A Political Kenya: Latest Politics and Kenya Economy News

The young people lost out in the new line-up of the grand coalition Cabinet unveiled by President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

A handful of those who made it were appointed to play a peripheral role in a bloated 42-member Cabinet, which largely comprised old guards, some who have dominated the political scene ever since pre-independence days.

For the new faces incorporated, it emerged most of them served as key allies of these octogenarians. To add insult to injury, a section of those appointed have questionable past.

Notably, in the December 27, 2007 General Election, Kenyans voted in a big way for change. They replaced most old guards with focused, energetic and intellectually-rich youthful politicians.

So, why ignore this crucial sector of young leaders? Did the move amount to insulting the intelligence of Kenyans?

Granted, the same scenario replayed in the civil service appointments. Instead of infusing fresh blood, those above retirement age of 55 years, were retained and new ones appointed.

A classic example is Mr Francis Muthaura, the head of Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet. The other is Education PS Karega Mutahi who are in their 60s.

It is a pity to note that some of them were recalled after attaining the statutory retirement age 55 during the Moi regime.

The buck stops with the appointing authority. My take is that a society that forsakes and ignores the youth is incubating disaster and sitting on a time bomb. One day, it will explode.

The youth will rise up to demand their rights.

JOSEPH MUTUA,
Nairobi.

Now that we have seen how the grand coalition government has been constituted from President to PSs, we can conclude that not much has changed.

Let us forget about politicians as they have shared what they wanted. It now up to us to meditate over what we can do for ourselves in the next five years.

Politicians will always be there every five years asking for votes with all promises, including heaven, only to betray us.

Kenyans, let us move on with our lives!

NJAGI ZEDEKIA,
Embu.

I fail to understand who the Government is serving if they cannot hear the cry of Kenyans?
I also fail to understand why the President should retain his age mates in parastatals and as Permanent Secretaries.

There are so many young graduate Kenyans who can do their jobs! What do you take us for?
The young people are burning with bitterness. Probably, the Government does not want us to join the civil service, hence the idea of loans from the Ministry of Youth Affairs.

In most important appointments, there are hardly ever those between 25 and 35 years. I do not think we should be leaders of tomorrow forever. We want to start right away.

The President should strive to leave a legacy as one who worked well for the benefit of the needy Kenyans.

I do not see the need for the police using teargas on peaceful Kenyans who want to chart the way forward for this nation.

The country is badly polarised, and it is not just about you and Mr Odinga.

ENOS ALBERT ADOMA,
Homa Bay.

What happened to Kibaki, we knew as a gentleman, a classic economist, and a statesman, urbanised and non-violent, both in words and deeds?

Please President Kibaki, take it upon yourself to save this state from ruin.
Come out of the shadow of a small group of people and walk straight into the bright sunshine of Kenyans.

A small group, including MPs, judges permanent secretaries, parastatal bosses and Army generals, are getting a disproportionate slice of our national pie. They would like the status quo to be maintained at any cost.

Bad leadership is a worldwide problem, but most of us believed President Kibaki’s character could not be associated with what we are witnessing in our country.

In 1992, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, expressed his hope that Kenya one day will be a place where the mind will be without fear, and the head held high by every citizen. Let’s fulfil his wish.

LUCAS ADAMS,
Nairobi.

By agreeing to a coalition government, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga put aside vile scramble for raw power in favour of true statesmanship.

Before the events that led to Kenya’s defining moment become a footnote in our history, it is important that we examine the factors that breed conflict and also draw lessons from Ghana in trying to create a sense of nationhood.

The prosperity achieved since Kenya’s independence has occurred at the expense of persisting inequalities, diversification and weaknesses in human development. Structural conflicts and the overzealous nature of sycophants and technocrats have, for a long time, thwarted our quest for shared prosperity.

Structural conflicts are caused by unequal control, ownership or distribution of resources, unequal power or authority, and geographic, physical or environmental factors that hinder cooperation.

Creation of the Ministry for the Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands is a bold and commendable move in designing mechanisms for equitable development.

President Kibaki and Mr Odinga need to be vigilant about individuals and actions that pervert a vital larger cause of fairness and justice in the distribution of resources and opportunities.

Fairness and equity are issues that should be confronted by all Kenyans. When I recently checked on the results of a certain ministry’s promotion interviews by the Public Service Commission, out of 150 officers promoted, close to 100 came from one region.

It is such skewed promotions that have caused so many immensely demotivated personnel (IDPs) in the civil service.

Kenya can draw important lessons from Ghana, a country that gave us President John Kufuor and chief mediator Kofi Annan during the post –election crisis.

Ghana has managed to avoid ethnic conflict, partly because of the policy of ensuring an even spread of political power is largely maintained over the years.

EMONG’OR EKISA,
Meru.

