Post by miguna on Nov 11, 2005 8:33:18 GMT 3
(Modified and Updated Version)
OUR PRESIDENT IS SMART; SO WHY IS HE BREAKING UP THE COUNTRY?
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - 10 November 2005
OUR PRESIDENT, Emilio Mwai Kibaki, is not a fool. No. He is not a pumbavu like me. You see, unlike me, he has read, digested and thoroughly mastered the entire Draft Constitution that the Attorney General, Amos Wako, specifically prepared for him. He also graduated from Makerere University, in Uganda, at a time when only the very gifted attended that institution.
Those knowledgeable about this man Kibaki tells me that he is reported to have studied at the prestigious London School of Economics. I understand that the man is an accomplished economist. His superior intelligence is in no doubt. After all, he served as a Finance Minister for an extended period of time in both the Kenyattaa and Moi governments. The man worked in senior executive positions from 1963 to 1993. For fifteen years, this man Emilio was President Moi’s deputy.
When such a smart man decides, through a presidential fiat, to sell a few warthogs, zebras, water buffalos, gazelles, wildebeest, hippos, giraffes, Cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, kudus, dik diks, antelopes, elephants, African buffalos, Impalas and a few exotic birds to the Thai people, Kenyans are required to trust his proven judgment and intelligence. We are not supposed to ask questions or challenge this decision; after all, we never did in the forty or more years that he has occupied various exalted positions in our midst.
Unlike William Ole Ntimama, the Minister in the Office of the President, Richard Leakey and other ODM potentates, we humble Kenyans are supposed to say “yes sir” when Emilio makes important proclamations, presumably, for our benefit, which we are just too foolish to know anyway.
However, there is a big difference between executive fiats and an attempt to rewrite our national history. It is one thing for President Kibaki to issue decrees, dish out goodies to his banana supporters and order both police and military helicopters for Mama Lucy and the Narc Activist to campaign with. These we can deal with later, perhaps when another soul takes over the reigns of government. But it is quite another matter when the president attempts to tamper with our historical records. That is where, my dear country men and women, we must draw the line.
President Kibaki’s own director of the Presidential Press Service, Isaiya Kabira, stated, in his opinion piece in the Daily Nation of November 9th, 2005, that Kibaki was “the architect” of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya. Those in the know say that the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 was, and might still be, the blueprint to our country’s economic policies since independence. I was not there; so I cannot say anything about this document’s authors. However, I have heard rumours that it might have been prepared by agents of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the same people that have been accused lately by Kibaki’s most trusted loyalists such as Chris Murungaru, of seeking a regime change. Maybe President Kibaki can explain to us what caused the difference between him and his former “tutors.”
As the KANU chief executive officer, permanent secretary, Minister for Finance, Vice-President and then Health Minister for more than thirty years, Kibaki was a senior member of the Kenyan government when several irregular and unlawful constitutional amendments were made to the current Constitution, culminating in the proclamation of Kenya as a de jure one-party state; the introduction of detention without trial; the suppression of KANU’s, Kenyattaa’s and Moi’s perceived or real political opponents; the imposition of the 8-4-4 educational system; and the economic and political strangulation of areas perceived to habour political opponents of the regime.
The president would rather that we forgot all those details.
Mr. Kabira asserts that “Kenya attained independence at the height of the ideological rift between the Right and the Left along the East/West de tente” and that “Kenya’s political leadership was divided along these two view points with Jaramogi Oginga Odinga representing the Socialist ideology while Tom Mboya represented the Capitalist position.” However, the reality is that at independence, there was no recorded historical “division” among the Kenyan Freedom fighters such as Jaramogi, Mboya, Oneko, Karumba, Kenyatta and others along the so-called ideological fault lines. In point of fact, Jaramogi was more of a Pan Africanist and a Kenyan Nationalist than he was an adherent to Socialist ideology. Similarly, it is a misconception to claim that Tom Mboya was a Capitalist and that this purported ideological position was in direct conflict with that of Jaramogi’s.
But even more scandalous is the claim that because of their perceived ideological differences, Mboya and Odinga led two opposing sides of the new Kenyan leadership or government. Reputable historical records show that both Mboya and Odinga were in the same party, KANU, in the same government, and on the same side, politically, at independence. It is people like Ronald Ngala, Daniel arap Moi, Masinde Muliro and others that formed KADU, that were in a different or competing political group at independence.
