Post by adongo12345 on Sept 14, 2006 0:46:37 GMT 3
By Adongo Ogony
Some of the human rights elites are hopping mad. They are furious with groups like ODM Kenya for demanding minimum reforms and are breathing fire and brimstone warning us the country will be in dire straits if we allow the minimum reform agenda to succeed. I think they are wrong.
In a column (Daily Nation September 13, 2006) entitled “Yesterday’s villains are today’s heroes” Prof. Makau Mutua makes wide sweeping accusations and conveniently avoids talking about the role people like himself have played in denying Kenyans the constitution he correctly says Kenyans have fought to achieve for decades.
www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=81218
Prof. Mutua’s premise is that Kenya is now officially “a hostage state” where “political mandarins” in ODM Kenya and Narc Kenya are running amok. To clarify that allegation the good professor talks about the “bizarre, perverted, and twisted logic for the so-called minimum constitutional reforms ahead of the 2007 elections.”
He continues: “ This country’s political class (whatever that means) believes that it can do almost anything against Kenyans, no matter how foolish and destructive and get away with it.”
What I find “bizarre, perverted and twisted” is this notion by a section of our human rights elites that Kenyans have no clue what they want and are perpetual victims of endless manipulations on the struggle for a democratic constitution for the nation. I find this attitude very demeaning to the Kenyan people. Of course most of our politicians are liars and turncoats, but so are some of the leading lights in the human rights movement. I am not a Christian but I believe when Jesus (may be it wasn’t him) asked those who wanted to remove the speck from other people’s eyes to do something about the log in their own eyes, he probably had a point we should pay attention to.
It seems to me that human rights aristocrats who do not want to mingle with and often pour scorn on the masses of Kenyan people often get puzzled when the masses embrace people and ideas they (the activists) can’t fathom. Their response is often to heap abuses on the offending leaders and wonder loudly about the sheer stupidity and culpability of the lowly wananchi who don’t seem to be able to see the dangers ahead.
Can Prof. Mutua tell Kenyans what is so “foolish and destructive” about the minimum reforms that not only political leaders, but also the general population are fighting to achieve at this time? What exactly is wrong with the minimum reforms apart from the fact that some of the voices demanding them according to Mutua are “yesterday’s villains”? I think a genuine critique of what is actually wrong with minimum reforms in specific terms and the concept in general would help us better make up our minds than merely throwing big words at the “bad” leaders.
In explaining the problems at the BOMAS conference, Prof. Mutua alleges that “in a bitter struggle for power, both the LDP and NAK sabotaged Bomas because of political greed, myopia and skullduggery” Phew, now you see why I am scared of some of our learned friends. I think this is a distorted and actually dishonest assessment of what happened at Bomas. What role did the civil society sector, which was prominently represented at Bomas play in festering the confusion that went on in there?
Prof. Mutua was at Bomas before he bolted and later demanded that Kibaki should dismantle Bomas, send the delegates home and hand over the process to experts. Can he tell us on what basis he wanted Kibaki to illegally dissolve Bomas? Why didn’t the civil society leadership take a stand to defend Wanjiku’s interests when LDP and NAK were busy wallowing in this “myopia” that Mutua talks about?
I know for example Rev. Timothy Njoya and others did take the matter to court and won a major victory that forced the politicians to concede to a referendum, but the same Rev. Njoya with his friend Mutava Musyimi, who also bolted from Bomas, actually had the nerve to show up at Bomas with their own draft constitution which they said was the perfect one to be adopted by the delegates. What exactly were the motivations of these stalwarts of the struggle for a democratic constitution in the country running away from a group they claimed was not representative and coming back with a home made draft constitution?
Lets get the facts straight on Bomas, at least. When the Bomas conference started after the 2002 General Elections, the CKRC had already collected the views of Kenyans, collated them and there were no complaints about the authenticity of their report. All that remained was for the delegates to go through the material and formulate it into a workable constitution with the help of legal experts and drafters. Then all of a sudden people like the then Minister for Constitution Affairs Mr. Kiraitu Murungi, a darling of Prof. Mutua at the time changed their minds and started denouncing the very views and positions they had given to the CKRC.
