|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 27, 2012 19:15:31 GMT 3
Kikuyus feel they were mistreated by other tribes and thus they cannot trust anyone from outside. Njamba, this is the Boolean loop that KE finds itself stuck in. The Kikuyus not entrusting anyone but their own, while the rest look on wondering when their time will ever come. So long as they remain the privileged group, there will be those militant few who will stop at nothing short of removing them from that perceived state of entitlement, even by force. There have been countless opportunities to break out of that cycle, starting clearly from 2002/3 when Kenyans were said to be the most optimistic people on the planet. Sadly these opportunities have never been embraced. The 2005 referendum should've served as a wake up call to do things with a different approach. Instead, the wagons were circled & those within the fold who could no longer be trusted were cast out. 2007/8 was the bitter harvest of a people who invested so much hope for a better Kenya in 2002. So the question to ask is, knowing all this, & with the 2012 ICC indictments confirming we are on the wrong course, what are we going to do to get ourselves out of this Boleean loop? |
|
|
|
Post by mangai on Jan 27, 2012 19:26:06 GMT 3
Njamba is only revealing the common/shared believe among the Kikuyus. As unfortunate as it might sound, that is the reality on the ground. We need to live with it. You'll be surprised at how some people hate Raila with a passion. There is already talk of fronting Saitoti if Uhuru was not to stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by affirmed on Jan 27, 2012 21:40:52 GMT 3
Njamba, On the first point I agree, especially as of now. Where I still respectfully differ with you is this issue of G7 simple plan. In fact, it is its simplicity that leads me to believe that those who conceived and vouch simple in mind and myopic in political foresight, or they are blinded by patronage and aura of power, wealth and invincibility emanating from NSIS and SH. I don't see the G7 simple plan coming to fruition because one has to assume that the entire country is against Raila, which is simply not true. In fact, your own proposition supports the view that Raila is actually so popular that if the people in those regions are not divided they will vote for him. The question is, once you set up the phony candidates and then drop/marginalize them in favor of the preferred one --won't they find their darling Raila who they were being blinded to hate still standing? They will have more reason to vote against the candidate because they will notice that they were being used. But it won't even reach the stage of run-off! Kenyans can read the political text quite well and they will know for whom the phoney candidates are being planted. If they don't like the patron and what he stands for, I won't be surprised if those phoney candidates are rejected in the first round and a victor emerges winnining convincingly with over 50% of the vote. affirmed, we are on the same page what my other debators are forgetting to read is my caveat that for now the support is gone but raila may reclaim the 10% in the next 10 months. The G7 plan is still intact The plan is very simple they want to balkanize RV, Central, western and some parts of coast to deny raila the chance to win in the first round. Uhuru opponents in central PK and Maritha have no answer for Uhuru and Ruto wave. so they are left cluess and afraid of confronting enraged Uhuru camp. Unless someone with credibility with Central voters like Kimunya runs to spoil some votes for Uhuru things are thick for ODM |
|
|
|
Post by affirmed on Jan 27, 2012 22:13:26 GMT 3
I have no reason to doubt what Njamba is saying. And I am sure other communites in similar conditions and circumstances would act more or less in the same way. I don't think Raila has done anything bad to the Kikuyu as a community -- but unfortunately he has been presented as their enemy for no apparent reason. Although, that tag will not be easy to remove I believe Raila should not writeoff Central because he can still win the presidency without Central vote, and if sucessful he must serve all regardless of tribe or region. I don't think fronting Saitoti will be of much help because could end up perpertuating the idea that it is only a Kikuyu who can protect Kikuyus, which in the long run will alienate them even more from the rest of the other communities in the country. K Njamba is only revealing the common/shared believe among the Kikuyus. As unfortunate as it might sound, that is the reality on the ground. We need to live with it. You'll be surprised at how some people hate Raila with a passion. There is already talk of fronting Saitoti if Uhuru was not to stand. |
|
|
|
Post by njamba on Jan 27, 2012 22:57:09 GMT 3
Affirmed,
Yours is interesting insight and an optimistic outlook. Let us see what will happen between now and commencement of trials and we can revisit this issue
|
|
|
|
Post by okolowaka on Jan 27, 2012 23:05:29 GMT 3
...Raila has himself stated severally that he is ready to go sell mandazi in Kibera if he loses an election so it is not a big deal that you think he should write off the central vote... Tukutane kwa debe...