Mr. Kabira goes on to claim that “It is incorrect for some to suggest that there was a disagreement between Kibaki and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga over the system of economic management that Kenya would adopt. The struggle was between Mr. Tom Mboya and Mr. Odinga.”
I once took courses in Logic at the University of Nairobi under Professor Joseph Nyasani. That was from 1986 to 1987. During Professor Nyasani’s sessions, he always emphasized vigilance against various fallacies in arguments. However, the most frequent fallacy that Professor Nyasani warned us to watch for and uproot as soon as it spouts its ugly head was: ad hominem. This fallacy seeks to attack the “person” rather than the issue under discussion.
There is a fallacy being propagated by this Kibaki government that the differences within the Kenyatta government regarding the direction that government took or was taking soon after independence, can be reduced to a personal rift or ideological differences between Mboya and Odinga. Firstly, Mr. Kabira credits Kibaki as the main author of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 that formed the primary basis for both the Kenyatta and Moi administrations’ economic policies. Those economic policies, though mischaracterized as “African Socialism”, were actually “capitalist” in orientation. There is nothing “socialist” or “African” about them. They were also very much part and parcel of Kenyattaa’s own economic “vision” for the country. As far as we have been able to gather, there was no legitimate process followed by Kenyatta, Mboya and Kibaki before the in-house preparation of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965. There were no Cabinet or Parliamentary discussions, debates, meetings or approvals. The Kenyan public was not consulted and their approval obtained. We have never seen any Hansard reports of the deliberations that culminated in the publication of this important document. There was no transparency in the process, if at all there was a legitimate process followed. In any event, Jaramogi was never informed of this fundamental development even though he was the serving vice-president and Kenyatttaa’s deputy. Consequently, Jaramogi was therefore entitled to feel ambushed, bulldozed and undermined, just as ordinary Kenyans are currently feeling about the Wako Draft Constitution.
It was the arbitrary imposition of this economic policy blueprint that angered Jaramogi so much that he questioned his colleagues’ commitments in bringing fundamental changes to the Kenyan people and challenged the Kenyatta government’s ability to deliver on their promises to the Kenyan people. These were important policy, governance and political differences that cannot be reduced and mischaracterized as petty personal rifts between Jaramogi and Mboya.
And secondly, there was only one government at the time. That government was headed by Jomo Kenyatta; not Tom Mboya or Jaramogi Oginga Odinga.
It is therefore preposterous that Kibaki, through Kabira, would claim that the “rift” in the Kenyatta government was between Odinga and Mboya. The correct and true position, however, is that the “rift” was between those pre-independence leaders such as Jaramogi, Oneko, Kaggia, Gama Pinto and others who believed that Uhuru meant freedom from hunger, ignorance, landlessness, homelessness, starvation and backwardness of the Kenyan people, as opposed to those represented by Kenyatta, Mboya, Kibaki, Njonjo, Nyachae and others who believed that Uhuru meant the concentration of wealth, privilege and power to the new African elite. To the latter, “African Socialism” was simply the limited “Africanization” of power and wealth. The difference was in the “visions” the two groups had with respect to how to lead, govern and manage political power. Whereas the Jaramogi/ Pio/Kaggia/Oneko group believed that political power had to be used to serve the interests of ordinary Kenyans, the Kenyattaa/Mboya/Kibaki group believed that political power was for self aggrandizement and riches of the newly minted power barons. Unfortunately for ordinary Kenyans, the Odinga group lost the battle.
Therefore, contrary to Kibaki’s attempt at rewriting history, when independence was finally won, Kenyatta led a united government, with Odinga as the first vice-president and Mboya as the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. The political rift that later engulfed the Kenyatta government cannot be accurately characterized as a personal rift between Jaramogi and Mboya. It is actually interesting that Kabira’s piece tries to reduce important political differences within the Kenyatta regime as a feud between two dominant Luo politicians at that time. Could this parochial tribal thinking be behind the false proclamation of Raphael Tuju as a counterweight to Raila Odinga, in Luo, or even Kenyan, politics?
Another attempt at rewriting history concerns Kabira’s assertion that the proclamation of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 (and by extension, its chief architect, Mwai Kibaki) generated economic policies that led to consistent annual economic growth rates of six per cent, tremendous infrastructural development, decent living standards, lower levels of poverty, high enrolment in schools, reliable infrastructure, increased investments and ultimately the bridging of gaps in wealth inequities in Kenya.