One of the things that ruined Bomas was the issue of presidential powers. It is common knowledge that President Kibaki with the help of Murungi and the likes of Prof. Kibwana and Paul Muite took 360-degree turn and embraced the very concept of imperial presidency, which they had denounced and demanded to be reformed. Why did the human rights groups and the civil society leaders at the conference and elsewhere fail, miserably I may add, to challenge the Kibaki leadership for having lied to the people and then change their minds after being elected into office? Isn’t that the traditional role the civil society has played in the constitutional struggle? Why did they abscond at this critical juncture? Was it because they felt they had an obligation to defend and protect Kibaki? How about Wanjiku?
No, Professor Mutua, Bomas did not fail because of power struggle between the LDP and NAK. This fiction should be put to rest. Bomas failed because President Kibaki and his supporters wanted to impose their own constitution on Kenyans and the civil society leadership abandoned Wanjiku and stood on the sidelines while others actively assisted the saboteurs in committing this crime against Kenyans. I don’t buy the idea that because people like Raila Odinga, William Ruto and others supported the bulk of the resolutions at Bomas then the resolutions must have been bad or that Raila somehow owned the delegates who were doing his bidding. Why didn’t we hear those complaints before the elections when we were being promised a constitution in 100 days after Narc victory?
In fact Bomas finished its job on March 15, 2004, when President Kibaki orchestrated one of the most shameful events in the history of the nation, namely organizing a walk out by his supporters and later refusing to accept the verdict of the Bomas delegates. Until we put this aspect of our history in perspective, the civil society will never be able comprehend the mistrust Kenyans have for us and the reason we have lost so much credibility in their eyes. Just yelling at the people to follow is without a clear historical acknowledgement of our mistakes is not going to do us any good.
Then came the referendum, another area where the civil society types who either supported the Yes team or sat on the fence like Prof. Mutua did, are still in denial. According to Prof.. Mutua, “ the referendum campaigns by both Banana and Orange factions of the elite were an abject lesson in hypocrisy, anti-reform and hateful lies and propaganda” I find this attitude quite insulting to Kenyans.
Isn’t it funny that the same people who hailed the 2002 General Elections as historic and an indication of the maturity of Kenyans now seem to think the same Kenyans were somehow engaged in some primitive mayhem called the referendum where illiterate and ill informed Kenyans were being herded like sheep by conniving politicians? Isn’t it the same Raila who championed the campaign to get Kibaki elected as president who was at the forefront for the Orange campaign? Why did he become such a bad liar and a hypocrite after Kibaki got elected and not before? Where were the accusations against this “nasty” man Raila when he was campaigning for Kibaki?
I think we in the civil society would do ourselves a great deal of good to accept that Kenyans knew exactly what they were doing when they rejected the Wako Draft constitution. They knew it was bad for them and refused to accept it. They were longing for the leadership to challenge the attempt by Kibaki to impose a constitution on them. They got that leadership from the likes of Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, William Ruto, Linah Jebii Kilimo, Najib Balala and many others including some from the civil society. Unfortunately the human rights aristocrats who are now denouncing that exercise were nowhere to be seen.
If I remember well Prof. Mutua made a passionate appeal to Kenyans to boycott the referendum. Now that is a brilliant idea, isn’t it? Good thing nobody took it seriously because it would have allowed Kibaki to walk home free with his new constitution. I am sure that is not what Prof. Mutua wanted, but that would have been the logical result. Would he be happy now? May be not.
This brings me to the issue of offering sensible alternatives to Kenyans in this constitutional battle. It is not enough to just hull abuses to those we don’t want, even though I think that is our right and is necessary sometimes. It is more important to provide other routes for the people to achieve their objective of a democratic and popularly accepted constitution. What option does Prof. Mutua offer? Nothing really. Same us his position on the referendum.
