Post by Ed on Nov 29, 2005 20:37:46 GMT 3
A test for Kenya
Published: November 29 2005 02:00
Last updated: November 29 2005 02:00
Europe has experience of governments losing referendums. But in Africa there is no precedent for Kenyans' decisive rejection last week of a long-awaited new constitution. The outcome leaves east Africa's regional economic power in a potentially volatile situation.
President Mwai Kibaki, who in many respects has disappointed the hopes placed in him at the time of his election triumph three years ago, now has a last opportunity to prove the extent of his commitment to genuine change.
When the referendum results came out, he took the bold - some would say shrewd - step of dismissing his entire cabinet, momentarily regaining the momentum over the opposition and government dissidents. He should now be equally courageous in cleaning out his stables and providing Kenyans with the kind of functioning and responsive government they expected when they voted him into office.
Africa is learning to its cost that there is much more to democracy than holding free elections. Kenya was looked upon as an example of how Africa could overcome entrenched and over-powerful regimes, a beacon for others such as neighbouring Uganda, where President Yoweri Museveni is right now digging himself in.
There can be no doubt that Kenya has become a much freer and more open country, with rising economic optimism. But there has been no real change in the tribally dominated nature of its politics, or its political class, much of which, including Mr Kibaki himself, served with the old autocratic regime of Daniel arap Moi.
Mr Kibaki has been a remote and feeble leader. To the exasperation of donors, his government has been dilatory in carrying out reforms and has failed to make a convincing job of tackling persistent senior-level corruption. Its approach to the constitution was another let-down. Plans for a complete overhaul go back to well before Mr Kibaki won power, and he promised to complete the process within 100 days. But the draft eventually put to the vote was little more than a beefed-up version of the current charter.
Constitutional change could have laid down a marker for other African countries. A main plank of the original proposals, upheld by a constitutional review last year, was to reduce the president's powers, transferring a significant part to a prime minister. Any substantial change in this direction was pruned from the final draft.
Mr Kibaki must now recognise that the referendum result was a judgment on his government. He is clearly reluctant to hold early elections under a constitution that is well overdue for updating. To win back confidence, however, he needs to appoint a different kind of government, less tainted by self-interest and more willing and able to address the country's urgent needs. These needs include a new constitution-making process that corresponds to Kenyans' legitimate expectations.
news.ft.com/cms/s/b3b9bace-607c-11da-a3a6-0000779e2340.html
Published: November 29 2005 02:00
Last updated: November 29 2005 02:00
Europe has experience of governments losing referendums. But in Africa there is no precedent for Kenyans' decisive rejection last week of a long-awaited new constitution. The outcome leaves east Africa's regional economic power in a potentially volatile situation.
President Mwai Kibaki, who in many respects has disappointed the hopes placed in him at the time of his election triumph three years ago, now has a last opportunity to prove the extent of his commitment to genuine change.
When the referendum results came out, he took the bold - some would say shrewd - step of dismissing his entire cabinet, momentarily regaining the momentum over the opposition and government dissidents. He should now be equally courageous in cleaning out his stables and providing Kenyans with the kind of functioning and responsive government they expected when they voted him into office.
Africa is learning to its cost that there is much more to democracy than holding free elections. Kenya was looked upon as an example of how Africa could overcome entrenched and over-powerful regimes, a beacon for others such as neighbouring Uganda, where President Yoweri Museveni is right now digging himself in.
There can be no doubt that Kenya has become a much freer and more open country, with rising economic optimism. But there has been no real change in the tribally dominated nature of its politics, or its political class, much of which, including Mr Kibaki himself, served with the old autocratic regime of Daniel arap Moi.
Mr Kibaki has been a remote and feeble leader. To the exasperation of donors, his government has been dilatory in carrying out reforms and has failed to make a convincing job of tackling persistent senior-level corruption. Its approach to the constitution was another let-down. Plans for a complete overhaul go back to well before Mr Kibaki won power, and he promised to complete the process within 100 days. But the draft eventually put to the vote was little more than a beefed-up version of the current charter.
Constitutional change could have laid down a marker for other African countries. A main plank of the original proposals, upheld by a constitutional review last year, was to reduce the president's powers, transferring a significant part to a prime minister. Any substantial change in this direction was pruned from the final draft.
Mr Kibaki must now recognise that the referendum result was a judgment on his government. He is clearly reluctant to hold early elections under a constitution that is well overdue for updating. To win back confidence, however, he needs to appoint a different kind of government, less tainted by self-interest and more willing and able to address the country's urgent needs. These needs include a new constitution-making process that corresponds to Kenyans' legitimate expectations.
news.ft.com/cms/s/b3b9bace-607c-11da-a3a6-0000779e2340.html