Kabira says that things only started getting worse between 1980s and 1990s. The suggestion here is that it was the Moi government that messed up things. Again Kibaki, through Kabira, wants to blame all the economic and political problems we have experienced as a country on one person. Kibaki hopes that by personalizing this issue and targeting one individual for blame, Kenyans will magically forget his role during that same period. Kibaki cunningly and selectively attempts to delete or insert his name into our history to fit his political agenda of the time.
However, both Kabira and Kibaki forget to mention that Kibaki left government in 1993. In fact, he was both the Vice-President and Minister of Finance for an extended period of time during this so-called economic “doom” period. The story both Kabira and Kibaki do not tell here is that he was a member of the Moi government during this period when the economy regressed, life of the average Kenyan deteriorated and the political, financial and legal institutions collapsed. As a senior member of the Moi administration, Kibaki was as much responsible for these problems, as any other member of that government, especially because he never ever publicly registered his dissent.
Similarly, some of President Kibaki’s key allies in his government such as Simon Nyachae, George Saitoti, John Michuki, Njenga Karume and GG Kariuki also served in instrumental government positions during the “decay.” If they were unable to turn the tide then, why would Kenyans trust their abilities now? Why would Kibaki be entitled to claim credit for economic growth during the Kenyattaa regime but decline responsibility during Moi’s when he served both administrations?
Finally, the myth being peddled by Kibaki, though Kabira, that his government has improved the conditions of Kenyans, particularly the farmers, is nothing but dishonesty. Kibaki may have “improved” the conditions of coffee, tea and pyrethrum farmers in Central, parts of the Rift Valley and Eastern Provinces (if indeed he has) by announcing debt relief, canceling loans and ordering payments that had been withheld unlawfully for extended periods of time. However, the people of Nyanza and Western Provinces that used to grow and rely on cotton, sugar cane and rice and those that used to eke their livelihoods out of fishing have never seen any reprieves. We have not yet heard of this government’s debt relief, debt cancellations, credit advance or an overhaul of the identified sectors in areas outside the government’s preferred “zones.”
Now, the president is credited for being a very smart and astute economist. Can he tell us why he seems to be handing out goodies to his select groups of banana eaters rather than formulating coherent economic policies and initiating structural actions to alleviate the poverty, economic backwardness, addressing inequities and promoting social harmony among Kenyans? Why has the president’s sharp mind suddenly become selective in remembering historical events? And why is the president engaged in antagonistic proclamations and initiatives rather than those that unite?
PART TWO
KENYANS are usually very generous and at times timid, especially towards their political leaders. As long as they have their bandika in the mouth [as a friend of mine says], Kenyans normally look the other way, even when confronted by colossal cases of looting and plunder by those supposed to keep an eye on their golden goose and precious eggs. That may explain why Kenyan politicians have routinely taken their people for granted, publicly abusing them as wapumbavus, mavi ya kuku, and issuing all kinds of threats at the very people that elected them into those privileged positions from where the threats now emanate.
This is why Amos Kimunya was able to mount a rostrum in Kipipiri on November 1st, 2005 and openly threatened the people that made him a Member of Parliament, and ultimately a cabinet minister, that they “will be punished and maybe kicked out of the district” if they do not turn out and vote “Yes” on November 21st, 2005. Kimunya went further and said that his [and maybe Kibaki’s] agents will be stationed in all poling centres to identify those who do not turn out to vote on that day. He is quoted as saying that “those who will not vote may be banned from participating in active issues in the society.”
It explains why some of the chief architects of the Goldenberg and Anglo Leasing Scandals still occupy central positions in the current government. Occasionally, Kenyans read about foreign diplomats, say Sir Edward Clay, complaining about the dubious “table manners” of some members of the Kibaki government. Once in a while a “disgruntled” member of the government, for example John Githongo, Raila Odinga, Anyan’g Nyong’o or Kalonzo Musyoka, wails out in anguish at the shame and frustrations they have endured under the “Narc revolution.” A few grumblings here and there, mostly in bars and FM radio talk shows. Other than that, things have been pretty honky dory.
