Wangari Maathai is wasting her Nobel Prize!

[roughrider]

Kenyans were very happy; in fact they were orgasmic when Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace Prize.

She won it because she had planted over 30 million trees over the years. She had made preservation of forests and the environment a lifelong passion. This was a very good thing to do; a noble thing that won the Nobel Prize.

But winning the Nobel does not make one an angel nor does it give infinite wisdom. There have been some glaring missteps insofar as the Nobel Peace Prize is concerned. Some recent examples: terrorists have won the Nobel peace prize (Yasser Arafat, 1994), notorious war criminals have won it too (Henry Kissinger, 1973). Koffi Annan idly watched genocide unfold in Rwanda and then went on to claim the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001. Indeed some people have won it for no apparent reason (Elie Wiesel, 1986)

But more often than not the problem with the Nobel Peace Prize is what the winners do after winning it. Take Menahem Begin who shared the prize with Anwar Sadat (1979) because of the peace agreements they made (i.e. Egypt and Israel Camp David Accords); Begin made a mockery of the Peace Prize by starting a war with Lebanon in 1982.

This trap - of wasting the respect and moral authority that comes with the Nobel Peace prize - is what Kenya’s Wangari Maathai is falling into.

Wangari watchers were first taken aback when she refused to resign her parliamentary seat to take up the more ‘statewomanly’, mother-of-the-nation role that was up for grabs.

But if Kenyans could live with that, what riled was the decision by Wangari to drop all pretences and don a cloak of ethno-political partisanship. Today she is openly pro-establishment and balks at openly criticizing corruption, lethargy, wastage and mismanagement.

All the battles against resurgent intolerance and impunity that Wangari so loved to criticize during the Kanu regime are being fought without the iron lady of Tetu. When the government engaged in senseless killings in Mai Mahiu, Wangari was quiet. When the government violently evicted people in Mau Narok, only to hurriedly backtrack and offer title for the same land, Wangari’s moral voice was conspicuously silent. Worse still Wangari has not learnt from Mandela before her; in the post-referendum posturing, she has found it impossible to rise beyond her own desires and wishes to identify with and champion the wishes of the majority.

Juxtapose this with the querulous, unrelenting woman who laid her life before the tractors that dared clear Karura forest... or that ‘Release Political Prisoners’ champion who was ready to bare it all at Uhuru Parks freedom corner... one can hardly recognize Prof Maathai. Where is the inspirational freedom fighter we all loved?

Instead of living up to the calling and responsibility of her Nobel Prize, Wangari Maathai has abdicated and sold out to selfish, parochial interests. How sad.

But Wangari Maathai is not alone. Recently Prof Edward Oyugi exposed another hitherto reform minded Kenyan who has come full circle: Makau Mutua, the bald-headed, US-based professor of the TRC commission fame.

PS: In the news today, Wangari Maathai is reportedly criticizing the ODM for asking the president to talk to them as a group. (Forget the fact that there is freedom of association in Kenya & nobody is forcing the president to appoint ODM. If he wishes he can leave them all out. Why the fuss, Wangari?). Further she is saying that the president cannot talk to ODM because there are Kanu members in ODM and the president is duty bound to form a Narc government that was elected by the people in 2002. (Again Wangari has selective memory; Kibaki has already had KANU ministers, in flagrant defiance of the peoples’ will. This aside from the obvious fact that KANU people are also Kenyans)

Sadly Wangari Maathai is naïve and irresponsible.

[kamalet]

Why would you imagine that the ODM way is the right way and Wangari has to follow it? Personally I think your wish for Wangari in ODM is to lend some credibility to the group that

For your information, Wangari was for the idea of the evictions at mau Narok. Wangari has also asked Kibaki not to appoint people from Kanu in his new cabinet (not in the twisted way you portray it).

I do not think you can put the cause for which Mandela was awarded the Nobel with that of Wangari. Wangari is an environmentalist and on that score alone she got the award, hence I think it is misplaced to suggest that she should have adopted a mama wa taifa stance away from politics. Once again I cannot help noticing you approach - if she quit govt, then it hurts Kibaki and rewards Kibaki's opponents which is not any different to your present attack on her.

Kenyans have won many international awards, but these awards have not been used for political mileage as you would wish.

[roughrider]

Wangari has demonstrated political partisanship.

When you do this in a vexed situation such us ours, you cannot at the same time use Nobel credentials to get a hearing.

Nobody is asking her to join the ODM or any other grouping. We were only hoping that she would rise above the fray and be a mother figure.

The Wangari that fought injustice ferociously yesterday is not the same Wangari who is enjoying puppy-love with the thieves and grabbers today.

[kamalet]

If my recollection serves me right, Wangari refused to express an opinion on what she would vote for to stay 'above the fray' despite calls by her constituents and on voting day refused to divulge how she voted!

But let us face it, which politician is not partial, and Wangari is partial in her domestic political alliances!! I could say the same for Mandela when you narrowed things to South Africa!!

You cannot soil Wangari's name RR!!

[abdulmote]

"You cannot soil Wangari's name RR!!" -- Kamalet

But I say that Wangari's name needs not be "soiled" by RR, for Wangari's name is already soiled by herself!

As one Texan man liked to quip: "You are either with us, or against us!". How can that be? Others ask. After all, one should be able to be 'neutral'.

And I say "not at all!" Neutral? Come on. Wangari is 'too big a woman' to remain 'neutral'. When an activity such as the Constitution making of our great nation is in progress, no one who is a citizen can afford to remain 'neutral'. Wangari certainly had a right to make her democratic choice, and in making that choice Wangari is also looked upon as a leader of her people and indeed a fighter for the people's right as we already well know.

