ONG'WEN: What Raila Biographer Did Not Say

[Onyango Oloo]

WHAT RAILA BIOGRAPHER DID NOT SAY

By Oduor Ong'wen

In this world, we always have a choice. We may elect to be indifferent to everything around us. We also have a choice to make a difference. The majority of us fall in the former category – those who indifferently watch life continue, positively or negatively. A few try to direct life. Success or failure matters little as long as they play their part in trying to direct change processes during their lifetimes. Raila Amolo Odinga falls in the latter category. That is why it is welcome that a peep into the life of this has been accorded to us by Babafemi Badejo.

Since the launch of Raila Odinga: An Enigma in Kenyan Politics, the media has been in a state of frenzy trying to highlight the life and times of the man that goes by such many nick names as "Agwambo", "Tinga' and 'Rao." Kenyans have been given hints as to why Raila has the dubious distinction of being the most detained Kenyan alive today. Harassment and mental torture of family members by state agents is also well documented in the book.

We must thank Dr. Badejo for having the courage to solicit the views on Raila from persons not known to have a minute for this larger-than-life politician, described by Professor Wanjiku Kabira as “a charismatic person that people respect and follow.” The subject himself has shown his open and transparent mien when he does not object to his biographer publishing such ill-advised comments as the ones from Paul Muite who describes Raila as “being in the same mode as people like Hitler”, Professor Makau Mutua that avers that “left to him, he [Raila] would destroy democracy … (so) … needs to be contained”, and from Joe Donde stating that Raila is a double-faced human being that …. plays dirty.”

While Badejo has tried his best to chronicle main aspects of Raila Odinga’s life, it is my disappointment that he has only succeeded in making his readers ask: what makes Raila tick? Raila is first and foremost a politician. As such, it was the duty of the biographer to critically analyse Raila in political terms. This is missing in the book.

While mention is made of the formation, in 1966, of the Kenya Peoples Union (KPU) as a counterforce to Kanu, the author did little to present to us the raison d’etre for the likes of Jaramogi Oginga odinga, Bildad Kaggia and others to break ranks with Kenyatta-led Kanu. It tacitly endorses the misrepresentation that the formation of KPU was a result of fall-out between Gikuyu and Luo nationalities. To what extent was Raila involved or affected by KPU politics and subsequent banning?

The role of the Lumumba Institute in the ideological struggles between Odinga-Kaggia axis on the one hand and that of Kenyatta-Mboya's on the other should have merited a short treatment as well as Raila’s role in saving the institute’s land. The Institute according to Jaramogi, was a party school of Kanu for training party cadres, teachers, journalists and civil servants to "define, teach and popularise African socialism in the context of universally accepted principles of and practices of socialism to instil the spirit of harambee, nationalism and patriotism."

The author also mentions a political discussion/study group, Wakombozi, without elaborating the motivation, aims and challenges of this outfit. Was it just an outfit for supporting candidates in elections and by-elections or there were ideological criteria for deciding who to support or oppose?

The Raila book, widely seen as part of Raila’s 2007 presidential campaign arsenal avoided discussion what everyone would like to know about the next president of the Republic of Kenya: vision for the political, economic and social development of this nation.

Indeed, the author leaves it to his subject in "Raila Odinga on Raila" to release a small dose of what he stands for. However, given that as the author saya, Raila only agreed to write it after being shown what his friends, family members, admirers and detractors had said of him, it was too reactive to let us into the ideological leanings of the man.

In the Enigma in Kenyan Politics, we see a man busy struggling for the struggle's sake.

This is definitely not true of the Raila Odinga that opened, without prompting, a KPU Liaison Office in Germany; studied Marx, Engels and Lenin and was profoundly infuenced by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara; tried with others to launch the Kenya Socialist Alliance; and played a leading role in re-introduction of political pluralism.

At the launch of the book, somebody asked: is Raila Odinga more betrayed or more of a betrayer?

For the foregoing, we are salivating for Agwambo's autobiography.

* * * * * * *
Ministers and court poets are falling over each other calling for Raila's incerceration for his alleged role in the 1982 coup attempt.

Fine, they should also call for the disciplining of Mwai Kibaki for rushing a one-party constitutional amendment. They should also appreciate that the killings on August 1, 1982 was done by loyalist troops. So, if they want some people charged with the loss of life, they better look the direction of former President Moi and Gen (Rtd) Mahmoud Mohamed.

[kamalet]

For how long shall we sit and see people twist history in defence of the indefensible??

I recognise the role played by General Mohamed in quelling the attempted coup. He was defending a constitutional government however bad!!! Perhaps in later years, some people will realise the folly of violent change of government as an alternative to democratic and peaceful change!!

Anyone that promotes violent change cannot stand and be counted amongst democrats!

[Deleted]

Ya right Kamalet. You defend the indefensible. How is it okay for people to sit and continue being oppressed even after they have exhausted all democratic avenues to enact change? Why ignore all the efforts that were made by Kenyans from the time of formal independence to the present that all begin with agitating for change using non-violent means?

There is a time and place for violent change that can be synonomous with democracy. People all over the world who have used violence to struggle for change have always tried non-violent methods first. Name me one example where this isn't the case. From Kenyans fighting for independece from Britain, to Palestinians, to South Africans.

Besides Kamalet who is it that is trully violent on a day-to-day basis eh?

Please come up with better arguments to defend the indefensible. It is people like you that need to defend what they say.

[politicalmaniac]

The Bak-nista defense of "its wrong to dislodge a constitutional GOVT" wont hold water at all. The S.A GOVT was constitutionally formed!
So was the colonial GOVT here.

The laundry list goes on and on, of such oppresive but "constitutionally" formed regimes.
The valid querry should be - are they representative of the peoples morals and will?

Moi's so called "constitutionally" formed GOVT was oppresive to the Nth degree.
It quickly lost its legitimacy.

How quickly we forget the ethnic driven land clashes formented by Moi just to oppress the people seen to be "dissenting" his regime. Turns out most dissenters were migrants from Central province!. They bore the brunt of these clashes and many perished and were displaced! And you dare talk of a regime that cant or shouldnt be taken down by any means neccessary?

Surely logic should prevail and sanction the use of force to meet the the forces of the oppresive state machinery!

[abdulmote]

People, some issues cropping up out all this debate I find rather uncomfortable to bear them silently and I am not about to take sides simply for the sake of it, altough I can understand the trend with the others. Some body tell me something here; This coup thing which Raila supported, I understand it took place in 1982, barely four years after Moi's taking over from JK. The prominent reason is aid to be the one party thing, which apparently was supported by our elected MPs in the Parliament, Kibaki being as one of those at the front line with his mugumo and the razor line. OK, it was a distastfull thing to do, courtesy of our elected MPs, but was that enough a reason to initiate the coup? I am not so sure considering the possible and potential outcomes then.