Take the case of Kibaki’s newly found generosity. For more than two years after being popularly elected president, Kibaki closed himself up at State House and was said to be ill. Sporadic official statements would be issued by the Presidential Press Service Director, the Government Spokesperson or by various members of the Kitchen Cabinet. Most of the time, these statements would be contradictory and logically inconsistent. For instance, the Director of the Presidential Press Service, Isaiya Kabira, would issue a statement saying “the government is in control…” or that “the government knows those behind the Anglo Leasing Scam and will soon arrest them and take them to court.” The following day, Dr. Alfred Mutua, the official “government spokesman,” would issue another statement, denying that the government have completed its investigations, knows the identities of the perpetrators or that any arrests are pending. A few hours or days after Dr. Mutua’s statement, a senior Minister would address the press and categorically state that “Anglo Leasing was a scandal that never was.”
But the apparent confusion and contradictions may actually be deliberate. By confusing Kenyans, president Kibaki intends to present to wiggle out of the situation as an innocent victim of incompetent advisors or overzealous ministers. Invariably, Kenyans end up not knowing where the president stands on any issue. That way, depending on the outcome of any situation, president Kibaki can either support the winning side or denounce all the statements as having been made without his permission or knowledge. This is governance through crisis. It is usually done during times of emergencies. Alternatively, emergencies can be artificially created so that the same strategy can be adopted. This may be the reason why the referendum hullabaloo appear to some keen observers as an orchestrated crisis, through which the president would like to come out as a strong statesman. I hope we still remember the coup allegations, the threats of treason charges and Lucy Kibaki’s warning that just like Jaramogi was detained by Kenyatta because he was giving the old man a hard time, Jaramogi’s son, Raila, should also be a candidate for detention without trial because he is undermining president Kibaki’s government.
Before the middle of October this year, very few Kenyans were able to see president Kibaki in person. Although we would see his pictures in the daily newspapers or TV clips meeting this or that foreign dignitary, diplomat or business magnate, Kenyans never really saw or heard their president. Even when there were calamities in the country. Information coming from the corridors of power assured Kenyans that president Kibaki was in charge; that as a true democrat, he had given his ministers a free hand to manage their ministries without interference [although we also heard complaints that some ministries were being starved of the required funding in order to undermine the ministers perceived not to tow the line); that the president prefers a professional, hands-off manner of handling affairs; and that all government priority issues like the fight against corruption, judicial reforms and the streamlining of government functions, were all on truck.
Suddenly in October, Kenyans started seeing the president meeting delegations from carefully selected banana zones. Unlike two years before, president Kibaki was now busy making roadside declarations about the Provincial Administration; promising to retain officers whose jobs have been rendered obsolete by the Wako Mongrel; irregularly raising chiefs’ and councilors’ salaries; promising politicians non-existent positions; issuing hundreds of thousands of title deeds, at times even after being ordered not to do so by the High Court; cutting up districts in areas where he is perceived to have significant political support; and dishing out universities to areas where some of his close political associates come from. Even though the president had refused to be accessible to the people before, he has now declared an open door and window policy. But there are two important problems. First, his open door and window policy is restricted to those supportive of his banana/yes position on the referendum question. He is attempting to balkanize Kenya into a country of two solitudes; one for and another against him. Yet, the referendum question does not bear his name. And second, he has not fully sought parliamentary allocation or approval of his dizzying budget. Now we understand what Kiraitu meant by “we shall shake up the country with billions of shillings.” The only problem is that the resources Kibaki is using belong to the people; not to Kiraitu or to himself. Hence, since the money is ours, we demand full and complete accounting of all the resources being used or misused.
This brings me to the first issue I have raised in this article. We have read, with interest, president Kibaki’s spokesman declare that he [Kibaki] was the architect of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965. In that unusual declaration, Kibaki has not only claimed to be solely responsible for the economic development of Kenya between 1965 and early 1980s, he has also cunningly codified a message about his political and economic philosophies, vis-à-vis that of his perceived opponents in the ODM. By stating that Jaramogi was a Socialist while Kibaki and Mboya were Capitalists, one gets the spin that Kibaki’s inner circle are trying to throw in; that because Jaramogi’s son, Raila, is considered to be the main force behind the ODM, the Western countries that the government alleges to be funding them should know that ODM is ideologically suspicious, and may be even Socialist. And by claiming that Kenya’s economic woes can be directly traced to 1980s and 1990s, when former president Moi was in power, Kibaki is again warning the Western powers to be careful with anything Daniel arap Moi supports. On the other hand, Kabira is cleverly telling those same Western powers that their true tested ally is Emilio Mwai Kibaki.
It is a hidden message. A secret and codified message.