This is what comrade Mutua says:
“Although civil society has largely severed its relationship with the Kibaki state, it has stuck to its historical demand: comprehensive constitutional review or nothing. In this, civil society has taken the same position as the Kibaki side by coincidence, not co-ordination. This is the same position that civil society took in the IPPG debacle of 1997. But it is the political histories of those calling for minimum reforms that is red meat for analysts”
Basically Prof. Mutua is telling Kenyans to accept either the comprehensive reforms or nothing. Well how does nothing sound? Does Mutua think Kenyans are going to just sit there and say they are happy with nothing? They won’t and they know unless they fight now for minimum reforms to at least guarantee free and fair elections they will have nothing as long as Kibaki is in power. Their experience in the last four years tells them Kibaki will offer them nothing unless they accept his perverted (to borrow Mutua’s words) version that they have already rejected.
When someone like Mutua says the Kibaki side now wants a comprehensive review he should remember that the same side wanted a comprehensive review in November 2005. The only problem was and still is they only wanted to impose their own constitution on Kenyans. It is not enough to just want a comprehensive review; it is important what they want in that constitution. It is important what people like Mutua themselves want in the new constitution. Is it going to be consistent with the views Kenyans including President Kibaki himself gave the CKRC? That is the big question. Everybody wants comprehensive reforms. The issue is what is it they want in the constitution? That is what has stalled the process and that is what we should be addressing.
And by the way when Mutua says the Kibaki side resisting minimum reforms just as a section of the civil society is doing is more of a coincidence than a coordination, it might be interesting to find out; was it also a coincidence the same sections of the civil society sided more or less with Kibaki and his team at Bomas? Was it a coincidence that the Mutuas wanted Bomas dissolved by Kibaki just at the same time a lot of NAK politicians were calling for the same? Was it a coincidence that the same sections of the civil society either supported the Yes team or stood conveniently on the sidelines as the referendum battle raged? What other coincidences might we expect in future Prof. Mutua?
I know Prof. Mutua has blasted the ODM Kenya team as part of the Moi-Kanu leaders, some of whom are responsible for the persecution of reformers. He is right about that and that is a burden a good section of the ODM leadership will have to answer for, but I ask one question: When we supported Narc in 2002 and glorified them as liberators, did we not know that Kibaki is one of the longest serving Moi lieutenants? He was his VP and he chaired the National Security Committee when those same reformers were being persecuted? How about Kalonzo, a key member of Narc, were we not aware that he had been in Kanu all his political life? And Raila. Did we just find about him now? How come this same people were liberators when they supported the Kibaki presidency and are now villains when they oppose the Kibaki presidency? Who is being hypocritical here?
Let me conclude by saying we should remember one thing. If we did not have the CKRC Act 2001, mandating the establishment of the National Constitutional Conference (Bomas), there would never have been a Bomas under the Kibaki government. They did everything to destroy it, but their hands were tied by the law. Why is this important? Because the CKRC Act of 2001 acted as the most significant minimum reform enacted before the 2002 elections and it saved the constitutional process and moved us to where we are today.
I sincerely believe that there is nothing wrong or sinister for Kenyans to fight for minimum reforms now to facilitate a legally binding transitional process to move our country from this dependence on the goodwill of politicians who promise us heaven before elections and turn into monsters as soon as we elect them. If Prof. Mutua and his friends have a better idea let them bring it forward. If people like Mutua can fight with Kenyans to get comprehensive reforms now lets go for it, but for goodness sakes don’t ask us to allow Kibaki to abuse the electoral process and get back to power so he can mess with us for another five years. That is asking for too much. Thank you very much. I think we are wasting a lot of time quibbling about rejecting minimum reforms when the politicians are busy getting their piece done. We are going to be left with egg in our face after the deal is done. And then what? We hit the streets with the professor?
Let me say something else about Prof. Mutua. I admire him. I like his courage to speek his mind and engage with Kenyans as we face difficult times and choices. Of course he is an outstanding scholar that Kenyans should be proud of. But my point here is that he is doing much better than some of our celebrated human rights activists and academics both inside and outside the country who have opted for the convinience of silence over the constitutional battle as if they don't know what is going on in the country. I am sure they know who they are.