Look at the bigger picture my friend, Kenya is the winner, thanks to the new Katiba...the era of "Baba na Mama" is over and we now have rules and laws to be followed to the letter... Uhuru and Ruto are no exception... If Nancy Barasa is unfit to hold public office on account of pinching someones nose and whipping out a gun, what of two people charged with mass murder, mass rape, mass evictions, mass destruction of property.... Listen to what Mutula Kilonzo had to say, Uhuru and Ruto are done politically...
Even if Raila writes off the central vote (whatever you mean) the playing field has been leveled considerably and the game has become a team thing... So this central vote that you talk about will be split between Peter Kenneth, Martha Karua, Prof Saitoti, Raphael Tuju, Wakoli Bifwoli, Miss Keminchu, Eugene Wamalwa, Ole Kiyapi and Raila Odinga among other contenders; just as in the rest of the country...
Wait until the bell is rang for the game to begin then people realize too late that they need 47 Governors, 47 Senators, 47 Women's representatives, 290 MPs, and about 1500 County Assembly Representatives. That is when people will realize that even if Raila "writes off the central vote" ODM and Raila will still run Code 254... ;D
|
|
emali
Full Member
Posts: 219
|
Post by emali on Jan 27, 2012 23:28:12 GMT 3
I have no reason to doubt what Njamba is saying. And I am sure other communites in similar conditions and circumstances would act more or less in the same way. I don't think Raila has done anything bad to the Kikuyu as a community -- but unfortunately he has been presented as their enemy for no apparent reason. Although, that tag will not be easy to remove I believe Raila should not writeoff Central because he can still win the presidency without Central vote, and if sucessful he must serve all regardless of tribe or region. I don't think fronting Saitoti will be of much help because could end up perpertuating the idea that it is only a Kikuyu who can protect Kikuyus, which in the long run will alienate them even more from the rest of the other communities in the country. K Njamba is only revealing the common/shared believe among the Kikuyus. As unfortunate as it might sound, that is the reality on the ground. We need to live with it. You'll be surprised at how some people hate Raila with a passion. There is already talk of fronting Saitoti if Uhuru was not to stand. Raila's problem with the Gikuyu is that he does not acknowledge 'kenya ina wenyewe' ...Raila is not part of the 'establishment' he can't be trusted it's all built on fear...all starting with KPU & Jaramogi |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jan 28, 2012 0:58:26 GMT 3
Merlin, Kikuyus feel they were mistreated by other tribes and thus they cannot trust anyone from outside. Ruto is just being used to get a Uhuru to power. The stakes for the community are high. Whether a leader/s will emerge to steer Kikuyus away from ruto/uhuru camp is too complex for me to tell Kikuyus cannot trust anyone from outside. I get along with the statement; Kikuyus do not trust anyone from outside. They can trust others - as there are many trustworthy people around - though Kikuyus feel they cannot. It is an emotional feeling of being under siege from outside. Because of this feeling Kikuyus have a strong need to be in control not only over their own society but also over the outside world. The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. This option -”at any cost” - leads to fraud and deception in dealing with others. It also limits the choice for good leadership. I am sure there are capable leaders in the Kikuyu community though this need for control has led to choosing Uhuru Kenyatta - a suspected murderer - as leader of the community. It never will work, not for the Kikuyus and surely not for the Nation. The Kikuyu has to realize that their lack of trust will keep repeating the clashes and mayhem between them and the rest of the Kenyans. Pushing a suspected murderer forward to the rest of Kenya as the best leader for the Nation is unacceptable to many. The Kikuyu is not a homogeneous society. There are rich and poor, sincere and dishonest people in the society though the emotional feeling of being under siege from outside gives the dishonest people from within a strong handle to manipulate the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu should realize they are manipulated by fear. A long time ago they should have questioned their manipulators the cost to be in control. They didn’t though the ICC will show them the price they have to pay to be in control. Maybe they become aware the price for isolation and repeated mayhem is too high – with the exception of some who profit from this feeling not able to trust others. The Kikuyu should look at their honest and capable leaders and ask themselves which ones will be capable to break the vicious circle and their isolation from the rest of the Nation. Yes, yes I hear the great cooperation between the G7, the Party of National Unity Alliance. I think it is a fallacy. There is no cooperation let’s alone integration. Just control seekers, profiteers from fear and manipulation. |