Didn’t I not say that this man Emilio is smart?
*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
OUR PRESIDENT IS SMART; SO WHY IS HE BREAKING UP THE COUNTRY?
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - 10 November 2005
OUR PRESIDENT, Emilio Mwai Kibaki, is not a fool. No. He is not a pumbavu like me. You see, unlike me, he has read, digested and thoroughly mastered the entire Draft Constitution that the Attorney General, Amos Wako, specifically prepared for him. He also graduated from Makerere University, in Uganda, at a time when only the very gifted attended that institution.
Those knowledgeable about this man Kibaki tells me that he is reported to have studied at the prestigious London School of Economics. I understand that the man is an accomplished economist. His superior intelligence is in no doubt. After all, he served as a Finance Minister for an extended period of time in both the Kenyattaa and Moi governments. The man worked in senior executive positions from 1963 to 1993. For fifteen years, this man Emilio was President Moi’s deputy.
When such a smart man decides, through a presidential fiat, to sell a few warthogs, zebras, water buffalos, gazelles, wildebeest, hippos, giraffes, Cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, kudus, dik diks, antelopes, elephants, African buffalos, Impalas and a few exotic birds to the Thai people, Kenyans are required to trust his proven judgment and intelligence. We are not supposed to ask questions or challenge this decision; after all, we never did in the forty or more years that he has occupied various exalted positions in our midst.
Unlike William Ole Ntimama, the Minister in the Office of the President, Richard Leakey and other ODM potentates, we humble Kenyans are supposed to say “yes sir” when Emilio makes important proclamations, presumably, for our benefit, which we are just too foolish to know anyway.
However, there is a big difference between executive fiats and an attempt to rewrite our national history. It is one thing for President Kibaki to issue decrees, dish out goodies to his banana supporters and order both police and military helicopters for Mama Lucy and the Narc Activist to campaign with. These we can deal with later, perhaps when another soul takes over the reigns of government. But it is quite another matter when the president attempts to tamper with our historical records. That is where, my dear country men and women, we must draw the line.
President Kibaki’s own director of the Presidential Press Service, Isaiya Kabira, stated, in his opinion piece in the Daily Nation of November 9th, 2005, that Kibaki was “the architect” of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya. Those in the know say that the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 was, and might still be, the blueprint to our country’s economic policies since independence. I was not there; so I cannot say anything about this document’s authors. However, I have heard rumours that it might have been prepared by agents of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the same people that have been accused lately by Kibaki’s most trusted loyalists such as Chris Murungaru, of seeking a regime change. Maybe President Kibaki can explain to us what caused the difference between him and his former “tutors.”
As the KANU chief executive officer, permanent secretary, Minister for Finance, Vice-President and then Health Minister for more than thirty years, Kibaki was a senior member of the Kenyan government when several irregular and unlawful constitutional amendments were made to the current Constitution, culminating in the proclamation of Kenya as a de jure one-party state; the introduction of detention without trial; the suppression of KANU’s, Kenyattaa’s and Moi’s perceived or real political opponents; the imposition of the 8-4-4 educational system; and the economic and political strangulation of areas perceived to habour political opponents of the regime.
The president would rather that we forgot all those details.
Mr. Kabira asserts that “Kenya attained independence at the height of the ideological rift between the Right and the Left along the East/West de tente” and that “Kenya’s political leadership was divided along these two view points with Jaramogi Oginga Odinga representing the Socialist ideology while Tom Mboya represented the Capitalist position.” However, the reality is that at independence, there was no recorded historical “division” among the Kenyan Freedom fighters such as Jaramogi, Mboya, Oneko, Karumba, Kenyatta and others along the so-called ideological fault lines. In point of fact, Jaramogi was more of a Pan Africanist and a Kenyan Nationalist than he was an adherent to Socialist ideology. Similarly, it is a misconception to claim that Tom Mboya was a Capitalist and that this purported ideological position was in direct conflict with that of Jaramogi’s.
But even more scandalous is the claim that because of their perceived ideological differences, Mboya and Odinga led two opposing sides of the new Kenyan leadership or government. Reputable historical records show that both Mboya and Odinga were in the same party, KANU, in the same government, and on the same side, politically, at independence. It is people like Ronald Ngala, Daniel arap Moi, Masinde Muliro and others that formed KADU, that were in a different or competing political group at independence.
