post by Onyango Oloo on Oct 12, 2005 12:56:36 GMT 3
11 October 2005
By MIGUNA MIGUNA, (The writer is a Kenyan practicing law in Toronto, Canada)
Let me be crystal clear and categorical at the very outset – a referendum is purely a political process. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, “a referendum is a process of referring a political question to the electorate for a direct decision by a general or popular vote.” The dictionary was not written for Raila or the ODM. Neither was it written for Kenyans. It was certainly not prepared this year in readiness for the Kibaki referendum. The English wrote the dictionary for themselves many years ago. Their intention was simply to define and explain the meaning of a universal concept.
Even though this Kibaki regime has had very good reasons to complain and grouch about the English, especially against that former Ambassador, Edward Clay, we can’t seriously quarrel with the English over their definitions, can we?
I know that Murungaru has excellent reasons to want Kenyans to hate everything British. However, even Chris Murungaru would agree with me that his petty battles with the British is over something more profound than a definition of some lonely English word. We can blame the English for colonizing us, their arrogant self-righteousness, their imperial tendencies, you name it, but for heaven’s sake, we can’t blame them for not clearly defining words and concepts.
The English are renowned the world over for their crisp and exact definitions, not for rumblings, especially the kind of mumbo jumbo that the banana republicans are known for. Let us, for once, cut these English some slack. Will we?
I am saying all this to deflect accusations that our tormented banana republicans will no doubt throw at me, yelling that I am simply supporting their estranged Orangemen. Not at all. I am, of course, an Orangeman. But my arguments here are anchored deeply in a thorough understanding of those two misused, abused and misunderstood words – these are: referendum and politics.
As the art or science of government, politics is not just about attending or addressing rallies. It is not limited to talking, discussing and debating issues pertaining to elections. Politics is about people; how they think, what they think about, why they think the way they do, how they relate to each other and to those that govern or rule them, how they organize themselves in groups (be it communal, tribal, organizational, national, regional or international), how and why they distribute resources amongst themselves, et cetera. Politics encompass issues of governance (good and bad), law, legal systems and processes, economics and many other facets of human relationships. The interaction and intersection among and between peoples is the essence of political activity in all societies. Ultimately, for a people to decide on how to vote for or against a referendum question, whether legitimately or illegitimately posed by those holding power over them, they [the people] must interact, debate, discuss, quarrel, shout, laugh and merry. That process that the people use to crystallize issues and reach decisions (individually and collectively) is what we call a political process. At times this process is peaceful, at other times it is violent, but most of the time it is characterized by different realms of peace, violence and an admixture of various human emotions. What is required is for a polity to manage the process in such a way that tames and channels violent tendencies and blunts it, before directing it to productive purposes. An unresponsive government would not be able either to detect or properly channel discordance in a manner that is likely to contain and transform potential conflicts into productive avenues. A democracy, however, is supposed to offer various fissures and outlets for conflicts and tensions, thereby effectively managing conflicts in society.
In a democracy, the successful politician is one who is able to harness all the feelings, tensions and emotions described above, channel that into a productive response from the people. Once a people responds positively to such a politician, it would be impossible to change the course of history. The people would be prepared to charge at a lion with bare hands when that politician calls upon them to do so. Their strength would not be on the absent weapons they might otherwise have had; rather, it would be based on their collective faith, trust and commitment. To reach a point of that collective trust, a people must believe that the politician listens to them, respects them, take directions from them and would not betray them. In other words, in order to get this collective allegiance from the people, the politician must demonstrate that he is trustworthy. Subsequently, any action or pronouncements by this politician would be considered by the people to be legitimately authorized. The people would then be ready to sacrifice themselves for and with that politician. The politician can then claim to have genuine, not fickle power.
That is what the ODM have in Kenya today. This is the kind of power that the Kibaki / Banana Team lacks. One does not get this kind of power by hurling insults and threats at opponents or people. It does not matter to the people that the threats and insults are coming from rich, powerful or strong bumpkins. Without legitimacy, that only emanates from the people directly, no politician, no matter how powerful, can succeed in any endeavour.
The question that Kibaki, Wako and Kiraitu has placed before Kenyans for a direct popular vote on November 21st, 2005 require Kenyans to say “Banana/Yes” or “Orange/No” Kenyans are not being asked to say Yes or No on sections, provisions or chapters of the Wako Mongrel. They are not being asked to say Yes or No to Kibaki or Raila. Kenyans have not been asked to choose what kind of constitution they would like to be governed with. A mongrel draft has been thrown at them and their only option is to say Yes or No. And they are saying No in their millions.
The recent discordant chorus by the five bumbling bumpkins in the Kibaki inner sanctum of power that the ODM is politicizing the referendum political wrestling match is clearly made out of utter ignorance or political mischief. I pity and forgive Nyachae, Karume and Michuki for they had no opportunity to learn about concepts such as referendum or even politics for that matter. I am not here talking about the practice of politics, but rather the refined concepts that concern how people are governed in a polity. One does not learn that in elementary or intermediate school; not even during colonialism. However, it is very difficult for me to forgive Kiraitu (he who attended the Harvard Law School), Karua or Kibaki (he of the Makerere University). The latter three earned what were supposed to be legitimate degrees in various disciplines. I doubt that the three bumpkins obtained university degrees without a rudimentary understanding of a concept such as politics.
Politics is defined as the art or science of government. In Kenya, the head of government doubles also as the head of state – and the wearer of many hats is none other than Mwai Kibaki. Kibaki’s chief of constitutional matters, a docket that the holder claims includes responsibility for the November referendum, is Kiraitu Murungi. This man boasts both a Bachelor and Master of Laws Degrees. For him to have earned these degrees, Kiraitu must have written some dissertation on some tpic touching on government. The same argument holds true for Karua and other banana republicans who had the advantage of attending universities before graduating into national politics. Hence, it is extremely difficult for these architects of the Wako Mongrel to claim ignorance as the basis for making that utterly nonsensical assertion.
Yet, they have been at it again, shouting above all else that the Orange Team has over-politicized the referendum process. They have conveniently forgotten that the drafting session ended at the Bomas of Kenya many many months ago. The mutilations by Parliament, Nyachae and then Wako and his select team of palace experts also occurred more than a month ago. The concoction and contortions they brewed is what the people will vote on.
The so-called second liberation was about the people making their own constitution. It was also about good governance, complete eradication of corruption and dictatorship and equitable distribution and use of national resources. The second liberation was not about replacing the current constitution by any means necessary with whatever is presented by anybody. No. The mere fact that the current constitution is faulty does not mean that the people will or should accept anything slightly better. The quality of the constitution must be decided by the people. If the people insist on the Bomas Draft, that is what they must get. No amount of arm-twisting will change this determination.
As long as the Kibaki regime continues to delude itself that the Kenyan people do not understand what a referendum is, what is required of them during the referendum or that all it needs to do is shout everyone down and things will be fine, the more resolute Kenyans will become to bring forth a progressive constitutional dispensation. I urge the bumbling bumpkins to continue shouting, threatening and insulting the people. The wapumbavu Kenyans have united in their collective stupidity against the Wako Mongrel and no amount of force will stop them.