|
|
|
Post by johns on Jan 28, 2012 2:16:41 GMT 3
Merlin, Kikuyus feel they were mistreated by other tribes and thus they cannot trust anyone from outside. Ruto is just being used to get a Uhuru to power. The stakes for the community are high. Whether a leader/s will emerge to steer Kikuyus away from ruto/uhuru camp is too complex for me to tell Kikuyus cannot trust anyone from outside. I get along with the statement; Kikuyus do not trust anyone from outside. They can trust others - as there are many trustworthy people around - though Kikuyus feel they cannot. It is an emotional feeling of being under siege from outside. Because of this feeling Kikuyus have a strong need to be in control not only over their own society but also over the outside world. The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. This option -”at any cost” - leads to fraud and deception in dealing with others. It also limits the choice for good leadership. I am sure there are capable leaders in the Kikuyu community though this need for control has led to choosing Uhuru Kenyatta - a suspected murderer - as leader of the community. It never will work, not for the Kikuyus and surely not for the Nation. The Kikuyu has to realize that their lack of trust will keep repeating the clashes and mayhem between them and the rest of the Kenyans. Pushing a suspected murderer forward to the rest of Kenya as the best leader for the Nation is unacceptable to many. The Kikuyu is not a homogeneous society. There are rich and poor, sincere and dishonest people in the society though the emotional feeling of being under siege from outside gives the dishonest people from within a strong handle to manipulate the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu should realize they are manipulated by fear. A long time ago they should have questioned their manipulators the cost to be in control. They didn’t though the ICC will show them the price they have to pay to be in control. Maybe they become aware the price for isolation and repeated mayhem is too high – with the exception of some who profit from this feeling not able to trust others. The Kikuyu should look at their honest and capable leaders and ask themselves which ones will be capable to break the vicious circle and their isolation from the rest of the Nation. Yes, yes I hear the great cooperation between the G7, the Party of National Unity Alliance. I think it is a fallacy. There is no cooperation let’s alone integration. Just control seekers, profiteers from fear and manipulation. Merlin, How i just love the way you have put it. This probably sums up in the best way possible how these people have fallen prey to the elite class manipulative process which has continued to impoverish their minds leaving it bare with no objectivity at all. How do you ram a mass murderer as your leader down our throats and we are supposed to say thank you? It baffles me a lot as to what Raila Odingas sin is . Was Raila supposed to call a public meeting at uhuru park and let it be known that PEV never happened, could that have satisfied the object of their hate towards him? I think not |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 2:53:23 GMT 3
Merlin, Kikuyus feel they were mistreated by other tribes and thus they cannot trust anyone from outside. Ruto is just being used to get a Uhuru to power. The stakes for the community are high. Whether a leader/s will emerge to steer Kikuyus away from ruto/uhuru camp is too complex for me to tell Kikuyus cannot trust anyone from outside. I get along with the statement; Kikuyus do not trust anyone from outside. They can trust others - as there are many trustworthy people around - though Kikuyus feel they cannot. It is an emotional feeling of being under siege from outside. Because of this feeling Kikuyus have a strong need to be in control not only over their own society but also over the outside world. The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. Laughable. I notice you don't have any evidence whatever for your claim. Which is convenient, because studies have generally shown that the ethnic group least likely to trust outsiders in Kenya is the Luo. That pattern continues: see e.g. p. 5 of Tribalism as a Minimax-Regret Strategy: Evidence from Voting in the 2007 Kenyan Elections. And this is after the violence in 2007-8 which was specifically directed at Gikuyu by ODMers. I'm, frankly, quite surprised that Gikuyu are not the least trusting of others after that, but the numbers are pretty clear. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 2:57:00 GMT 3