Mr. Kabira goes on to claim that “It is incorrect for some to suggest that there was a disagreement between Kibaki and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga over the system of economic management that Kenya would adopt. The struggle was between Mr. Tom Mboya and Mr. Odinga.”
I once took courses in Logic at the University of Nairobi under Professor Joseph Nyasani. That was from 1986 to 1987. During Professor Nyasani’s sessions, he always emphasized vigilance against various fallacies in arguments. However, the most frequent fallacy that Professor Nyasani warned us to watch for and uproot as soon as it spouts its ugly head was: ad hominem. This fallacy seeks to attack the “person” rather than the issue under discussion.
There is a fallacy being propagated by this Kibaki government that the differences within the Kenyatta government regarding the direction that government took or was taking soon after independence, can be reduced to a personal rift or ideological differences between Mboya and Odinga. Firstly, Mr. Kabira credits Kibaki as the main author of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 that formed the primary basis for both the Kenyatta and Moi administrations’ economic policies. Those economic policies, though mischaracterized as “African Socialism”, were actually “capitalist” in orientation. There is nothing “socialist” or “African” about them. They were also very much part and parcel of Kenyattaa’s own economic “vision” for the country. As far as we have been able to gather, there was no legitimate process followed by Kenyatta, Mboya and Kibaki before the in-house preparation of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965. There were no Cabinet or Parliamentary discussions, debates, meetings or approvals. The Kenyan public was not consulted and their approval obtained. We have never seen any Hansard reports of the deliberations that culminated in the publication of this important document. There was no transparency in the process, if at all there was a legitimate process followed. In any event, Jaramogi was never informed of this fundamental development even though he was the serving vice-president and Kenyatttaa’s deputy. Consequently, Jaramogi was therefore entitled to feel ambushed, bulldozed and undermined, just as ordinary Kenyans are currently feeling about the Wako Draft Constitution.
It was the arbitrary imposition of this economic policy blueprint that angered Jaramogi so much that he questioned his colleagues’ commitments in bringing fundamental changes to the Kenyan people and challenged the Kenyatta government’s ability to deliver on their promises to the Kenyan people. These were important policy, governance and political differences that cannot be reduced and mischaracterized as petty personal rifts between Jaramogi and Mboya.
And secondly, there was only one government at the time. That government was headed by Jomo Kenyatta; not Tom Mboya or Jaramogi Oginga Odinga.
It is therefore preposterous that Kibaki, through Kabira, would claim that the “rift” in the Kenyatta government was between Odinga and Mboya. The correct and true position, however, is that the “rift” was between those pre-independence leaders such as Jaramogi, Oneko, Kaggia, Gama Pinto and others who believed that Uhuru meant freedom from hunger, ignorance, landlessness, homelessness, starvation and backwardness of the Kenyan people, as opposed to those represented by Kenyatta, Mboya, Kibaki, Njonjo, Nyachae and others who believed that Uhuru meant the concentration of wealth, privilege and power to the new African elite. To the latter, “African Socialism” was simply the limited “Africanization” of power and wealth. The difference was in the “visions” the two groups had with respect to how to lead, govern and manage political power. Whereas the Jaramogi/ Pio/Kaggia/Oneko group believed that political power had to be used to serve the interests of ordinary Kenyans, the Kenyattaa/Mboya/Kibaki group believed that political power was for self aggrandizement and riches of the newly minted power barons. Unfortunately for ordinary Kenyans, the Odinga group lost the battle.
Therefore, contrary to Kibaki’s attempt at rewriting history, when independence was finally won, Kenyatta led a united government, with Odinga as the first vice-president and Mboya as the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. The political rift that later engulfed the Kenyatta government cannot be accurately characterized as a personal rift between Jaramogi and Mboya. It is actually interesting that Kabira’s piece tries to reduce important political differences within the Kenyatta regime as a feud between two dominant Luo politicians at that time. Could this parochial tribal thinking be behind the false proclamation of Raphael Tuju as a counterweight to Raila Odinga, in Luo, or even Kenyan, politics?
Another attempt at rewriting history concerns Kabira’s assertion that the proclamation of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965 (and by extension, its chief architect, Mwai Kibaki) generated economic policies that led to consistent annual economic growth rates of six per cent, tremendous infrastructural development, decent living standards, lower levels of poverty, high enrolment in schools, reliable infrastructure, increased investments and ultimately the bridging of gaps in wealth inequities in Kenya.