And in making that 'popular' choice, Wangari's is correctly assumed to have taken a particular 'route'. A route which is either for or against. A route which is meant to have been informed of the virtues therein or lack thereof. Indeed the route which can only be assumed to have been informed with knowledge, wisdom and courage of a leader!

But 'neutral'?

I say neutral it cannot be because if Wangari's decision had been informed by her knowledge, wisdom and courage of leadership, then she certainly NEEDS NOT hide her decision! For to do so, is to deprive or deny her people of their rightful and deserving expectations placed upon them. To deny her people those expectations does not make sense at all, for it is illogical and certainly irrational for Wangari not to disclose her 'necessarily informed' and 'suitable' choice on such a critical and fundamental step towards attaining the type of governace the whole nation desperately wants! So much for Wangari's leadership!

What then? Can her failure to 'disclose' her preferences be correctly percieved as an effort towards hiding the obvious and inherent flaws of such an important document? Perhaps so! Otherwise why then would anyone, especially like a person of Wangari's calibre, try to 'keep mum' on such an important issue to her people eh? Why would anyone refrain from 'disclosing' that which is 'good' about something beneficial to her people when she is expected to do the opposite? Or if that not be the case, then why would she not disclose what is supposed to be BAD within the same and choose to keep it as a secret all the potential harmfullness within and only to her goodself? Neutral?

And if that then be the case, it may correctly appear that Wangari's actions were not in 'good taste' to her people as one would suggest. Wangari chose not to disclose what she ought to have disclosed to her people and in doing so, Wangari had withheld some important and critical 'information' from her people contrary to what is expected of her. And if that be the case, then it can be correctly said that Wangari was being dishonest in her behaviour towards her people and therefore Wangari's name is already soiled as much as one in such a position and status can ever be!

A witness to crime who chooses to remain silent of what one had seen is certainly not a 'neutral' witness, for to do so is to help the perpetrator of the crime to get away with it, and that is to be dishonestly partial! It follows that to remain neutral, a witness to a crime should disclose the truth of what one had seen in all honesty about the crime, even if it means the perpetrator of the crime will get penalised for the same as a result, and that is in fact to remain neutral!

[roughrider]

Abdulmote – I could NOT have put it better. In fact you have given me some interesting insights to this matter. Thanks.

Kamale: Rising above the fray is not the same as ill-informed neutrality….or more accurately an attempt to disguise unprincipled bias with a fake air of unaffected indifference.

Rising above the fray is merely espousing an opinion and position that is not informed by competing interests. Perhaps Abdulmote has expounded on this concept better than I can. Read his commentary.

[roughrider]

Why Maathai’s political prescription is wanting

UNTIL Monday when Wangari Mathaai emerged from the referendum shock to offer advice to President Kibaki on how to reconstitute his cabinet, not many Kenyans had taken time to reflect on the record of this Nobel Peace Prize holder and her role in our contemporary politics.

Since she won the Nobel Prize Professor Mathaai has attracted publicity for her ministerial roles, speeches at international fora and views on environmental conservation.

In the recent past, the good professor has conducted herself with a calculated aloofness when it comes to local politics. The perceived aloofness has been understood by journalists and politicians who have assumed that her enhanced international stature bestowed on her, international responsibility of offering objective opinions of global problems.

These responsibilities and Prof. Mathaai’s exaltation above local politicians have been informed by the facts that the Nobel Prize itself is a globally-respected honour of service to mankind by its holders. Besides, Prof. Mathaai is the first Kenyan, and East African, to be honoured by the Nobel committee and only Africa’s second woman to receive the prize.

But when she addressed the press on Monday to offer opinion in the matter of the November 21 referendum, the professor betrayed some worrying lack of awareness of the state of Kenya’s politics or a cunning trait and tale-twisting in which a section of politicians excelled at the height of the referendum.

Her ideas on the impending reconstitution of Cabinet are two fold. First, she is of the opinion that the Orange Democratic Movement is being arrogant and unduly hard on the president. Second, she thinks Opposition politicians in the Movement should not be welcome to any negotiations between Kibaki and the Orange movement in respect of the impending new Cabinet.

These opinions are consistent with an emerging campaign by a section of our politicians who feel it is their duty to protect the presidency.

The question that emerges is this: What is Prof. Mathaai’s role in the emerging political realities in Kenya? Is she part of the hawks that have emerged to “protect” the presidency?

It is important in this matter to note that Prof. Mathaai finally voted at the November 21 referendum. After several weeks of strategic ambiguity on the Wako draft and the collapse of a so-called middle ground, she clearly decided to take sides. As any politician Prof Maathai must be sensitive to what is happening around her.

Now when she talks of locking out the opposition from Orange talks with Kibaki ...“since this is a Narc government,” she finds it convenient to forget that the Cabinet Kibaki dissolved last week actually had within it Kanu and Ford-People MPs who the president has found useful at the expense of other Narc leaders.

There is fear today that ethnic jingoists are interpreting the referendum loss and the subsequent agitation by the Orange for increased political space as a threat against the presidency.

Prof Maathai can ill-afford to be lumped together with an insular group without compromising her stature. Indeed as she has herself earlier stated before, hers should be to bring protagonists together and avoid temptation to pin tags.

www.timesnews.co.ke/01dec05/editorials/edtorial1.html

[roughrider]

Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai is talking much these days. Now she is urging the President to lock the Opposition out of any negotiations, saying Narc is better placed to resolve the current political tension as it was the one given the mandate to govern by Kenyans. Good point. But is it not strange coming from one who is supposed to be a peacemaker?

www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=32982