Merlin, Kikuyus feel they were mistreated by other tribes and thus they cannot trust anyone from outside. Ruto is just being used to get a Uhuru to power. The stakes for the community are high. Whether a leader/s will emerge to steer Kikuyus away from ruto/uhuru camp is too complex for me to tell When did a coastal mistreat a Kikuyu? When did a NEP fella mistreat a Kikuyu? When did a luhya mistreat a Kikuyu?. Obviously, you haven't troubled yourself to read the Waki report. Had you done so, you might have come across the interesting episode when a set of ODMers at the Coast raped Gikuyu women while shouting ODM! ODM! I imagine the previous round of violence in 1997 will also be of relevance, as might the antics of Burudi Nabwera in the 90s, and the violence in 2007 in Western. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 3:05:55 GMT 3
How i just love the way you have put it. This probably sums up in the best way possible how these people have fallen prey to the elite class manipulative process which has continued to impoverish their minds leaving it bare with no objectivity at all. This is nonsense. Or rather, it's the sort of class analysis which supposes that people do not have a property interest in living where they do. ODM promised to kill and evict Gikuyu living in non-Gikuyu majority parts of the country. Given a property interest in continuing to live where they did, that was sufficient to generate a Kibaki vote for non-elite Gikuyu. In simple language: if X promises to kill and evict you, and Y will not kill and evict you, then you have a pretty strong reason to vote for Y if X and Y are the only serious choices. No class manipulation is necessary. The point is proven by pre-election studies which show a higher threat of pre-election violence from ODM. The point has been familiar since at least 2008, and I gathered the evidence some time ago. How do you ram a mass murderer as your leader down our throats and we are supposed to say thank you? It baffles me a lot as to what Raila Odingas sin is . Was Raila supposed to call a public meeting at uhuru park and let it be known that PEV never happened, could that have satisfied the object of their hate towards him? I think not The network which committed mass murder in the Rift Valley reported to Raila Odinga, told him of its plans and received money from him (see the evidence of Witness 6). You're still going to vote for him, are you not? |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 3:11:38 GMT 3
Njamba is only revealing the common/shared believe among the Kikuyus. As unfortunate as it might sound, that is the reality on the ground. We need to live with it. You'll be surprised at how some people hate Raila with a passion. There is already talk of fronting Saitoti if Uhuru was not to stand. Raila ran a campaign promising ethnic cleansing of Gikuyu. I know you'll be surprised to hear it, but people tend not to vote for you---or even like you very much---if you campaign on killing and evicting them. The point was obvious to non-Gikuyu observers such as Paul Collier (see Wars, Guns and Votes, p. 70) Your self pity is rather misplaced. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 3:13:35 GMT 3
I have no reason to doubt what Njamba is saying. And I am sure other communites in similar conditions and circumstances would act more or less in the same way. I don't think Raila has done anything bad to the Kikuyu as a community -- but unfortunately he has been presented as their enemy for no apparent reason. Although, that tag will not be easy to remove I believe Raila should not writeoff Central because he can still win the presidency without Central vote, and if sucessful he must serve all regardless of tribe or region. I don't think fronting Saitoti will be of much help because could end up perpertuating the idea that it is only a Kikuyu who can protect Kikuyus, which in the long run will alienate them even more from the rest of the other communities in the country. K Raila's problem with the Gikuyu is that he does not acknowledge 'kenya ina wenyewe' ...Raila is not part of the 'establishment' he can't be trusted it's all built on fear...all starting with KPU & Jaramogi Raila's problem with Gikuyu is that he has been associated with anti-Gikuyu violence for at least two decades: since 1992, in Kibera at least. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 3:17:08 GMT 3
This is delusional. Raila went to Central not that long ago and told folks to remember the good work of the government in bringing them the Thika highway. They were to vote for him because he had brought them maendeleo. This is the very same road which, elsewhere in the country, ODM claims as proof of Gikuyu ethnocentricity. On Jukwaa, Job claimed that it proved that Uhuru was stealing money from the Treasury. If you talk to ODMers, you'll be told crazy stories: one of them told a relative of mine that Gikuyu were so arrogant they had torn up the previous road so that they would get a new one. And this is a grown, educated professional. Why on earth would anyone vote for a party which tells these sorts of schizoid lies?