The writer is a human rights activist
Some of the human rights elites are hopping mad. They are furious with groups like ODM Kenya for demanding minimum reforms and are breathing fire and brimstone warning us the country will be in dire straits if we allow the minimum reform agenda to succeed. I think they are wrong.
In a column (Daily Nation September 13, 2006) entitled “Yesterday’s villains are today’s heroes” Prof. Makau Mutua makes wide sweeping accusations and conveniently avoids talking about the role people like himself have played in denying Kenyans the constitution he correctly says Kenyans have fought to achieve for decades.
www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=81218
Prof. Mutua’s premise is that Kenya is now officially “a hostage state” where “political mandarins” in ODM Kenya and Narc Kenya are running amok. To clarify that allegation the good professor talks about the “bizarre, perverted, and twisted logic for the so-called minimum constitutional reforms ahead of the 2007 elections.”
He continues: “ This country’s political class (whatever that means) believes that it can do almost anything against Kenyans, no matter how foolish and destructive and get away with it.”
What I find “bizarre, perverted and twisted” is this notion by a section of our human rights elites that Kenyans have no clue what they want and are perpetual victims of endless manipulations on the struggle for a democratic constitution for the nation. I find this attitude very demeaning to the Kenyan people. Of course most of our politicians are liars and turncoats, but so are some of the leading lights in the human rights movement. I am not a Christian but I believe when Jesus (may be it wasn’t him) asked those who wanted to remove the speck from other people’s eyes to do something about the log in their own eyes, he probably had a point we should pay attention to.
It seems to me that human rights aristocrats who do not want to mingle with and often pour scorn on the masses of Kenyan people often get puzzled when the masses embrace people and ideas they (the activists) can’t fathom. Their response is often to heap abuses on the offending leaders and wonder loudly about the sheer stupidity and culpability of the lowly wananchi who don’t seem to be able to see the dangers ahead.
Can Prof. Mutua tell Kenyans what is so “foolish and destructive” about the minimum reforms that not only political leaders, but also the general population are fighting to achieve at this time? What exactly is wrong with the minimum reforms apart from the fact that some of the voices demanding them according to Mutua are “yesterday’s villains”? I think a genuine critique of what is actually wrong with minimum reforms in specific terms and the concept in general would help us better make up our minds than merely throwing big words at the “bad” leaders.
In explaining the problems at the BOMAS conference, Prof. Mutua alleges that “in a bitter struggle for power, both the LDP and NAK sabotaged Bomas because of political greed, myopia and skullduggery” Phew, now you see why I am scared of some of our learned friends. I think this is a distorted and actually dishonest assessment of what happened at Bomas. What role did the civil society sector, which was prominently represented at Bomas play in festering the confusion that went on in there?
Prof. Mutua was at Bomas before he bolted and later demanded that Kibaki should dismantle Bomas, send the delegates home and hand over the process to experts. Can he tell us on what basis he wanted Kibaki to illegally dissolve Bomas? Why didn’t the civil society leadership take a stand to defend Wanjiku’s interests when LDP and NAK were busy wallowing in this “myopia” that Mutua talks about?
I know for example Rev. Timothy Njoya and others did take the matter to court and won a major victory that forced the politicians to concede to a referendum, but the same Rev. Njoya with his friend Mutava Musyimi, who also bolted from Bomas, actually had the nerve to show up at Bomas with their own draft constitution which they said was the perfect one to be adopted by the delegates. What exactly were the motivations of these stalwarts of the struggle for a democratic constitution in the country running away from a group they claimed was not representative and coming back with a home made draft constitution?
Lets get the facts straight on Bomas, at least. When the Bomas conference started after the 2002 General Elections, the CKRC had already collected the views of Kenyans, collated them and there were no complaints about the authenticity of their report. All that remained was for the delegates to go through the material and formulate it into a workable constitution with the help of legal experts and drafters. Then all of a sudden people like the then Minister for Constitution Affairs Mr. Kiraitu Murungi, a darling of Prof. Mutua at the time changed their minds and started denouncing the very views and positions they had given to the CKRC.