We all know that many innocent people died as a result of that attempt, was it worth it for the sake of our well being? After all, there is no telling as to how the military governance, had the coup succeeded, would have faired against Moi's rule. Fact is, miltary take overs have never provided any with a fine and desirable examples, although with the same token, even the so called democratically elected representative have failed us, and continue to fail the people with impunity so to speak. Just look around you and you can see what is happening, by almost everyone included and Raila just as well, oops!

The thing is, apart from all the scramble for entrenching the power in sight, I am yet to see any radical or unique ideology which can parhaps indicate an obvious potential change to come for the betterment of our nation. All that we have appears to be an unforgiving attention on the desire to reach the statehouse by all concerned at the expense of the citizen.

In a nutshell, I find it hard to convince myself that the coup attempt was the right thing to do at that time bearing the obvious costs, but just as well, the so called democratically elected reps did not and still do not appear keen about holding the law and righteousness as they govern this great but pathetic nation!

In my opinion, by condoning the 82 coup attempt, we are blindly saying that that would have been a better alternative given Moi's rule at the time. But what was that 'better alternative' supposed to be had it been successfull? Any ideas?

Mind you, I am not at all commenting on whether Raila should be arrested for the crime or not. In fact and in my eyes, perhaps the whole of Kibaki's government is also criminal in what they are doing right now and ought to be sent to prison, pronto! I am just trying to understand this thing better and wouldn't mind anybody's objective help.

[mzee]

When asked about the MAU MAU violence and its legitimacy the late Tom Mboya had the following to say "I have never said a word in favour of force. All I have said has been against it, but I am at liberty to warn those in the authority that justice delayed, or long continued injustice, provokes the employment of force to obtain redress" It for the above reason I do believe that anybody who in anyway took part in the attempt to overthrow the corrupt and despotic Moi regime was more than right. Raila should therefore be exalted and a statue biult not only in his honour but in the name of all who struggled to bring the current democratic space which the likes of Kibaki and Michuki are trying to stiffle. The call for Rs arrest is at best a wild dream and an attempt to scare him. As Hon Otieno Kajwang observed recently "you dont need laws to overthrow a dictatorship". I wonder what means people who are baying for Rs blood wanted him to use to chase Moi out of town. All the he is the one who finally organised a rebbelion which saw Moi out of office. Lets give a round of applause to R and the likes of him.

[kamalet]

kathurekebaara41 said:

Ya right Kamalet. You defend the indefensible. How is it okay for people to sit and continue being oppressed even after they have exhausted all democratic avenues to enact change? Why ignore all the efforts that were made by Kenyans from the time of formal independence to the present that all begin with agitating for change using non-violent means?

There is a time and place for violent change that can be synonomous with democracy. People all over the world who have used violence to struggle for change have always tried non-violent methods first. Name me one example where this isn't the case. From Kenyans fighting for independece from Britain, to Palestinians, to South Africans.

Besides Kamalet who is it that is trully violent on a day-to-day basis eh?

Please come up with better arguments to defend the indefensible. It is people like you that need to defend what they say.

I respectifully disagree with your view. I have never agreed that violence is the solution to problems that afflict people. I think Kenyans need only look at the effect of a military government in Uganda. That coup in Uganda brought that country to its knees as it was premised on a stroke of populism, but in the long run ended up a failure that hurt a lot more people than Amin thought he could redeem from the 'bad' leadership of Obote.

In Kenya, the coup plot was led by half literate NCOs obviously being pawns of some other civilians who we now recognise. It is not clear cut that they had an agenda for Kenya, and am convinced that the claim about a one party state as a reason for the attempt is hogwash. If it was so important to Kenya not to be a one party state, just what did we achieve 8 years later when we became a multi-party state in 1990? Did the lot of Kenyans improve or was this not the same time the scandals of Goldenberg etc came about. We all know some of the benficiaries of the scam, include leading figures in opposition like Jaramogi and Muite!!!

Please, stop this nonesense that the coup would have helped Kenya or even the fact that it was justified!! If it was justified then, perhaps it is even more justified today, but are Kenyans not the wiser not to take that route?

As I said, spare us this sillyness!!

[Onyango Oloo]

Interesting encounter on television on Thursday (last night).

On The Spot had a return visitor in the form of Raila Amolo Odinga.

The host, Julie Gichuru who in my opinion is among the top two Kenyan television anchors, did a banter with the Lang'ata MP that was part goading/ part teasing and almost near cheerleading as Raila was bombarded with repeated insinuations that he had planned the abortive coup.

The callers were on the most part SUPPORTIVE, including the first one who got through- anti-establishment fat cat Wa Njuguna.

What was most interesting was the viewers poll on whether Raila Odinga should apologize to Kenyans for the 1982 coup attempt:

24% said Yes...

and 76% said NO

The guy on the spot, for the most part more than held his own...

And of course we have all see Friday's paper reporting on Wako's legal opinion regarding the likelihood of treason charges being preferred against Agwambo- 25 years after the state dropped its treason case against Raila and his co-accused...

Onyango Oloo
Nairobi, Kenya

[abdulmote]

Between a military regime, which ususally comes into being through the use of extreme force and innocent bloodshed, but even worst of all has a good probability of becoming similarly barbaric and more dictatorial, and a civilian government, which naturally comes into being through public endorsement by being 'democratically elected, but perhaps going on to become dictatorial and what have you, I'd rather choose the civilian gov.! Having said that, neither are an ideal alternative and both can be distructive, with the former even more probable.

But as we all know by now, Kenyans are quick to forget and opt for what appears to be their preferred alternative given their feelings of the moment. There is no doubt that currently Kenyans are extremely frustrated with Kibaki's government and they wish they could change it in an instant. And of course I also feel the same. But the fact also remains that neither alternatives offer us any ideal options. I should therefore reassert again, that unless and until Kenyans go through the necessary revolution of their minds, we shall but remain in our familiar dung hole for a long time to come.

It goes without saying that I am so glad that I still find myself around to say all this and not to have been terminated by those 'stray bullets' of August 82, but even more so, that Kenyans still have the opportunity of changing their governments through democratic and to a degree, peacefull means! On the other hand, I wonder what would have been of many today, had the soldiers and Raila succeded towards that endevour! Just pause and think of the various possibilities therein, and do not just react blindly and emotionally to such because of what we have today!

When the persecuted becomes the persecutor, none is better but simply in competition to self-destroy and one another. There is no doubt that both styles of 'regimes' create an unbeatable dilemma, but perhaps with cool heads, determination, honesty and the right effort, nothing is entirely impossible! But that, in my honest and unbiased opinion, is indeed a long way from us.