Why keep talking to ODM'ers if you know they tell crazy stories and Who the hell is forcing you to vote for ODM, a party with all sorts of "schizoid lies?" Last I checked there were many other parties to choose from, if you do not like what ODM has to offer, simply move on instead of peddling these tired lines in here. Easy. (1) For good or ill, ODMers are Kenyans. (2) It's better to talk than to turn to violence. In 2007-8, ODMers decided to resort to violence en masse. The consequences are obvious for all to see. Presumably, talking will avoid a repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 3:20:35 GMT 3
ah yes, and thats why ODM is on trial at the hague and ODM is being jailed in kenya today. (1) Distinction between legal and factual guilt. ODMers have no problem assigning factual guilt to Kibaki even though he's not on trial at the Hague. They cannot then complain if one assigns the party factual guilt even if we assume that the party is not on trial at the Hague. (2) Those on trial at the Hague are on trial for their part in a criminal conspiracy. In the Ruto case, the agents of the criminal were in the command of a sub-committee of the party---the network---which reported to the prime minister, informed him of its intentions, received money from him, and otherwise gave every sign of being an arm of the party. Hence the corporate responsibility of the party. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 28, 2012 3:23:15 GMT 3
ah yes, and thats why ODM is on trial at the hague and ODM is being jailed in kenya today. (1) Distinction between legal and factual guilt. ODMers have no problem assigning factual guilt to Kibaki even though he's not on trial at the Hague. They cannot then complain if one assigns the party factual guilt even if we assume that the party is not on trial at the Hague. (2) Those on trial at the Hague are on trial for their part in a criminal conspiracy. In the Ruto case, the agents of the criminal were in the command of a sub-committee of the party---the network---which reported to the prime minister, informed him of its intentions, received money from him, and otherwise gave every sign of being an arm of the party. Hence the corporate responsibility of the party. when i see you present testimony at the hague, i will listen, the rest of your skewed hypothesis falls on deaf ears. |
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Jan 28, 2012 3:32:18 GMT 3
Hey fellows,
It does not really matter a rat's ass whether or not Raila becomes the PORK. The guy has already achieved what most us wanted him to do and through that he has reserved for himself an honourable place in our country's history. All discussions about Raila never becoming the PORK by some members of Jukwaa who do not even align themselves publicly to any existing political party in Kenya, but dwell only on bashing ODM, are just but a mirage aka chasing the biblical hot east wind aimed at filling their own bellies (Job 15:2-3)!!
Catch me if you can!!