Kabira says that things only started getting worse between 1980s and 1990s. The suggestion here is that it was the Moi government that messed up things. Again Kibaki, through Kabira, wants to blame all the economic and political problems we have experienced as a country on one person. Kibaki hopes that by personalizing this issue and targeting one individual for blame, Kenyans will magically forget his role during that same period. Kibaki cunningly and selectively attempts to delete or insert his name into our history to fit his political agenda of the time.
However, both Kabira and Kibaki forget to mention that Kibaki left government in 1993. In fact, he was both the Vice-President and Minister of Finance for an extended period of time during this so-called economic “doom” period. The story both Kabira and Kibaki do not tell here is that he was a member of the Moi government during this period when the economy regressed, life of the average Kenyan deteriorated and the political, financial and legal institutions collapsed. As a senior member of the Moi administration, Kibaki was as much responsible for these problems, as any other member of that government, especially because he never ever publicly registered his dissent.
Similarly, some of President Kibaki’s key allies in his government such as Simon Nyachae, George Saitoti, John Michuki, Njenga Karume and GG Kariuki also served in instrumental government positions during the “decay.” If they were unable to turn the tide then, why would Kenyans trust their abilities now? Why would Kibaki be entitled to claim credit for economic growth during the Kenyattaa regime but decline responsibility during Moi’s when he served both administrations?
Finally, the myth being peddled by Kibaki, though Kabira, that his government has improved the conditions of Kenyans, particularly the farmers, is nothing but dishonesty. Kibaki may have “improved” the conditions of coffee, tea and pyrethrum farmers in Central, parts of the Rift Valley and Eastern Provinces (if indeed he has) by announcing debt relief, canceling loans and ordering payments that had been withheld unlawfully for extended periods of time. However, the people of Nyanza and Western Provinces that used to grow and rely on cotton, sugar cane and rice and those that used to eke their livelihoods out of fishing have never seen any reprieves. We have not yet heard of this government’s debt relief, debt cancellations, credit advance or an overhaul of the identified sectors in areas outside the government’s preferred “zones.”
Now, the president is credited for being a very smart and astute economist. Can he tell us why he seems to be handing out goodies to his select groups of banana eaters rather than formulating coherent economic policies and initiating structural actions to alleviate the poverty, economic backwardness, addressing inequities and promoting social harmony among Kenyans? Why has the president’s sharp mind suddenly become selective in remembering historical events? And why is the president engaged in antagonistic proclamations and initiatives rather than those that unite?
PART TWO
KENYANS are usually very generous and at times timid, especially towards their political leaders. As long as they have their bandika in the mouth [as a friend of mine says], Kenyans normally look the other way, even when confronted by colossal cases of looting and plunder by those supposed to keep an eye on their golden goose and precious eggs. That may explain why Kenyan politicians have routinely taken their people for granted, publicly abusing them as wapumbavus, mavi ya kuku, and issuing all kinds of threats at the very people that elected them into those privileged positions from where the threats now emanate.
This is why Amos Kimunya was able to mount a rostrum in Kipipiri on November 1st, 2005 and openly threatened the people that made him a Member of Parliament, and ultimately a cabinet minister, that they “will be punished and maybe kicked out of the district” if they do not turn out and vote “Yes” on November 21st, 2005. Kimunya went further and said that his [and maybe Kibaki’s] agents will be stationed in all poling centres to identify those who do not turn out to vote on that day. He is quoted as saying that “those who will not vote may be banned from participating in active issues in the society.”
It explains why some of the chief architects of the Goldenberg and Anglo Leasing Scandals still occupy central positions in the current government. Occasionally, Kenyans read about foreign diplomats, say Sir Edward Clay, complaining about the dubious “table manners” of some members of the Kibaki government. Once in a while a “disgruntled” member of the government, for example John Githongo, Raila Odinga, Anyan’g Nyong’o or Kalonzo Musyoka, wails out in anguish at the shame and frustrations they have endured under the “Narc revolution.” A few grumblings here and there, mostly in bars and FM radio talk shows. Other than that, things have been pretty honky dory.