P.S: It takes true courage to admit to one's collosal mistakes, especially in public. But again, no amount of apologies would suffice to those who's lives were innocenty and recklessly taken, yet for such a futile and hopeless undertaking that obviousy had lacked scope and definitive vision, and we need to have learnt from that, which I think we have.

In the meantime, Kenyans have just got to soldier on for the better, till death us part!

"Mkuki ni uchungu, lakini kwa ngurue utamu"!

[roughrider]

I believe that revolution and violent change have their place in societal transformations – there is too much history and theory, from the days of feudalism through the slavery, absolute monarchies, renaissance, colonialism, cold war etc for any self respecting Jukwaa contributor to make arrogant blanket dismissals on the subject.

To begin with there is a clear distinction between a coup and an extended military regime. The coup is a process not a government, and yes there can be civilian coups and there can be military coups against both military and civilian governments. Erudite Kenyan scholar Ali Mazrui sometimes makes distinction between benign and malignant coups; this is the context I chose to understand Ndugu Kebaaras intervention. Some coups are benevolent.

Before we get ahead of ourselves let us remember that coups are like fires, when used fine they can be good for positive change; otherwise they are perilous. Coups can be the radical surgery that remakes a society. Much more balanced thought and research need to go into this issue before careless dismissals are made.

Clearly many people here have a limited and myopic conception of violence. There was a time when many Africans talked of revolution, liberation and emancipation. The history of African struggle against colonialism is a case in point. Was it ever justified? Were the Mau Mau and Umkhonto we Sizwe justified? Conversely, should we honor or vilify Dedan Kimathi and Nelson Mandela? Whenever a people are driven into a cul-de-sac by despotism; whenever they are left with no democratic choice, they can always fight.

Before you dismiss violent change, think again.

Just to rectify one misconception:

Let us put Ugandan history in its proper context and balance. Idi Amin’s coup is the insidious type, certainly not the kind envisaged in 1982. Recall that when he overthrew Milton Obote, early 1971 Amin was reacting to a warrant of arrest issued against him for embezzlement of funds. It is the fight that Museveni began with the NRM that constitutes the benign coup.

We may also benefit from looking at violence more broadly, is state anarchy a form of violence? How about misrule and corruption? Can either anyone account for the numbers of people who have died or lost as a result of the endless list of crimes related to poor governance?

Perhaps we shall discuss more in due course

[abdulmote]

RR, I just thought I should re-emphasis a critical ommission in your statement below in bold italics!

"Before we get ahead of ourselves let us remember that coups are like fires, when used fine they can be good for positive change; otherwise they are perilous. Coups can be the radical surgery that remakes a society. Much more balanced thought and research need to go into this issue before careless dismissals or indeed approvals are made."

And your deliberately skewed and irresponsible comparison below...

"Clearly many people here have a limited and myopic conception of violence. There was a time when many Africans talked of revolution, liberation and emancipation. The history of African struggle against colonialism is a case in point. Was it ever justified? Were the Mau Mau and Umkhonto we Sizwe justified? Conversely, should we honor or vilify Dedan Kimathi and Nelson Mandela? Whenever a people are driven into a cul-de-sac by despotism; whenever they are left with no democratic choice, they can always fight.

Before you dismiss violent change, or indeed approve of it, think again."


Tell me RR, how do you compare the Maumau's and Mandela's with the Ochuka's and Raila's efforts? I simply fail to find any similarities there. But perhaps you could enlighten us?

[job]

[job]

Abdulmote,

I'll butt in with a long response to your question (directed at RR) taking note of the fact that you have previously created the impression of being fiercely pro-reforms .........-towards a more free and democratic society where people are empowered.

To quote your question,.........."Tell me RR, how do you compare the Maumau's and Mandela's with the Ochuka's and Raila's efforts? I simply fail to find any similarities there. But perhaps you could enlighten us?

Take note of the fact that for every liberation hero like Mandela, there are probably millions of unsung heroes working with him. they may be unknown "little" figures but nevertheless they play their role.

Ochuka didn't need to be a house-hold name like Mandela for the coup to be taken seriously. While both reacted against oppression, Mandela prevailed whereas Ochuka tried his coup, failed and paid the price with his life. Dedan Kimathi led an armed struggle against oppression and paid for it with his life. All these people reacted to oppression in their own individual ways. I don't see any need for intellectualized comparisons between people who fight oppression in their own unique ways.

In my view Kenyans have never achieved the "Independence" they fought for prior to 1963. There was simply a replacement of leadership from white colored colonialists to black skinned oppressors and grabbers. The struggle will still continue towards true liberation.

At any point between the time frame -1963 to date,......Kenyans are still entitled to fight for democracy, equality, respect for human rights, equitable sharing of national resources, and real empowerement of all its people. We are yet to reach our desired destination in that regard.

Certain periods and specific moments have been darker than others and any quest for change towards desired liberation is justified (in my view) whether peaceful or violent, whether led by the Mau Mau or by Raila.

BTW: The Mau Mau topic (violent resistance against occupation & fight for seized community land) is complex & I'll not try to simplistically fit it in this debate.

In June 1982, Mwai Kibaki (he of the trying-to-cut-a-mugumo-tree-with-a-razor-blade fame) led Parliament into rubber-stamping a significant constitutional ammendment which changed Kenya dramatically. In the stroke of a pen, Kenya transformed from a de facto one party state to a de-jure one party state. It is such moments of stark darkness that
often trigger an already disillusioned society into fighting oppression by whichever means.

KANU officially became Baba na Mama of Kenya from June 1982. It's single finger salute became the official way of greeting especially by State. Lifting two fingers would have simply led you into the dark and water-filled torture chambers of Nyayo. University students & lecturers, especially those expressing ideological & intellectual stand-points falling along diverse & unconventional tangents quickly became State enemies. Many were targetted for torture, detention & illegal jail terms. I don't need to remind anyone that many of such victims today grace this very Jukwaa.

We became a police state, a dictatorship,......even more accurately an authoritarian State that respected no human rights and freedoms.

A really dark and horrifying moment had arrived in Kenya. That June 1982 act initiated in parliament by Kibaki under Moi's blessings was followed by general unrest and public resistance. Of course those who could stand up and resist openly were few. But they existed for sure. Such patriots could be vilified, ridiculed, threatened and mocked today by those who feel safe in high citadels. They didn't need to be Mandelas but they had the guts to respond against oppression.

You may have already noticed that the same faces that vigorously fought to create the democratic space witnessed today (in the 70s, 80s, & 90s) were the very same faces that stood with the majority people in struggling to enact a new people-based constitution that favours fair & equitable sharing of national resources and power while abolishing the one-man patronage system that has held the country back since Independence.

It is no secret, and clearly on record that following the June 1982 constitutional ammendment that stiffled Kenya's democracy,....not ONE but at least TWO coup plots were mooted in the run-up to August 2nd, 1982. That quest for violent change against out-right oppression was simply justifiable through which-ever coup.

