Post by Ed on Sept 15, 2006 2:52:04 GMT 3
Yesterday's villains are today's heroes
Story by MAKAU MUTUA
Publication Date: 9/13/2006
www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=81218
Kenya is a hostage state, it can now be confirmed. The hostages are 30 million Kenyans and the hostage-takers are political mandarins in ODM-Kenya and Narc-Kenya, the two dominant political forces that now suffocate the political landscape.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the bizarre, perverted, and twisted logic for the so-called minimum constitutional reforms ahead of the 2007 elections. The country’s political class believes that it can do almost anything against Kenyans, no matter how foolish and destructive, and get away with it. This is what is called a culture of impunity. For almost two decades, Kenyans have relentlessly fought for a new democratic constitution in the belief that it would end impunity and autocracy. But at every turn, the political elite has thwarted the people’s demand for a new constitution.
Former President Moi and his Kanu cohorts, later joined by Mr Raila Odinga and the now defunct National Development Party, successfully fended off constitutional reform until 2002. One of Mr Moi’s last acts in office was to scuttle the review process by dissolving Parliament just as the National Constitutional Conference was about to commence.
Political greed and myopia
Then enter President Kibaki and Narc. In a bitter struggle for power, both LDP and NAK sabotaged Bomas because of political greed, myopia, and skulduggery. Then Mr Justice Aaron Ringera, in a convenient, though well-argued judgment, saved the day for Mr Kibaki in the Njoya case.
Last year, the Wako Draft, itself a doctored version of the Bomas Draft, went down in flames at the referendum. But the referendum campaigns by both the Banana and Orange factions of the elite were an object lesson in hypocrisy, anti-reform, and hateful lies and propaganda.
Now, almost a year later, the same principle actors are at it again kicking up dust about constitutional reforms. The only difference is that this is Round Three between these protagonists. Bomas was Round One and the referendum Round Two.
To be sure, there have been some realignment, but the script remains the same, as do the motivations of the key factions. It is just the same old tired song, with one or two new verses to give the impression that this is a new, serious, and credible effort.
One side paints the other as obstructionist while other accuses their opponents as hypocritical. Except one thing is strange: most of those calling for minimum constitutional reforms are marked by an undeniable history of anti-reform.
One interesting fact is that most of the genuine constitutional reform advocates in the past decade – both in civil society and those in government – are opposed to minimum reforms. In contrast, those calling for minimum reforms are mostly in ODM-Kenya, and have generally been opposed to a new democratic constitution since the 1990s.
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. Consider the leading lights of ODM-Kenya.
Anyone with a brain can remember where Mr Kalonzo Musyoka, Mr William Ruto, Mr Mutula Kilonzo, Mr Henry Kosgey, and Mr Musalia Mudavadi stood in the long struggle for a democratic constitution. These men stood steadfastly with the Moi-Kanu regime as it brutally persecuted reformers.
Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o, an ODM-Kenya leader, has a more consistent record of reform, although lately he has lost his independence to Mr Odinga. But this is mainly due to the matrix of Luo politics which Mr Odinga rules with an iron hand, and out of which Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o would be summarily excluded were he to stray from ODM-Kenya.
The other curious supporter of minimum reforms is Mr Paul Muite. He opposed IPPG in 1997, but today supports a similar effort because he wants to position himself from the Kibaki regime.
Kanu's Uhuru Kenyatta is caught in a quandary between ODM-Kenya and Mr Moi. That is why he is doing a yo-yo dance in the middle. He is a decent man, but not a reformer. A Moi protégé, he is wondering what the Moi-Kibaki co-operation against ODM-Kenya means for his ambitions. That is why he supports minimum reforms, but is unsure whether he should allow ODM-Kenya to swallow up Kanu.
Thoroughly discredited
The other heroes of yesterday have either squandered their stellar histories or become pathetic apologists for a failed regime. Some, like Mr Kiraitu Murungi were driven out in ignominy. Prof Kivutha Kibwana, once the voice of reform, is today not recognisable. No one can make sense of where Dr Mukhisa Kituyi, the once articulate Young Turk, is headed.
Mrs Charity Ngilu, the one-time darling of feminists and reformers, is a sad shadow of her former self. Ditto for Mr Musikari Kombo. Ms Martha Karua, a decorated gender warrior, is today an embarrassing defender of Kibaki’s regime.
The truth is that as between ODM-Kenya and Narc-Kenya, the people of Kenya are caught in a fix. Both factions of the elite are thoroughly discredited, and none intends to institute true constitutional reforms.
That is why the clamour for minimum reforms must be rejected. For how long does Kenya’s political class think it can continue to hoodwink the public, even as the country’s slides further into lawlessness and poverty? It is time to think outside the box.