|
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 3:40:05 GMT 3
First, don't always assume my observation or comments are confined in application to Kenyan politics. Often, as in this case, I state a universal proposition that is applicable in most countries where democracy is practiced to some level. Nothing in my reply depends on the assumption that your observation was confined to Kenyan politics. I can therefore assure you when I stated the proposition that the converse of not voting as a block against someone for tribal reasons, is for a candidate to be rejected in toto by those who would know him best, I did not have in mind and neither was I insinuating as you obviously erroneously concluded that "those who know you well are your kinsmen." This is, to say the least, hardly obvious. Further, the context in which the claim was made makes it pretty clear that this was what you had in mind. Further, your intentions don't determine the meanings of the words you use. The proposition is this simple: In politics, and I am talking about politics in functioning democracies as opposed to other forms of government, a leader generally first establishes their credentials locally and then progresses along the ladder to the top. From which it doesn't follow that those who don't establish their credential locally are not to be trusted on that account. Indeed, in countries where establishing your credentials locally entails acting in the ethnocentric manner widespread in Kenyan, and more generally African, politics, he converse seems to hold. That is precisely why in places such as the US, no bachelor has been elected to office and marital infidelity was previously deemed to be a disqualifying factor until Clinton came along and scaled that back and Newt Gingrich as very mus erased the issue as a major factor. Nonsense. Buchanan and Cleveland were bachelors when elected president. Reagan had been divorced and remarried when he was elected President. Jefferson was widely (and rightly) suspected of extramarital sex when he was elected. In the Kenyan context, stability and success in family life is equally an important factor in presidential leadership or in leadership, period, and will continue to be so even more in the future as the quality of those vying for office improves and these becomes important distinctions. Moi was elected when it was known that he had an unhappy and unsettled family life---indeed, when it was widely known that he had abandoned his wife. All these considerations are key as one embarks on their political career, which must by definition start locally. When people say by definition the right question to ask is what definition? There is no definition of political career on which it comes out as necessary that a political career must start locally. Second, your analogizing Obasanjo as a shining example why the widely accepted and practiced maxim a leader must first establish leadership locally before progressing or making it at the national stage is misplaced, if anything, because we don't study Nigeria as a model of of democracy. It wasn't an analogy. It was a counterexample. Nobody asked you to buy Nigeria as a model of democracy. You made a claim, telling us that political careers, without qualification---and indeed, by definition---must start locally. The way to refute that claim is to find a political career that didn't start at home. Obasanjo will do, since his political career started away from home, and he has been unpopular at home virtually throughout his career. It has, all the same, been a successful political career---seeing as he's twice been president of Nigeria. That is sufficient to refute your claim. If you want to confine your claim to careers in models of democracy, you're welcome to do so, but the narrowness of that new definition would render it completely uninteresting. It would also be false, given that: (1) you seem to consider the United States a model of democracy, and (2) Barack Obama began his political career in Illinois, not Hawaii. And, even if we did, there are several other reasons I can analyze for you why the Obasanjo example fails to support your unsupportable assertion that what I say is "nonsense" but I have no time for that other than to say for one Obasanjo was an ex-military general and ruler who peacefully and for the fist time transferred power to a civilian government only to return years later to run for president and rode to office on the strength of that fact alone and what all other advantages came with it, while his own people treated him as a traitor and cast their wasted votes on a fellow Yoruban who had no chance against him and his network. The evidence is that (i) he was popular precisely because he was seen as a nationalist and (ii) because he had been jailed by Abacha, and (iii) he was acceptable to a majority of elite backers. Those, rather than your thin, and irrelevant speculation regarding the aftermath of his first term, explain his win. (See, for example, Iliffe's Obasanjo.) There is no other example you can cite with even close circumstances. As above, Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jan 28, 2012 19:44:45 GMT 3
Njamba,Kikuyus cannot trust anyone from outside. I get along with the statement; Kikuyus do not trust anyone from outside. They can trust others - as there are many trustworthy people around - though Kikuyus feel they cannot. It is an emotional feeling of being under siege from outside. Because of this feeling Kikuyus have a strong need to be in control not only over their own society but also over the outside world. The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. Laughable. I notice you don't have any evidence whatever for your claim. Which is convenient, because studies have generally shown that the ethnic group least likely to trust outsiders in Kenya is the Luo. That pattern continues: see e.g. p. 5 of Tribalism as a Minimax-Regret Strategy: Evidence from Voting in the 2007 Kenyan Elections. And this is after the violence in 2007-8 which was specifically directed at Gikuyu by ODMers. I'm, frankly, quite