It is a shame that the meeting that the President and the Prime Minister held with MPs from Rift Valley failed to agree on an immediate solution to one of the most pressing issues of the day.

The fate of Kenyans who were forced out of the province by post-election ethnic violence was never one for a quick fix.

The very fact that violence broke out on such a scale in the wake of a disputed presidential election is testimony to the fact that such bloodshed was just waiting for the trigger.

The power-sharing agreement between President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, and establishment of a grand coalition government was not an end in itself, but merely part of a long process that should lead to discussion and resolution of issues we have in the past preferred to sweep under the carpet.

The continuing talks aimed at resolving some of Kenya’s deep-seated national problems will obviously pay special attention to the issues of land, historical grievances and ethnic relations in the Rift Valley.

These are issues that will take a long time to resolve. The immediate return of the Rift Valley refugees is not feasible when tension and hostility still persists, and when the Government lacks the means to guarantee security for those who do.

However, the insistence on a resolution of outstanding issues before any return programme is launched is callous to the extreme.

It could take months and years before all the issues are addressed. The signal the MPs are sending is that they actually do not want a settlement.

This can only lend credence to the belief that they were party to an organised ethnic-cleansing programme in the first place.

With goodwill and concern for hundreds of thousands of displaced Kenyans, a solution can be found.

CHINA IS RAMPAGING, AND the West is restive. In the last few years, Western media propaganda has focused on China’s role in the Darfur crisis, accusing Beijing of propping up the el-Bashir dictatorship which is waging ethnic cleansing in which over 200,000 people have died since 2003.

The world’s second biggest consumer of petroleum products, China has over the last decade invested heavily in Sudan’s petroleum industry.

The main beef by the West about China, however, goes beyond Sudan and its bloody oil. What worries the Tran-Atlantic family is China’s runaway internationalism. Chinese presence is palpable everywhere on the globe, thanks to the country’s growing economic might.

The focus of the West’s attention is, however, the developing world in general, and Africa in particular.

Americans are particularly burning the midnight oil to ensure china is tamed. Proxy assaults such as the CIA’s role in the Tibet crisis aside, the post-9/11 National Security Strategy (2002) aims, inter alia, “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”.

However, the worry about China becoming another USSR is a purely Trans-Atlantic problem. Following the November 2006 African leaders’ Beijing summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Europeans not to “leave the commitment to Africa to the People’s Republic of China,” emphasising the need to “take a stand in Africa.”

Should Africa fear or embrace China? For those who grew up in the Cold War era, the most memorable Afro-Chinese interaction was as partners in the struggle against Western colonialism and neo-colonialism. At the economic level, China’s most important landmark in this region was the Tanzania-Zambia Railway Line (Tazara), built in the 1970s.

The post-Cold War China has opened up its economy, leading to an unprecedented boom. But as they say, for every action, there must be a counter-action.

China’s economic boom and the concomitant global spread are rubbing up some interests the wrong way.

The Chinese factor in Sudan, for instance, is not confined to the Darfur question. It more importantly impinges on the greater North-South Sudan and the northern Uganda peace processes.

Here is why.

An independent South Sudan does not guarantee China uninterrupted flow of the black gold. Secondly, by sponsoring the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) as a key strategy to keep the Sudanese National Resistance Movement on its toes, President el-Bashir would love to have Kony’s boys around for a little longer.

The effect is to undermine the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and to destabilise the entire Great Lakes Region.

CHINA’S HUGE APPETITE FOR Africa’s enormous natural wealth is also being felt in Zambia where, environmentally-insensitive copper mining activities by Chinese multinationals has become an emotive political issue.

In Mozambique, deforestation in the Zambezia region where thousands of locals have been licensed to supply timber to Chinese companies is causing havoc. In neighbouring Angola, similar environmental concerns have been aired about Chinese aggressive oil mining ventures.

In engaging Africa, China is dangling quite succulent carrots: It pledges to double assistance to the continent by the year 2009; cancel debts to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs); build the African Union’s Conference Centre, and establish a multibillion-dollar China-Africa development fund to encourage Chinese companies to invest in Africa.

Chinese experimentation with economic internationalism is legendary, but it is has not been without controversies. In south East Asia, the Chinese are treated as exploitative, insular, “outsider” economic minorities, in the league of Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, and whites in southern Africa.

Every cloud, however, has a silver lining. In Kenya, a Chinese company, China National Oil Corporation (CNOOC), is on the verge of discovering oil in the eastern part of the country. If the discovery happens, Kenya will be catapulted to the league of oil-rich nations in the region.

China is also interested in large-scale food crop farming in Kenya, an experiment it wants to replicate from Uganda, where hundreds of Chinese are growing corn on a 10,000-acre piece of land.

In all these ventures, the principle of China’s self-interest, like the desire to plough back home the wealth they make in Africa, is not missed.