To claim that a dictatorship "should not be overthrown" is like sanctioning (in retrospect) Idi Amin to rule Uganda until his death since he "should not be" removed by VIOLENT means. Guess what? Amin's removal was justifiable and was done by TANZANIAN forces. Yes, a sensible neighbouring government found it right to VIOLENTLY overthrow a dictator in the best interest of Ugandans.

It is no different for democratically elected governments which turn dictatorial. They face the same consequences. Remember that most dictatorships always KILL innocent citizens through police brutality & illegal murders, assasinations etc etc.

If you do not find any similarity between Mandela fighting against oppression through ANC (& its armed wing Umkhonto We Sizwe)- an organization branded as a terrorist organization; and a coup plotted to oust an oppresive regime,...then take a deeper look at Kenya's "post-independence" liberation struggle.

Kenya's history will never be re-written. Immediately after Independence, Kenyatta did a couple of things; He mutilated
the Lancaster constitution to tailor his personal needs;......
he abolished the Prime Ministers post so as not to share executive-power with any other Kenyan ;.....................he
abolished the majimbo (devolution unit) provisions so that national resources were to be centered at his hands and not to regional jimbos; then quickly descended on grabbing lands from unsuspecting conformist communities in the Coast and Rift Valley provinces.

That was the birth of clientilism in Kenya, with Kenyatta as patron leading the grabbing and plunder of national resources into the hands of himself, his family, cabal friends and foreign allies (ironically mostly British).

Political power was personalized and Kenya slid into oppression, dictatorship, corruption, & backwardness while Korea, Thailand & other countries that were literally at par with Kenya in terms of GDP & GDP per capita (at Independence) surged ahead..

The few voices that opposed Kenyatta's moves like Jaramogi Oginga Odinga were quickly shoved aside & propaganda machines unleashed, branding them communists, and initiating tribal hatred against them. They were ironically branded the enemies of development. Some were "disposed off" through assassin bullets.

Moi followed Kenyatta's nyayo to the commas and dots. Kibaki the opportunist is following the same foot-steps to the dot. Why do i call Kibaki an opportunist?

While the second liberation struggle to reclaim lost democratic space and basic freedoms was being fought, Kibaki was sitting cozy in Moi's government. When true fighters were running street battles with police, trying to address mobilization rallies,....trying to register opposition parties in vain,......making trips to the Congress in Washington DC,.......pressing the IMF, World-Bank and donor governments to force Moi to reform governance,...he was sitting tight in State comfort.

In July 1991 when the first opposition party FORD, was registered under pressure from the USA, Moi quickly declared it illegal upon seeing the public excitement with its formation.

In Nov. 1991 Moi ordered the arrest of FORD leaders,.....some were nabbed, others fled to exile, others hid in foreign Embassies,....WHERE WAS KIBAKI? Of course he was Moi's Minister for Health.

When finally the West discontinued bilateral aid to Kenya and forced Moi to legalize opposition parties in Kenya, in Dec. 1991, ...Kibaki the opportunist quickly quit government and did what? Pretended to NOW join Kenya's "new" future.

Kibaki formed his DP party, which was simply a tribal protectionist outfit launched to safe-guard the business interests of rich ethnic friends who felt threatened by Moi. He feared Moi's reprimand. He cushioned himself with rich ethnic GEMA friends like the Karumes.

Kibaki pretended to join the opposition's euphoric wave but deep inside, he for sure did not abandon his crusade for the old rich Kikuyu oligarchy. He has no time for Kenya's liberation, neither can he spare time with those still agitating for real change. The "sweet" Kenyatta days must be re-lived according to him.

Let's not loose our focus by trying to re-write history and calling for unwarranted comparisons. Besides, a bad regime must go anyway. To get clouded in factional side-shows is recipe for continued oppression by those reaping from the sweat of hard-working citizens.

unedited.
job.

[politicalmaniac]

Job,
Thanks for that peice.
Moi was totalitarian-no ifs or buts about that fact.

Talking of biographies, Hitlers biography by W. Shirer is astounding in one way. As I read it(yrs back) , I couldnt but help marvel at the parrallel modus operandi between Hitler and Moi.

Youth wings, de jure one party state (enacted in stages), secret police, wearing of personal emblems, detention without trial, promotion of propanganda using official state organs, selective dishing out of state property and favors etc.

Moi had to go.
One way or another.
The tune would be different if Koigi et al would have been at the head of this coup attempt

[abdulmote]

Brother Job,

Thank you for your effort. My response will be very short, and I hope it should suffice;

Any alternative to an undesirable dictator, is only worthy of being with the benefit of hindsight proving it to be so! I do not dispute the need to remove such, but only if the alternative has a good probability of being better. Indeed history tells us differently, and next time I wouldn't trust even Raila, if he were to say "Tosha" about himself or anyone else!

Alie umwa na nyoka, hata akiona un'gongo hushutuka!

[dubois]

To quote Job,

Political power was personalized and Kenya slid into oppression, dictatorship, corruption, & backwardness while Korea, Thailand & other countries that were literally at par with Kenya in terms of GDP & GDP per capita (at Independence) surged ahead..

Most South East Asian countries including South Korea are still under oppression, dictatorship even worse than Kenya. Kenya's economic backwardness is not exclusively a result of dictatorship. Sometimes I'm not sure that decentralization of power would be the best thing for Kenya. Most Asians have had to give up a lot of political freedoms to achieve what they have in an unfair world. Kenyans want both. It is very misleading to compare Kenya and the wealthy Asian countries.

[roughrider]

Job – thank you.

Abdulmote – that the value addition of a coup can be judged after the fact? Maybe. As you know it is the province of historians to revise past events. But certainly the need for a coup at any point in time must be judged before the coup, otherwise there would never be any violent resistance. It is very easy to know if a coup is popular – indeed we have heard of cheering citizens lining streets to salute successful coup plotters. In the case of Kenya, I suggest you read Raila Odinga’s biography and other relevant sources in order to make conclusions on whether the 1982 coup was in the necessary and comparable to mau mau and others. In doing this, disregard the color of the oppressors….

Dubois – Where is the evidence for such wild allegations?

Please substantiate on the claims that South Korea and other countries in this region are oppressive dictatorship?

South Korea, which you quote, is not a dictatorship by any standards; it is a multiparty democracy with an independent judiciary. But even more critical, the constitution provides for distributive and social justice – naturally, it is also the 10 largest economy in the world.

Perhaps only communist North Korea in East Asia may be worse than Kenya, if western media are to be believed. But even that is debatable considering that they are making and launching nuclear weapons that we only dream about.

In South East Asia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia all currently has one form of democracy or the other.