Prof Mutua, who chairs the Kenya Human Rights Commission, teaches law at the State University, New York at Buffalo.
Story by MAKAU MUTUA
Publication Date: 9/13/2006
www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=81218
Kenya is a hostage state, it can now be confirmed. The hostages are 30 million Kenyans and the hostage-takers are political mandarins in ODM-Kenya and Narc-Kenya, the two dominant political forces that now suffocate the political landscape.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the bizarre, perverted, and twisted logic for the so-called minimum constitutional reforms ahead of the 2007 elections. The country’s political class believes that it can do almost anything against Kenyans, no matter how foolish and destructive, and get away with it. This is what is called a culture of impunity. For almost two decades, Kenyans have relentlessly fought for a new democratic constitution in the belief that it would end impunity and autocracy. But at every turn, the political elite has thwarted the people’s demand for a new constitution.
Former President Moi and his Kanu cohorts, later joined by Mr Raila Odinga and the now defunct National Development Party, successfully fended off constitutional reform until 2002. One of Mr Moi’s last acts in office was to scuttle the review process by dissolving Parliament just as the National Constitutional Conference was about to commence.
Political greed and myopia
Then enter President Kibaki and Narc. In a bitter struggle for power, both LDP and NAK sabotaged Bomas because of political greed, myopia, and skulduggery. Then Mr Justice Aaron Ringera, in a convenient, though well-argued judgment, saved the day for Mr Kibaki in the Njoya case.
Last year, the Wako Draft, itself a doctored version of the Bomas Draft, went down in flames at the referendum. But the referendum campaigns by both the Banana and Orange factions of the elite were an object lesson in hypocrisy, anti-reform, and hateful lies and propaganda.
Now, almost a year later, the same principle actors are at it again kicking up dust about constitutional reforms. The only difference is that this is Round Three between these protagonists. Bomas was Round One and the referendum Round Two.
To be sure, there have been some realignment, but the script remains the same, as do the motivations of the key factions. It is just the same old tired song, with one or two new verses to give the impression that this is a new, serious, and credible effort.
One side paints the other as obstructionist while other accuses their opponents as hypocritical. Except one thing is strange: most of those calling for minimum constitutional reforms are marked by an undeniable history of anti-reform.
One interesting fact is that most of the genuine constitutional reform advocates in the past decade – both in civil society and those in government – are opposed to minimum reforms. In contrast, those calling for minimum reforms are mostly in ODM-Kenya, and have generally been opposed to a new democratic constitution since the 1990s.
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. Consider the leading lights of ODM-Kenya.
Anyone with a brain can remember where Mr Kalonzo Musyoka, Mr William Ruto, Mr Mutula Kilonzo, Mr Henry Kosgey, and Mr Musalia Mudavadi stood in the long struggle for a democratic constitution. These men stood steadfastly with the Moi-Kanu regime as it brutally persecuted reformers.
Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o, an ODM-Kenya leader, has a more consistent record of reform, although lately he has lost his independence to Mr Odinga. But this is mainly due to the matrix of Luo politics which Mr Odinga rules with an iron hand, and out of which Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o would be summarily excluded were he to stray from ODM-Kenya.
The other curious supporter of minimum reforms is Mr Paul Muite. He opposed IPPG in 1997, but today supports a similar effort because he wants to position himself from the Kibaki regime.
Kanu's Uhuru Kenyatta is caught in a quandary between ODM-Kenya and Mr Moi. That is why he is doing a yo-yo dance in the middle. He is a decent man, but not a reformer. A Moi protégé, he is wondering what the Moi-Kibaki co-operation against ODM-Kenya means for his ambitions. That is why he supports minimum reforms, but is unsure whether he should allow ODM-Kenya to swallow up Kanu.
Thoroughly discredited
The other heroes of yesterday have either squandered their stellar histories or become pathetic apologists for a failed regime. Some, like Mr Kiraitu Murungi were driven out in ignominy. Prof Kivutha Kibwana, once the voice of reform, is today not recognisable. No one can make sense of where Dr Mukhisa Kituyi, the once articulate Young Turk, is headed.
Mrs Charity Ngilu, the one-time darling of feminists and reformers, is a sad shadow of her former self. Ditto for Mr Musikari Kombo. Ms Martha Karua, a decorated gender warrior, is today an embarrassing defender of Kibaki’s regime.
The truth is that as between ODM-Kenya and Narc-Kenya, the people of Kenya are caught in a fix. Both factions of the elite are thoroughly discredited, and none intends to institute true constitutional reforms.
That is why the clamour for minimum reforms must be rejected. For how long does Kenya’s political class think it can continue to hoodwink the public, even as the country’s slides further into lawlessness and poverty? It is time to think outside the box.
Prof Mutua, who chairs the Kenya Human Rights Commission, teaches law at the State University, New York at Buffalo.