One of the things that ruined Bomas was the issue of presidential powers. It is common knowledge that President Kibaki with the help of Murungi and the likes of Prof. Kibwana and Paul Muite took 360-degree turn and embraced the very concept of imperial presidency, which they had denounced and demanded to be reformed. Why did the human rights groups and the civil society leaders at the conference and elsewhere fail, miserably I may add, to challenge the Kibaki leadership for having lied to the people and then change their minds after being elected into office? Isn’t that the traditional role the civil society has played in the constitutional struggle? Why did they abscond at this critical juncture? Was it because they felt they had an obligation to defend and protect Kibaki? How about Wanjiku?
No, Professor Mutua, Bomas did not fail because of power struggle between the LDP and NAK. This fiction should be put to rest. Bomas failed because President Kibaki and his supporters wanted to impose their own constitution on Kenyans and the civil society leadership abandoned Wanjiku and stood on the sidelines while others actively assisted the saboteurs in committing this crime against Kenyans. I don’t buy the idea that because people like Raila Odinga, William Ruto and others supported the bulk of the resolutions at Bomas then the resolutions must have been bad or that Raila somehow owned the delegates who were doing his bidding. Why didn’t we hear those complaints before the elections when we were being promised a constitution in 100 days after Narc victory?
In fact Bomas finished its job on March 15, 2004, when President Kibaki orchestrated one of the most shameful events in the history of the nation, namely organizing a walk out by his supporters and later refusing to accept the verdict of the Bomas delegates. Until we put this aspect of our history in perspective, the civil society will never be able comprehend the mistrust Kenyans have for us and the reason we have lost so much credibility in their eyes. Just yelling at the people to follow is without a clear historical acknowledgement of our mistakes is not going to do us any good.
Then came the referendum, another area where the civil society types who either supported the Yes team or sat on the fence like Prof. Mutua did, are still in denial. According to Prof.. Mutua, “ the referendum campaigns by both Banana and Orange factions of the elite were an abject lesson in hypocrisy, anti-reform and hateful lies and propaganda” I find this attitude quite insulting to Kenyans.
Isn’t it funny that the same people who hailed the 2002 General Elections as historic and an indication of the maturity of Kenyans now seem to think the same Kenyans were somehow engaged in some primitive mayhem called the referendum where illiterate and ill informed Kenyans were being herded like sheep by conniving politicians? Isn’t it the same Raila who championed the campaign to get Kibaki elected as president who was at the forefront for the Orange campaign? Why did he become such a bad liar and a hypocrite after Kibaki got elected and not before? Where were the accusations against this “nasty” man Raila when he was campaigning for Kibaki?
I think we in the civil society would do ourselves a great deal of good to accept that Kenyans knew exactly what they were doing when they rejected the Wako Draft constitution. They knew it was bad for them and refused to accept it. They were longing for the leadership to challenge the attempt by Kibaki to impose a constitution on them. They got that leadership from the likes of Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka, William Ruto, Linah Jebii Kilimo, Najib Balala and many others including some from the civil society. Unfortunately the human rights aristocrats who are now denouncing that exercise were nowhere to be seen.
If I remember well Prof. Mutua made a passionate appeal to Kenyans to boycott the referendum. Now that is a brilliant idea, isn’t it? Good thing nobody took it seriously because it would have allowed Kibaki to walk home free with his new constitution. I am sure that is not what Prof. Mutua wanted, but that would have been the logical result. Would he be happy now? May be not.
This brings me to the issue of offering sensible alternatives to Kenyans in this constitutional battle. It is not enough to just hull abuses to those we don’t want, even though I think that is our right and is necessary sometimes. It is more important to provide other routes for the people to achieve their objective of a democratic and popularly accepted constitution. What option does Prof. Mutua offer? Nothing really. Same us his position on the referendum.