Most of these countries have various forms of Economic Federalism. If we had a devolved system, then neither Moi and Kenyatta political and economic dictatorships nor the 1982 coup would have been happened.

Kenya's economic backwardness is not exclusively a result of dictatorship; it is MAINLY the result of misinformed tribal dictatorship fed by absolute power presidential systems.

[job]

Dubois,

Allow me to deviate from the topic in discussion (this thread) just to respond to your wild allegations.

Quoting you below;

"Most South East Asian countries including South Korea are still under oppression, dictatorship even worse than Kenya. Kenya's economic backwardness is not exclusively a result of dictatorship. Sometimes I'm not sure that decentralization of power would be the best thing for Kenya. Most Asians have had to give up a lot of political freedoms to achieve what they have in an unfair world. Kenyans want both. It is very misleading to compare Kenya and the wealthy Asian countries"......................


First of all South Korea is not a South East Asian country, Thailand is. South Korea is in the Far East or simply East Asia. South Korea is also not to be confused with North Korea. South Korea is certainly not under oppression or dictatorship, but North Korea is said to be (by the western media of course).

Quit this notion about "Most Asian countries had to give up political freedoms to achieve what they have". YOU ARE INFACT SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN REALITY.

Secondly, What do you mean " it is misleading to compare Kenya with wealthy Asian countries". Do you wish we compare ourselves with Europe or America? The reason for such Asian economy benchmarks is SIMPLY BECAUSE OUR ECONOMY WAS EXACTLY AT PAR WITH THEIRS AT INDEPENDENCE (1963) . I hope you get it from that perspective.

In terms of economic backwardness and dictatorship,....let me try to relate them using the example of South East Asian countries like Thailand.

Most of these countries rely on export oriented trade (agric & horticultural produce, textiles, small machinery & electronic components) PLUS a FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) approach to economic development, coupled with a commitment to open up their markets.

Regional economic blocs & treaties like AFTA (Asian Free Trade Agreement) & APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation) have helped them integrate the region with the world/global economy quite competitively.

To achieve that, their trading partners (in the West) agitated for political & economic reforms
from their respective governments,.......reforms which had core aims to ; promote basic freedoms; curb corruption; enhance respect for the law & human rights including worker rights; ehnance pluralistic democracy; bridge the poverty & inequality gaps etc etc ................(I personally have beef with the issue of double-standards & hypocricy exhibited by the West in this regard).

No dictatorships would have survived such economic trade or attracted FDI in essence achieving economic growth under this context.

Countries like Thailand which initiated constitutional, political & economic reforms had heady economic progress in the 80s and 90s leading to astronomical growths in living standards and economies. They also addressed social structures to bridge the inequality & poverty gaps and reduce discontent.

There was a dramatic shift and COMPROMISE IN POLICY BETWEEN PARTY POLITICIANS AND TECHNOCRATIC REFORMERS LEADING TO THAT SUCCESS!!!!! Once that basic foundation of success was laid, then the economy slowly evolved from purely agriculture based,...to light industry,.....heavy industry,....technology, ....service & advanced tech. etc etc

On the other hand, countries that opted to curtail reforms and remain say in dictatorship,.....paid the price by not attracting any FDI & having less export trade partners. Their dictatorships invited economic nightmares that will take ages to correct. Their PARTY POLITICIANS DICTATED THE DIRECTION THEIR ECONOMIES TOOK.........LINING THEIR INDIVIDUAL POCKETS BUT CRIPPLING THE REST OF THE NATION. Does that sound anything familiar to you?

KENYA is one such example of a country whose economic growth has been stiffled by ; dictatorship, ineptitude & incompetence,.......personal greed & corruption,.......anti-reformist "status quo" proponents (who are basically thriving under dictatorships by looting primitively),......reliance on primary goods whose prices have remained low (incompetent managers can't figure out solutions),.........crippling otherwise reliable agricultural economies for political reasons,.......failure to attract FDI (corruption & insecurity ),........poor planning &
trying to jump start to point C, without going through A & B,...etc etc

As RR correctly pointed,..." KENYA'S ECONOMIC BACKWARDNESS IS MAINLY THE RESULT OF MISINFORMED TRIBAL DICTATORSHIP FED BY ABSOLUTE POWER PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM"
It will take a new constitution and law abiding & genuine leadership (if at all that's possible) to spur economic growth for real. Tribalism, nepotism etc must be replaced with meritocracy.

Do you have a serious argument to refute this?

Where do we stand 43 years after independence; GDP per capita $ < $ 1,100; pop. below poverty line ~ 60%. unemployment > 45% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- South Korea's per capita GDP in 1963 (Kenya's Independence year) was only $ 100 ( at par with Kenya's),......the 2005 GDP est. for South Korea today is $ 22,045. Population below poverty line for Korea is <4%. From a third world country in 1963 , it has economically grown tremendously to become a developed country, taking a step by step approach starting with
basic reforms.
Please note that part of the reforms initiated included both devolution & shared executive power (President & PM) in S.Korea's pluralistic democracy.

- In Thailand's case today ; GDP per capita est $ 8,400, @2005; pop. below poverty line = 8% @2005. Note too that there's pluralistic democracy in Thailand with devolution & shared executive power between a constitutional monarch (King) & a PM. There was a policy compromise between party politicians and technocratic reformers. The reform movement is so energized that the Thai people recently ousted their ELECTED Prime minister (who was head of government) on corruption charges.

GOOD GOVERNANCE OFTEN COMES WITH ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. Any country not experiencing economic prosperity commensurate with their abilities needs to QUESTION their GOVERNANCE. Is that Rocket Science?


unedited

job

[dubois]

Job,

It just happens that I have been dealing with east and south east asia for almost six years now. So it's the last thing you can educate me about. South Korea was under dictatorship when it achieved its impressive economic growth so was Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan. In fact, South Korea is a 'dictatorship' (going by the way you judge Kibaki) and power is still very centralized. The annoying thing with some of you is that you are experts about everything under the sun but you know little. Asia's economic growth has come at a huge cost to the political and labor rights of her people. Anyone who argues against that should simply read some books.

Furthermore it is wishful thinking to suggest that Kenya has a quick fix solution to her economy problems. Asia is completely different in terms of culture and geography to be compared to sub-saharan Africa. Or how would you explain the economic expansion of China; one of the most anti-democratic and corrupt countries?

check some links on S korea. I can provide more links that make Kibaki look saintly.

Title: MR CHANGE , Economist, 00130613, 07/26/97, Vol. 344, Issue 8027
Database: Academic Search Premier


Section: ASIA
South Korea

MR CHANGE



Dateline: SEOUL

POLITICS in South Korea has been dominated for years by a troika of ageing politicians, known not always affectionately to their countrymen as the ``three Kims''. One, Kim Young Sam, is currently the country's president. The other two are veteran politicians, now in opposition. After the presidential election in December, however, South Korea looks likely to have a Lee at the top. President Kim, the leader of the ruling New Korea Party, has to step down. Lee Hoi Chang, a former prime minister who has just won the ruling party's nomination to succeed him, could turn out to be the man to break the mould of South Korean politics.