surprised that Gikuyu are not the least trusting of others after that, but the numbers are pretty clear. You are correct; I did not have any specific scientific evidence for my claim. I appreciate your effort to direct me to the study from the University of Connecticut regarding the elections in 2007. It confirms my proposition regarding mistrust between tribes and the need of control. I do not like to repeat the essence of what I have written though it was not about whom is the most distrusting tribe in Kenya and I think the study does not confirm your claim. Interesting is also your reference/link further down the thread to “Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places” by Paul Collier. It gives only promotional write-up to buy the book and no information which could substantiate your claim. Reading your further comments in this thread raises the impression you are just polluting the thread for unknown reasons to me, though it makes it difficult for readers to discover the essence of the discussion. You very successfully throw your sabot into the machinery which also is a form of control though mostly destructive. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 20:45:41 GMT 3
You are correct; I did not have any specific scientific evidence for my claim. I appreciate your effort to direct me to the study from the University of Connecticut regarding the elections in 2007. It confirms my proposition regarding mistrust between tribes and the need of control. (1) You presented no evidence whatever. The problem was the lack of evidence, not the lack of scientific evidence. (2) The study does no such thing. It confirms what has been found by a variety of researchers going back many years: that, of the major ethnic groups in Kenya, Luo are the least trusting of those outside their group. And this remained true after a period of several years--2005 to 2008---during which the politics of the country revolved around continuous Gikuyu hatred, and after a period of 15 years in which the government of the day carried out a campaign of rolling ethnic cleansing. Even after all that, it turns out Gikuyu aren't the least trusting of outsiders. These findings present a problem for your reasoning. ODMers tend to reason from the premiss that Gikuyu don't trust others to the conclusion that a variety of nasty things ought to be done to them. We can test their reasoning by checking whether the same things ought to be done to Luo. After all, Luo have even lower levels of inter-ethnic trust than Gikuyu. Naturally, ODMers have no interest whatever in suggesting that the nasty things should be done to Luo. That is how you can tell that the original anti-Gikuyu point had nothing to do with trust. Another way to reason to the same finding is to notice that ODM's ethnic baiting depends on pairs of directly contradictory arguments. For example: ODMers will argue that Gikuyu are incapable of living and cooperating with anyone else, while, on the hand, they will also argue that Gikuyu were mostly colonial collaborators. Likewise, ODMers will argue that Gikuyu are incapable of trusting anyone else, while at the same time arguing that Gikuyu owe their privilege to their cooperation with colonial power. I do not like to repeat the essence of what I have written though it was not about whom is the most distrusting tribe in Kenya and I think the study does not confirm your claim. Obviously not. You simply assumed that some bad thing must be true of Gikuyu, and proceeded to reason from that assumption. The problem is that Luo are significantly worse in that respect. In the case of Luo, your willingness to reason in the same way is significantly reduced. Interesting is also your reference/link further down the thread to “Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places” by Paul Collier. It gives only promotional write-up to buy the book and no information which could substantiate your claim. Follow the link. It will take you to Googlebooks. In particular, it will take you to page 70 of the Googlebooks version of Wars, Guns and Votes where Collier summarises his evidence of Raila's conduct regarding ethnic cleansing and ethnic mobilisation. You will be unsurprised, I take it, to hear that Raila was the leader in ethnic mobilisation, and that he campaigned on what amounted to a platform for ethnic cleansing. (I await your argument that Collier is a Gikuyu nationalist). |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 28, 2012 21:04:25 GMT 3
DW, I also couldn't get the link to pg. 70 of Collier's book.
|
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 28, 2012 21:56:09 GMT 3
DW, I also couldn't get the link to pg. 70 of Collier's book. Yikes. Dunno what's wrong. Here's the relevant couple of sentences: Odinga ran a campaign that was tantamount to promising ethnic cleansing. His strategy was electorally successful because the Kikuyu, whom he targeted, constituted less than a quarter of the population. There's two alternative ways to find the relevant page in the book. Go directly to books.google.com, and type "Odinga ran a campaign that was tantamount to promising ethnic cleansing" with quotation marks. It should show you page 70. Alternatively, type the sentence into the book's amazon page and it should also bring up the relevant page, and let you view it (assuming you have an amazon account). Incidentally, if you're in Kenya, the book is one sale in Yaya for about KES 1200. |
|
|
|
Post by okolowaka on Jan 28, 2012 22:36:10 GMT 3
....Wewe,
Raila himself declared that he is ready to go uza mandazi in Kibera if he loses the presidential election so hii story ya "writing of the central vote" does not matter any more... What is important is that Kenya is freeing itself of impunity, immeasurable greed, massive looting of public wealth, run-away crime by the high and mighty, that have shackled the country since 1963... Whether Raila "writes off the central vote" will not stop the wheels of justice from turning this time...Uhuru and Muthaura must pay for their words and deeds...this is the new Kenya for you...