Importantly, China’s increasing outward-looking tendency is fuelled by its rapid post-socialist industrialisation crusade, which is eating up agricultural land back home.

The bottom line here is that China seeks to cushion its victims of globalisation by exporting them to Africa, where they can create wealth for themselves and their motherland.

But at what cost? For Kenya, it would be politically naive to invite an outsider to exploit our land for agricultural purposes at a time when we are slaughtering one another in the name of a land crisis.

The West is not an angel, but China’s role in Africa should be treated with a pinch of salt.

Mr Mwalulu comments on political and social issues.

The hue and cry over the bloated Cabinet notwithstanding, it is true that some of the seemingly minor dockets were long overdue.

Minister Mutula Kilonzo has been charged with overseeing the Nairobi Metropolitan Region, an expanded version of Nairobi City Council.

On the face of it, this might look like a duplication of the role of the Ministry of Local Government. But in terms of the challenges facing the wider Nairobi, there is no arguing with the fact that radical measures have to be taken to remedy a dire situation.

Arguably, the resource-deficient satellite towns, which include Thika, Kiambu, Kitengela, Athi River, Ngong and Ongata Rongai, are part of Nairobi’s problems that include over-population and traffic congestion, pollution, crime and poor planning.

It is time coordinated efforts were taken to resolve the worsening problems in one package.

However, a number of issues have to be addressed before this dream can turn into reality.

One, the ministry has to be given legal teeth to eliminate any conflict with civic bodies, and the Local Government ministry.

Second, it is high time the city was divided into boroughs to ease administration. It would make no sense to enlarge one problematic entity without creating more efficient and manageable units.

Three, it is critical that the idea be properly marketed so that it is not politicised at the expense of the public good. Stakeholders here would include residents, who will be subjected to new levies.

THE SECURITY OF KENYANS IS guaranteed in the Constitution. Therefore, the Government should be concerned about the recurrent offensive carried out by the outlawed Mungiki sect, which have created a security nightmare.

Last week, the sect members successfully organised violent demonstrations for four days in Nairobi and other main towns.

Security forces were once again caught flat-footed and 30 lives and a great deal of property destroyed.

As usual, the Government responded by warning Mungiki sect followers to stop their destructive activities or risk being wiped out. The newly-appointed tough talking Internal Security minister, just like his predecessor, said the Government will never negotiate with Mungiki or any other terror group.

We should have known by now that this big talk and chest-thumping does not scare the Mungiki, and is not going to eradicate them. If we are going to stop further wanton destruction of life and property, then we have to choose between the only two choices available.

THE FIRST CHOICE IS DIALOGUE. There are two good reasons for this. One, our security forces do not appear to be a match for the educated, skilled and motivated sect members.

Two, the fact that Mungiki have successfully launched the Kenya National Youth Alliance as their political wing shows that they have an ideology and an agenda.

The other option available to us, which will take time to implement, is to adopt a more professional approach in handling Mungiki affairs and officially declare them a domestic terrorist organisation.

A review of several definitions of terrorism confirms Mungiki is a modern terror group just like the Ku Klux Klan, Red Brigades, Aum Shinrikyo, Hizbollah, or al-Qaeda. The most commonly accepted scholastic definition of terrorism is the 1992 one by the United Nations.

UN defined terrorism as “an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrasts to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.”

Terrorism is also defined under Title 22 of the US Code, section 2656f (d). The term “terrorism” means politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.

And according to FBI, “terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Finally, the US Department of Defence defines terrorism as “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are political, religious or ideological”.

From these definitions, the five common elements of terrorism are: coercive, deliberate, dynamic, political and psychological. Mungiki has excelled in all of them.

In this second option, there are two advantages of officially declaring Mungiki a domestic terrorist group. To start with, the problem will be given priority and resources will be allocated.

Secondly, the responsibility of monitoring and acting against the group will shift from the police to the National Counter-terrorism Intelligence Unit.

This is important because the kind of investigation done by police is based on physical evidence of an offence after it has occurred.

But counter-terrorism intelligence is primarily concerned with the identification and stopping of terrorist activities before they happen.

NCIU WILL PROACTIVELY DEFINE Mungiki, develop psychological and social profiles of its followers, identify their ideologies, and establish their structure.

This means that information can be released to the public domain in terms of Mungiki tactical structure and followers’ level of commitment.

For once, the public will know the Mungiki leadership — people responsible for planning, organising, staffing and controlling the group; cadres — people in charge of group surveillance, intelligence, executions and so on; supporters — politicians in and out of Parliament and other financiers; and finally, sympathisers — people not fully committed, but who sympathise with its goals.

It is this last group which provides a reservoir for new recruits.

This exposure will help to curtail their activities. Therefore, either of the two choices is viable.