The way in which Mr Lee grasped the nomination shows that things are already changing. Hitherto, ruling-party conventions in South Korea had always been stage-managed affairs. Delegates were expected to rubber-stamp the president's choice of his own successor: never in South Korea's history has a ruling-party candidate lost a presidential election. But this time the president found himself so weakened by scandal that he had to stay neutral, at least in public. True, Mr Kim had invited Mr Lee to assume the chairmanship of the party earlier this year, but that was a sign of weakness, not reconciliation. So when 12,000 delegates gathered in a gymnasium in Seoul on July 21st to select their candidate, there was real doubt over which of the ``six dragons'' would emerge victorious.

The party's first experiment with internal democracy proved to be a divisive affair. Bitter factional fighting led to all sorts of smears and unsubstantiated allegations. Mr Lee himself was accused of vote-buying, tax evasion and using his influence to have his two sons excused from compulsory military service. He needed two ballots to see off his rivals.



Lee the new and Kim the old


Mr Lee's star has risen as President Kim's has declined. The main boost to his popularity came in 1994 when he confronted the president, and was forced to resign from his brief stint as prime minister. Mr Lee's main political asset is a reputation for incorruptibility, which marks him out from most of the country's politicians. Once elected, he may feel the need to purge some of the New Korea Party's old guard.

That is, if he wins in December. At the moment, that looks like a pretty safe bet. The main opposition leader, Kim Dae Jung, who is running for the fourth time, has little support beyond his regional stronghold in the south-west of the country. His efforts to broaden his base with strategic alliances have not so far borne fruit. And despite democratic advances in recent years, the ruling party still has much of the apparatus of the state at its disposal. One opposition adviser likens the contest ahead to a fight between an adult and a child.

But Mr Lee will have a struggle on his hands to improve his party's image. The unravelling of President Kim's reform programme and a string of corporate collapses and corruption scandals have eroded public trust in the party. Mr Lee may be the only potential leader capable of restoring confidence. But he has yet to prove that he has the political skills and the willingness to compromise that he may need to become a successful national president.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of The Economist © 1997 is the property of Economist Newspaper Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. All rights reserved. Users may not save or store any or all of the content on their own systems or distribute any of the content on a local area or wide area network (such as corporate intranets or networks).



The past returns to haunt South Korea's secret services

Dateline: SEOUL

OLD habits die hard. When South Korea was a military dictatorship, its secret policemen thought nothing of bugging political dissenters. This was supposed to have stopped once the country became a democracy in 1988. Apparently it didn't.

South Koreans were astonished to discover this year that even under democratic governments the spies in their National Intelligence Service (NIS) continued to listen in to the conversations of leading personalities. The scandal came to light after the discovery of a wire-tap recording, made without judicial approval, of a conversation between South Korea's ambassador to the United States and a top executive from the Samsung Group. They were allegedly discussing plans to make illegal campaign contributions to candidates in South Korea's 1997 presidential election. The tapes provoked a furore and prompted the ambassador's resignation.

Since then, prosecutors have raided the NIS's headquarters; its chief has admitted that unauthorised eavesdropping was commonplace; a former deputy chief has been charged; and investigators are still quizzing agency chiefs who served during the administration of the former president, Kim Dae-jung.

The scandal is a particular embarrassment to Mr Kim, a winner of the Nobel peace prize who, as an opposition democracy campaigner, was himself a target of surveillance and almost killed by what was known at that time as the Agency for National Security Planning. Once in office, Mr Kim pledged to clean the agency up. He changed its name, reshuffled its personnel and vowed that it would no longer be involved in domestic political surveillance.

Mr Kim's supporters are adamant that neither he nor his top officials ever approved any of the later wire-taps. Sceptics say that this is inconceivable. At the least, it seems that Mr Kim failed to impose the control he had promised. The NIS now says that illegal bugging ended with the wholesale destruction of all bugging equipment before the current president, Roh Moo-Hyun, came to office in 2003. But the row continues. Meanwhile, investigators say they have uncovered more than 270 illegal recordings. Lots more to listen to.


FAMILY TROUBLE


Contents
Cash in quick
Korean presidencies always end in disgrace. It would be better to end them with elections

TWO of the country's favourite sports are currently entrancing South Koreans. One involves a round ball, and this week had Koreans cheering when their side beat Poland. The other also involves a good kicking, but is a rather less cheering sight: it is the game of discrediting the country's outgoing president at the end of his five-year term of office. This week President Kim Dae Jung's youngest son was indicted on charges of tax evasion and influence-peddling. Another son is also under investigation. President Kim's reputation, so high when this heroic former dissident was elected in 1997, looks likely to be in tatters by the time he leaves office next February. Still, at least he is in good company. All previous South Korean presidencies have also ended in failure.

President Kim's predecessor, Kim Young Sam, the country's first ever civilian president, had family trouble too: that Mr Kim's youngest son ended up with a three-year jail sentence for corruption. Both of the two military presidents who preceded the Kims--of whom one, Chun Doo Hwan, seized power in a coup, following which the other, Roh Tae Woo, won a semi-democratic election--ended up in prison themselves. Mr Chun's predecessor, Park Chung Hee, was assassinated in 1979, albeit more than 18 years after he had taken power in a coup. And Syngman Rhee, the country's first president after independence from Japan in 1945, was forced into exile by a student revolt in 1960.

Clearly the Korean presidency's headquarters, the Blue House, is well named: anyone unlucky enough to become president is going to end up feeling blue. Much of the explanation for that lies in a turbulent history of military dictatorships and repression. More recently, though, since South Korea became a fully-fledged democracy in 1992, another thread connects together the disgrace of both the President Kims. It is the country's system of a one-term presidency.

Cash in quick
After a series of dictators, it was natural that South Korea's new constitution stipulated that presidents should serve just a single five-year term. But the effect of that rule is baleful. It means that once elected, a president has little further value to his fellow politicians since he cannot run for election again, and he lacks the discipline of a future vote. More damaging still, it seems, is the effect on the president's family and entourage. They have a limited chance to secure influence and then peddle it; with the clock ticking, they rush to grab the cash.

Two disgraced Kims, you might object, are not enough to make a trend. A constitutional amendment to allow presidents further terms would not guarantee either discipline or probity. But it would raise the chances of both. It would be best to start debating a change now before further presidents are disgraced--and along with them, the constitution itself.

PHOTO (COLOR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of The Economist © 2002 is the property of Economist Newspaper Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. All rights reserved. Users may not save or store any or all of the content on their own systems or distribute any of the content on a local area or wide area network (such as corporate intranets or networks).