This is what comrade Mutua says:
“Although civil society has largely severed its relationship with the Kibaki state, it has stuck to its historical demand: comprehensive constitutional review or nothing. In this, civil society has taken the same position as the Kibaki side by coincidence, not co-ordination. This is the same position that civil society took in the IPPG debacle of 1997. But it is the political histories of those calling for minimum reforms that is red meat for analysts”
Basically Prof. Mutua is telling Kenyans to accept either the comprehensive reforms or nothing. Well how does nothing sound? Does Mutua think Kenyans are going to just sit there and say they are happy with nothing? They won’t and they know unless they fight now for minimum reforms to at least guarantee free and fair elections they will have nothing as long as Kibaki is in power. Their experience in the last four years tells them Kibaki will offer them nothing unless they accept his perverted (to borrow Mutua’s words) version that they have already rejected.
When someone like Mutua says the Kibaki side now wants a comprehensive review he should remember that the same side wanted a comprehensive review in November 2005. The only problem was and still is they only wanted to impose their own constitution on Kenyans. It is not enough to just want a comprehensive review; it is important what they want in that constitution. It is important what people like Mutua themselves want in the new constitution. Is it going to be consistent with the views Kenyans including President Kibaki himself gave the CKRC? That is the big question. Everybody wants comprehensive reforms. The issue is what is it they want in the constitution? That is what has stalled the process and that is what we should be addressing.
And by the way when Mutua says the Kibaki side resisting minimum reforms just as a section of the civil society is doing is more of a coincidence than a coordination, it might be interesting to find out; was it also a coincidence the same sections of the civil society sided more or less with Kibaki and his team at Bomas? Was it a coincidence that the Mutuas wanted Bomas dissolved by Kibaki just at the same time a lot of NAK politicians were calling for the same? Was it a coincidence that the same sections of the civil society either supported the Yes team or stood conveniently on the sidelines as the referendum battle raged? What other coincidences might we expect in future Prof. Mutua?
I know Prof. Mutua has blasted the ODM Kenya team as part of the Moi-Kanu leaders, some of whom are responsible for the persecution of reformers. He is right about that and that is a burden a good section of the ODM leadership will have to answer for, but I ask one question: When we supported Narc in 2002 and glorified them as liberators, did we not know that Kibaki is one of the longest serving Moi lieutenants? He was his VP and he chaired the National Security Committee when those same reformers were being persecuted? How about Kalonzo, a key member of Narc, were we not aware that he had been in Kanu all his political life? And Raila. Did we just find about him now? How come this same people were liberators when they supported the Kibaki presidency and are now villains when they oppose the Kibaki presidency? Who is being hypocritical here?
Let me conclude by saying we should remember one thing. If we did not have the CKRC Act 2001, mandating the establishment of the National Constitutional Conference (Bomas), there would never have been a Bomas under the Kibaki government. They did everything to destroy it, but their hands were tied by the law. Why is this important? Because the CKRC Act of 2001 acted as the most significant minimum reform enacted before the 2002 elections and it saved the constitutional process and moved us to where we are today.
I sincerely believe that there is nothing wrong or sinister for Kenyans to fight for minimum reforms now to facilitate a legally binding transitional process to move our country from this dependence on the goodwill of politicians who promise us heaven before elections and turn into monsters as soon as we elect them. If Prof. Mutua and his friends have a better idea let them bring it forward. If people like Mutua can fight with Kenyans to get comprehensive reforms now lets go for it, but for goodness sakes don’t ask us to allow Kibaki to abuse the electoral process and get back to power so he can mess with us for another five years. That is asking for too much. Thank you very much. I think we are wasting a lot of time quibbling about rejecting minimum reforms when the politicians are busy getting their piece done. We are going to be left with egg in our face after the deal is done. And then what? We hit the streets with the professor?
Let me say something else about Prof. Mutua. I admire him. I like his courage to speek his mind and engage with Kenyans as we face difficult times and choices. Of course he is an outstanding scholar that Kenyans should be proud of. But my point here is that he is doing much better than some of our celebrated human rights activists and academics both inside and outside the country who have opted for the convinience of silence over the constitutional battle as if they don't know what is going on in the country. I am sure they know who they are.
The writer is a human rights activist
