A Political Kenya: Latest Politics and Kenya Economy News

ON THE FACE OF IT, A grand coalition of parties does not appeal. Cautious voices have warned that we are likely to end up with an adhocracy in Parliament – a messy arrangement where the distinction between the opposition and the Government will be blurred, and where oversight institutions of the House will find it difficult to function.

Yet in our present circumstances, and in a context where politics is played along ethnic lines, only an arrangement that allows all the major interest groups to share power according to an agreed formula has a chance of healing the country.

We cannot just cling to the adversarial system of governance as though it was dogma, when the alternative is hundreds of people dead, thousands displaced, and a looming economic crisis.

In ethnically divided Kenya, staying in the opposition implies permanent exclusion of members of some communities from public positions, including those of permanent secretaries, directors of parastatals, and top positions in the disciplined forces, especially the military.

It can also imply that the regions of the ethnic communities sitting in the opposition benches are starved of resources, while the communities “in government” continue to hog the lion’s share of resources and public positions.

In this country, the State is still the most important source of investment and national employment. This is why it is so difficult to persuade people to sit in the opposition benches or to convince them that it is worth their while to play their watchdog role of taking seriously the leadership of the oversight committees of the House.

Sitting in the opposition is also disadvantageous because of the risk of losing your members to the Government side through co-option.

The Big Man will be dangling the carrot of public appointments, lucrative contracts to insiders, new districts for your region, and a university for your province.

And before you know it, the opposition will have been reduced to a one-ethnic-group affair, and its members will be dismissed as bad-tempered and eccentric individuals with neither influence nor clout – very much in the vein of the small group of radicals that former power man Charles Njonjo used to refer to as the “seven bearded sisters”.

What is my point? It is that at the stage we are in at the moment, a well-crafted power-sharing formula will send strong signals to the citizenry.

This might be the only way to demonstrate to the various ethnic communities in this country that their political leaders are now prepared to reunite and heal the country.

IT IS TIME OUR LEADERS DEMONstrated a capacity to change and learn from past experience. If we are to get the nation’s adrenaline going again, we must end the era of stiff-necks, frozen postures and unbending minds.

If there was a time we needed leadership, it is now. Leaders must emerge, from both sides of the political divide, who avoid inflammatory speeches, who can restrain the tempers of their ethnic followers, and who are willing to make compromises with their adversaries.

This country badly needs a leader to hold the country together and replenish its self-confidence – a healer to treat the political as well as economic wounds inflicted on its citizens, and a pilot to guide the nation onward to a modern state where citizens will prefer to relate to one another as compatriots instead of as kinsmen.

And, as we address power-sharing, we must also address radical reforms of the civil service. All those politically-appointed permanent secretaries who have reached retirement age should step aside to leave space for de-motivated career civil servants who have marked time in public service for years, hoping against hope that they will one day rise to the top.

Today, you can count with a few fingers the number of permanent secretaries who have risen through the ranks to occupy this coveted post.

We will need to introduce measures to strengthen the Public Service Commission, the official employer for the Government.

On paper, the commission has very transparent systems of recruiting people in the civil service. In 2005, it published new regulations spelling out detailed procedures for recruitment and tightening up the qualifications needed for each position.

Under the new rules, all positions have to be advertised, even when internal promotions are being considered. They include an appeals mechanism, as well as an obligation to ensure regional balance in employment.

But in reality, the rules are honoured more in breach than in practice. The appeals mechanism has not worked. In view of the fact that perceived discrimination in civil service appointments has become a highly-charged political issue, there is a strong case to raise the profile and autonomy of the Public Service Commission.

The Cabinet has also proved to be too large and unwieldy. There is a strong case for reducing the number of ministries by redefining roles and reducing responsibility to a few core functions.

www.nationmedia.com

WE HAVE BEEN GETTING a lot of hype in the past few days about an imminent breakthrough in the talks trying to negotiate a way out of Kenya’s political crisis.

But it seems to me that a lot of what we are hearing is based either on mere speculation or selective leaks by one or other of the parties involved in the power struggle.

So far, a lot seems to be pointing to agreement on a sort of power-sharing arrangement.

But there clearly is no agreement yet. So far what we have is only an acknowledgement by both sides that there is a serious problem which can only be fixed by a political settlement.

Accepting the principle of power-sharing or a joint interim administration is quite some distance removed from an actual agreement.

In any case, details on what shape such an administration would take differ wildly depending on which side is being generous with leaks about what is being discussed behind closed doors.

There is clearly a lot of hard bargaining ahead, but it is at least a step forward that both sides seem to be relaxing their initial intransigent positions and edging towards meeting halfway.

All along the public position taken by the Government has been that President Kibaki won the election fairly and that the opposition reacted to electoral loss with a campaign of violence.

Therefore, in the Government’s view, the only thing worth talking about was the opposition calling an end to the violence and seeking redress in an election petition court.

The opposition, however, has been adamant that its candidate, Mr Raila Odinga was the real victor in the presidential elections.

They have been insisting that President Kibaki was not the winner and therefore should resign to pave the way for a fresh election.

Talk about a softening of positions is a clear sign that both sides recognise the urgent need for a political solution.

The power-sharing option looks like the best option, but such an arrangement can only be of a temporary nature to create room for comprehensive constitutional reforms pending fresh elections.

It should never be, as is being suggested in some quarters, simply to provide “jobs for the boys”.

Creating the post of Prime Minister for Mr Odinga and admitting some of his party MPs in a unitary government is one thing.

Simply creating room, also, for the opposition to appoint its own nominees to senior civil service and parastatal positions is quite another.

What we should be looking towards is creating a strictly apolitical and professional civil service, not one staffed by relatives, friends, political supporters, hangers-on and cronies of either President Kibaki and Mr Odinga.

A POWER-SHARING SYSTEM IN which the principal participants are deeply suspicious of each other is difficult enough to manage.

It would be even more difficult when the policy implementation arm of Government, the civil service, is divided down the middle with key officials loyal to different political camps.

It also follows that where the country is under such a temporary administration, the public service should assume a far greater role in actually running the country than under ordinary circumstances, while the political leadership busies itself with other matters.

Any settlement based on power-sharing should therefore come with radical reform and overhaul to create a strong and very independent public service that is completely insulated from political influence.

This obviously should start with resignation of all permanent secretaries and other presidential appointments to make room for fresh recruitment by an independent and apolitical Public Service Commission, complete with parliamentary oversight and vetting.

Here, the focus should be on strengthening the relevant boards and commissions, getting rid of existing political appointees, and putting in place mechanisms to ensure that merit — in terms of qualifications, experience and diversity — always takes precedence over politics.

Of course, all these concerns about the public service would be academic in the absence of a political settlement.

That settlement hinges on President Kibaki accepting that he probably did not win the elections, and Mr Odinga accepting that he probably did not win either.

In other words, none of the two has a legitimate and cast-iron claim to the presidency, and so the only solution is another election.

Of course, an election cannot take place until there is an adequate cooling-off period, peace is restored, and the necessary constitutional and administrative reforms are enacted.

Any such reforms must obviously be worked on jointly by both sides, and hence the rationale for the power-sharing formula.

Looked at rationally, however, it is really not about sharing power; it is not about sharing the spoils or eating together.

It is about sharing responsibility in an interim administration whose main function would be to push through the reforms vital towards creating an environment for fresh elections under a system that will not again lead this country into the path of death and destruction.

www.nationmedia.com