[job]

Dubois,

First, let me acknowledge to you that I deal with many people
who always retreat to the line, "I'm-an-expert-in-this-field" each time there's a debate, so I'm quite familiar with that tune, brother. It doesn't distract me.

What are you basically suggesting? That I quit debating you since I'm not an expert in this Asian-field like you, or what? Is it strange to find economists debating health matters,...or engineers debating politics? Could Kenyans debate about the Iraq war or the economy & politics of Korea, or MUST they first pass a litmus test of " I have been dealing with east and South east Asia for almost six years now to qualify for debate?

Gosh!!! Take it easy "Professor".I don't need to be DEALING with South Korea to discuss South Korea. Keep on with what have you been dealing in for six years in Asia, ..........that's beside the point.

Quoting you dubois;

"It just happens that I have been dealing with east and south east asia for almost six years now. So it's the last thing you can educate me about"

Relax brother, I think there's a clear difference between debating and educating. On my part, I will acknowledge any corrections you make on my arguments.

I'll repeat that South Korea is in East Asia and not South East Asia hoping not to get another wrath ironically from a
" six-year expert in the area" . Where have I proclaimed to educate you?

Now coming to your insistence that South Korea is a dictatorship while I maintain that it's basically a pluralistic democracy. It is South Korea's past that was ugly, ...characterized by military dictatorships, stiffled freedoms and poor worker conditions (60s and 70s). There was however presence of strong student movements and pro-democratic resistance opposing the dictatorship which led to democratic reforms.

Since 1987, pluralistic democracy came and the economic upward trend has grown to see S. Korea jump a couple of positions to become the worlds 10th largest economy.

Since you quote from subjective & one-sided American articles,...how about you just catch a glimpse of uncle sams official assessment of South Korea;

www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

or the World Bank President's recent description of S. Korea as a "thriving democracy and the envy of the world"

www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2003/n06022003_200306021.html


It is sheer fallacy to argue that S. Korean democracy is worse than say the Kenyan democracy considering that even the posts you pasted depict a story of a government system that has ;

Jailed two former Presidents or corruption & other criminal charges
*Seen two opposition leaders elected President
*Jailed the son of a sitting president for corruption
* Seen political parties formed freely and coalitions crafted.

It is outright disingenuous to even suggest that S. Korea is a dictatorship worse than Kibaki's Kenya. Don't take sycophancy and Kibaki-worship too far.

Under Kibaki's "democratic space" , ...I have seen police murder of demonstrators including innocent school children shot dead through the back. Political assassinations, Media raids and arrests of journalists, tribalism, corruption, hire of drug dealing mercanaries have all characterised the governance of Kibaki.
Not even one corrupt person is in jail under Kibaki who abets all form of looting and plunder of public coffers ,..from the Goldenberg thieves to Anglo Leasing looters. so just in what way is kibaki's government better than South Korea which jails even ex-presidents forpast crimes. Let's be more objective and stop hiding under 'expert" titles while exhalting and praising a rotten regime. Tell me how easy it is to register a political party in Kenya today with that despotic ethnic cabal at the registrar's office.

We may be seeing Kenya from different lenses and prisms,..so it just depends on which side you are.

My point remains that;

Good governance often comes with economic prosperity; Kenya's economy compared with S. Korea's at 1963; Kenya's economic backwardness is mainly a result of misinformed tribal dictatorships fed by absolute power presidential system -powered by Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki,...period! There's nothing to intellectualize there,.....even from self proclaimed Kenyan experts of Asian economies.

unedited.
Job

[politicalmaniac]

Job wrote
"My point remains that;

Good governance often comes with economic prosperity; Kenya's economy compared with S. Korea's at 1963; Kenya's economic backwardness is mainly a result of misinformed tribal dictatorships fed by absolute power presidential system -powered by Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki,...period! There's nothing to intellectualize there,.....even from self proclaimed Kenyan experts of Asian economy"

What is the common underlying denominator of successful economies? Political order rather than "good governance".

If the political scene is chaotic then the economy tumbles, full stop!
The type of political order really doesnt matter, rigid centralized, or free democracy, both can work and has worked.

What we have here at home is a dysfunctional political system, that is not focused, that is full of tribal patronage.

Hence the economic travails

[dubois]

Job,

Exactly my point; there is nothing to intellectualize about your false insinuations. It is really simple. You said:

Political power was personalized and Kenya slid into oppression, dictatorship, corruption, & backwardness while Korea, Thailand & other countries that were literally at par with Kenya in terms of GDP & GDP per capita (at Independence) surged ahead..

Are you suggesting that dictatorship or even corruption was not practiced in the economically advanced Asian countries? I'll repeat; the asian countries have built their wealth at a great cost to individual political freedom and labor rights. South Korea's successful economy was founded by a brutal military dictator.

I still insist that it is ridiculous to compare African countries to those of Asia especially in terms of economic growth. Most importantly we have different cultures and to a lesser extent the geographical and historical factors.

Governments are not perfect anywhere even in the most celebrated democracies. Some Asian economies have been built on oppression, political assasinations, genocide and much more. Even in the democracies of the US and Australia, leaders have broken the law and avoided jail( Nixon, Bush, Menzies etcetera).

Your flimsy arguments about democratic/economic nirvana will only fool the Railamaniacs. Incidentally your hero Raila was arguing along the same lines when he recently made the I have a dream speech. Developing countries have to pay a price to enjoy economic prosperity. It is easy for you to point an envious finger at the wealthy Asians but you know little of what they have gone through. And by the way, senseless idealism has never built any successful economy and if you dont believe me just point out one country.

Even with all his imperfections, Kibaki can still deliver at least economically. Free primary school education, CDF, the Youth Fund, affordable healthcare access for HIV patients, improved tourism/agriculture and a significant increase in tax revenue are some of the achievements by the corrupt Kibaki government. But you would rather ignore these achievements and have us believe that Raila is our Messiah. Pull another one my friend!

[job]

Dubois,

These raw Kibaki exaltations and hero-worship by his tribesmen is ridiculously sickening.

If oppression and corruption stiffled Kenya's economy during the Moi years what makes you think when your tribesman is in power then all is now well.

I bet you would have argued under very different lines during Moi's tenure. In essence political patronage was bad under Moi but just ok under Kibaki. Goldenberg was evil but Anglo-Leasing is just ok since it lines the pockets of your heroes.
Muzzling the press was bad under Moi but just fine under Kibaki. Civilian murders and assasinations were terrible under Moi but quite fine under Kibaki.......Gosh!