Take the case of Kibaki’s newly found generosity. For more than two years after being popularly elected president, Kibaki closed himself up at State House and was said to be ill. Sporadic official statements would be issued by the Presidential Press Service Director, the Government Spokesperson or by various members of the Kitchen Cabinet. Most of the time, these statements would be contradictory and logically inconsistent. For instance, the Director of the Presidential Press Service, Isaiya Kabira, would issue a statement saying “the government is in control…” or that “the government knows those behind the Anglo Leasing Scam and will soon arrest them and take them to court.” The following day, Dr. Alfred Mutua, the official “government spokesman,” would issue another statement, denying that the government have completed its investigations, knows the identities of the perpetrators or that any arrests are pending. A few hours or days after Dr. Mutua’s statement, a senior Minister would address the press and categorically state that “Anglo Leasing was a scandal that never was.”
But the apparent confusion and contradictions may actually be deliberate. By confusing Kenyans, president Kibaki intends to present to wiggle out of the situation as an innocent victim of incompetent advisors or overzealous ministers. Invariably, Kenyans end up not knowing where the president stands on any issue. That way, depending on the outcome of any situation, president Kibaki can either support the winning side or denounce all the statements as having been made without his permission or knowledge. This is governance through crisis. It is usually done during times of emergencies. Alternatively, emergencies can be artificially created so that the same strategy can be adopted. This may be the reason why the referendum hullabaloo appear to some keen observers as an orchestrated crisis, through which the president would like to come out as a strong statesman. I hope we still remember the coup allegations, the threats of treason charges and Lucy Kibaki’s warning that just like Jaramogi was detained by Kenyatta because he was giving the old man a hard time, Jaramogi’s son, Raila, should also be a candidate for detention without trial because he is undermining president Kibaki’s government.
Before the middle of October this year, very few Kenyans were able to see president Kibaki in person. Although we would see his pictures in the daily newspapers or TV clips meeting this or that foreign dignitary, diplomat or business magnate, Kenyans never really saw or heard their president. Even when there were calamities in the country. Information coming from the corridors of power assured Kenyans that president Kibaki was in charge; that as a true democrat, he had given his ministers a free hand to manage their ministries without interference [although we also heard complaints that some ministries were being starved of the required funding in order to undermine the ministers perceived not to tow the line); that the president prefers a professional, hands-off manner of handling affairs; and that all government priority issues like the fight against corruption, judicial reforms and the streamlining of government functions, were all on truck.
Suddenly in October, Kenyans started seeing the president meeting delegations from carefully selected banana zones. Unlike two years before, president Kibaki was now busy making roadside declarations about the Provincial Administration; promising to retain officers whose jobs have been rendered obsolete by the Wako Mongrel; irregularly raising chiefs’ and councilors’ salaries; promising politicians non-existent positions; issuing hundreds of thousands of title deeds, at times even after being ordered not to do so by the High Court; cutting up districts in areas where he is perceived to have significant political support; and dishing out universities to areas where some of his close political associates come from. Even though the president had refused to be accessible to the people before, he has now declared an open door and window policy. But there are two important problems. First, his open door and window policy is restricted to those supportive of his banana/yes position on the referendum question. He is attempting to balkanize Kenya into a country of two solitudes; one for and another against him. Yet, the referendum question does not bear his name. And second, he has not fully sought parliamentary allocation or approval of his dizzying budget. Now we understand what Kiraitu meant by “we shall shake up the country with billions of shillings.” The only problem is that the resources Kibaki is using belong to the people; not to Kiraitu or to himself. Hence, since the money is ours, we demand full and complete accounting of all the resources being used or misused.
This brings me to the first issue I have raised in this article. We have read, with interest, president Kibaki’s spokesman declare that he [Kibaki] was the architect of the Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965. In that unusual declaration, Kibaki has not only claimed to be solely responsible for the economic development of Kenya between 1965 and early 1980s, he has also cunningly codified a message about his political and economic philosophies, vis-à-vis that of his perceived opponents in the ODM. By stating that Jaramogi was a Socialist while Kibaki and Mboya were Capitalists, one gets the spin that Kibaki’s inner circle are trying to throw in; that because Jaramogi’s son, Raila, is considered to be the main force behind the ODM, the Western countries that the government alleges to be funding them should know that ODM is ideologically suspicious, and may be even Socialist. And by claiming that Kenya’s economic woes can be directly traced to 1980s and 1990s, when former president Moi was in power, Kibaki is again warning the Western powers to be careful with anything Daniel arap Moi supports. On the other hand, Kabira is cleverly telling those same Western powers that their true tested ally is Emilio Mwai Kibaki.
It is a hidden message. A secret and codified message.
Didn’t I not say that this man Emilio is smart?
*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