This is what matters in this new constitutional dispensation...the rule of law, respecting the spirit and letter of the law...
Meanwhile even if Raila "writes off the central vote"... remember that there are 47 Governor, 47 Senator, 47 Women's Representative, 290 MP, and over 1500 County Assembly Representative posts through which ODM and Raila will rule Country Code 254.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Jan 29, 2012 1:48:54 GMT 3
First, don't always assume my observation or comments are confined in application to Kenyan politics. Often, as in this case, I state a universal proposition that is applicable in most countries where democracy is practiced to some level. Nothing in my reply depends on the assumption that your observation was confined to Kenyan politics. This is, to say the least, hardly obvious. Further, the context in which the claim was made makes it pretty clear that this was what you had in mind. Further, your intentions don't determine the meanings of the words you use. From which it doesn't follow that those who don't establish their credential locally are not to be trusted on that account. Indeed, in countries where establishing your credentials locally entails acting in the ethnocentric manner widespread in Kenyan, and more generally African, politics, he converse seems to hold. Nonsense. Buchanan and Cleveland were bachelors when elected president. Reagan had been divorced and remarried when he was elected President. Jefferson was widely (and rightly) suspected of extramarital sex when he was elected. Moi was elected when it was known that he had an unhappy and unsettled family life---indeed, when it was widely known that he had abandoned his wife. When people say by definition the right question to ask is what definition? There is no definition of political career on which it comes out as necessary that a political career must start locally. It wasn't an analogy. It was a counterexample. Nobody asked you to buy Nigeria as a model of democracy. You made a claim, telling us that political careers, without qualification---and indeed, by definition---must start locally. The way to refute that claim is to find a political career that didn't start at home. Obasanjo will do, since his political career started away from home, and he has been unpopular at home virtually throughout his career. It has, all the same, been a successful political career---seeing as he's twice been president of Nigeria. That is sufficient to refute your claim. If you want to confine your claim to careers in models of democracy, you're welcome to do so, but the narrowness of that new definition would render it completely uninteresting. It would also be false, given that: (1) you seem to consider the United States a model of democracy, and (2) Barack Obama began his political career in Illinois, not Hawaii. The evidence is that (i) he was popular precisely because he was seen as a nationalist and (ii) because he had been jailed by Abacha, and (iii) he was acceptable to a majority of elite backers. Those, rather than your thin, and irrelevant speculation regarding the aftermath of his first term, explain his win. (See, for example, Iliffe's Obasanjo.) There is no other example you can cite with even close circumstances. As above, Obama. You get a "C" for trying to rebut what I said but that's an improvement from what you previously posted over what I said. You have said your piece, I have said mine, whoever reads it will come away with their own conclusions. A few things worth worth noting, however. First, it is clear you are fond of using the word "nonsense," even clearly where it does not apply and my whole response was prove just that point and did so. You now say that my saying no bachelor has been elected president in the US is "nonsense," because you googled and found out that Buchanan and Cleveland were elected as bachelors more than 127 years ago. Did it ever occur to you I was referring to American modern history? Or that the point I made is nonetheless still supported by the very fact that no bachelor has been elected president in all those years and probably never will? In any case, even if you were to assume, arguendo, that the point was contradicted by the missing "in modern history" in my piece or even by the fact these two presidents were elected as bachelors 127 years ago, would it therefore follow that what I said about that point is "nonsense" or merely incorrect? Or is there no difference there as far as you are concerned? Second, talking about differences, your saying you used Obasanjo as a "counterexample" as apposed to "analogizing" as I said you had is a distinction without a difference in the context I stated my proposition. Third, talking about context, Obama moved from Hawaii and made Illinois his adopted state and started his political career there, not his birthplace but that's precisely what the point is I was making, namely, Obama did not land at the White House without having first established his political launching pad locally elsewhere and in this context, locally is Illinois, not Hawaii. I need not address your other attempted rebuttals as my initial sentiments remain intact as to each attempted rebuttal. |
|