All these nonsensical tribal bigotry and raw ethnicity as best perpetrated by your tribal hero Kibaki is ridiculous. There's very little fundamental difference between Moi and Kibaki in many regards. When anyone points these issues,...you are quick to point at his tribe? Who tells you I never opposed Moi's governance. I will continue pointing out Kibaki's faults because I can clearly see his mischief. For your information, I don't get swayed by sycophantic platitudes ati CDF, free primary education and others.

It is indeed very sad that under Kibakis watch, negative ethnicity has reached embarrasing proportions.

unedited.
Job

[job]

Tribalism far worse than war
***********************

Story by CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO / WHAT OTHERS SAY
Publication Date: 7/27/2006

What is worse, tribalism or war? Is Kenya, one of only two countries in the Great Lakes which haven’t had a civil war on its soil since independence, better off because of that, even if it has a serious problem of tribal tensions, as the recent African Peer Review report said?

Looking at the ruins of war in Iraq, or the devastation of Israeli bombs in Lebanon - or even the harvest of civil war in Somalia Ð it would seem obvious that war, not tribalism, is the worst fate that can befall a country.

I used to think so too, then along came Austan Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago. He has just written a must-read article entitled "Count Ethnic Divisions, Not Bombs, to Tell if a Nation Will Recover From War," in the New York Times. It is a piece that deserves extended attention.

In it he analyses various data and concludes that, for countries that have gone through conflict, tribal divisions rather than the damage of war, are a greater impediment to economic recovery.

Goolsbee argues that history suggests that the destruction of war has no lasting impact on economic prospects.

He notes that the negligible long-term impact of war itself is rather startling, but has been noted in numerous studies.

Quoting the work of two economists at the University of California, Berkeley, "The Long Run Impact of Bombing Vietnam," he says 10 percent of the 584 districts in Vietnam received nearly three-quarters of the total American bomb tonnage. The economists found that heavier bombing during the war did not correspond with any major differences in poverty rates, access to electricity, literacy, population density or consumption in the 1990’s and 2000’s.

Similar studies, he says, have documented that the long-run population of Japanese cities was not affected by whether they were destroyed in World War II (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki). "After suffering the enormous immediate costs of war, it seems that people rather quickly return to where they left off. In the long run, things return to normal. Nation-building is still possible, even if one starts with rubble."

However, ethnic divisions tend to leave more permanent scars.

"Boundaries between many countries of the Middle East, like those in Africa, were haphazardly put together in negotiations by European colonizers who had little regard for ethnic realities. Indeed, they sometimes even lumped enemies together on purpose, hoping that ethnic hatreds might reduce anticolonial feelings," writes------

And then the bit that is really fascinating. He reports on a new study by three economists – Alberto F. Alesina and Janina Matuszeski of Harvard University and William Easterly of New York University, entitled "Artificial States".

The study compares the performance of countries with natural borders to those with artificial ones and finds, overwhelmingly, that artificial nations suffer terribly – lower income, horribly ineffective and corrupt governments, less respect for the law, low literacy, limited access to clean water, poor health care.

Professor Alesina explained in an interview with Goolsbee why he believed the fragmentation was so damaging.

"First, the governments in these countries are often run to benefit one ethnic group at the expense of the others and are prone to corruption," he said. Secondly, the fact that these groups do not trust one another, he said, makes them less willing to invest in social capital or even to conduct basic market transactions with one another.

And, so concludes Goolsbee, it is not the destruction of war. That will end and the countries can be rebuilt. It is the fragmentation and ethnic hatred. That, typically, never goes away. More troubling, Goolsbee says that even if a country hasn’t had a war, the evidence shows that ethnic divisions still cause lasting damage to the prospects for a nation’s economy.

In other words you are better off with a president who is a warmonger, than one who is a tribalist.

The story of the Democratic Republic of Congo is proof that Goolsbee is on to something. The DRC goes to polls at the end of this month. It will be the country’s first election since independence!

The DRC is a country the size of western Europe. It can swallow Kenya four times, and Uganda nine times.

However for that size the DRC has only 320 kilometres of paved roads outside its cities so, reports The Times, the ballot papers will be delivered to the 46,718 polling stations by plane, boat, dug-out canoe, bicycle, mule, and foot.

The corrupt and sectarian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko who ruled the country for ages, refused to build roads for fear that they would enable opposition to his rule. So he flew from one city to another in private jets accompanied, alleges The Times, by the usual fawning entourage, but also Scandinavian prostitutes and crates of pink champagne.

In any event, because of the nightmare of moving about the vast nation, in many constituencies voters will be casting ballots for candidates who have not been able to visit and campaign. They will meet many of them on voting day when they see their photos on the ballot paper.

Unsurprisingly, there are 9,500 parliamentary candidates, and 33 presidential contenders. The result is that the ballot papers will be the size of posters. It took 50 flights from South Africa to ferry the election material in.

The election will cost $422m (Shs 30bn), the most expensive ever in Africa. I guess when House Speaker Francis Kaparo said democracy is not cheap, he knew what he was talking about, although he said it in a slightly different context Ð while defending MPs’ hefty pay.

Life, though, continues to be delightfully frivolous. A brave German businessman called Alexander Schoppmann plans to make loads of money exploiting that. With many parts of the world outlawing smoking in public and tobacco advertisements, Schoppmann has figured a way to make a profit.

He is launching an airline for smokers. His fleet of ash tray-filled planes will take off next March to fly routes in Europe and Asia. He has named it Smokers International Airways, or Smintair. With no competition, Schoppmann might just have hit a jackpot there.

And, finally, a farewell to Milan Williams. Milan was a founding member of Motown’s most successful acts of the 1970s and early '80s, the Commodores.

Milan died two weeks ago. He was 58. If you are younger than 30, you are permitted to ask what this is all about.

Mr Onyango-Obbo is Nation Media Group’s managing editor for Convergence and New Products.

[dubois]

Job,

You are right, tribalism will not let you acknowledge a kikuyu government irrespective of its achievements. Don't get me wrong, like any other Kenyan I too want a better/inclusive government. However I will not fall for 'Raila tosha' nonsense. You shamelessly hero worship Raila because he is your tribesman yet you are brave enough to point a finger. I did not see a single essay from the Kibaki critics when Narc was formed by a bunch of opportunists. Isn't it ridiculous that you now believe in the same dodgy bunch (minus Kibaki) by the name of the ODM. Some of you are well acquainted with these political characters and you should know better.

You have been reduced to Raila's mouthpieces and it is indeed very sad. Your aim is to isolate and demonize Kibaki and his supporters not for the economy or democracy but for Raila. Do you believe that if Kibaki died today Kenya would become united? The division and tribalism we have today is not the responsibility of one man but the responsibility of most leaders including your hero.

You lack the moral authority (and I have reasons to believe that some of you are on LDP's payroll) to point fingers and loudly shout about democracy and economic progress. Do what you do best and suck up to your tribesman without the unnecessary covers.