A Political Kenya: Latest Politics and Kenya Economy News

A New Year poll found out that Kenyans want a new constitution, cheaper prices for food and jobs in 2010.

This is the astonishing triumph of democratic forces in our country over backroom mafias and out-of-date politics.

It is all the more valuable that the new constitution takes precedence over the other two basic demands.

The poll expresses a great deal to those politicians whose task it now is to pilot the new document into becoming our new fundamental law.

Firstly, that a common concern has become of equal importance with the more individual concerns of daily life. Politicians will no longer find it as easy to exploit poverty and need as they did in the past. A fresh constitution has become as basic a demand as food and employment.

Secondly, that the new constitution is a massive national hope. Huge hopes are being placed on it. Politicians will dash these hopes at peril to their own political futures.

There are expectations that the new constitution will help in many ways. It will be a Truth Justice and Reconciliation step in itself. The new constitution will be part of the truth being told.

Our leaders have to know that we know who is responsible for the harm of the past and the mess of the present. It is most of these 'leaders' themselves. By the change, they will acknowledge that.

The new constitution will be part of the justice we have fought for. It will require government action to be based not upon personal gain, but on national aims.

These are social justice and the equitable sharing of resources and decision-making. The actions of our leaders will be tested against stated national goals. Basic rights will be increasingly enforceable as we move forward.

The new constitution will also be a part of reconciliation. We want all our leaders (of now and the future) to be prevented from using ethnic politics for any reason, much less for their personal advancement and enrichment. We want our politics to reflect national tolerance and concern for all.

These are huge expectations. Kenyans are aware that they will not be attained without a new document. Every single 'leader' has now got the message that he or she cannot be seen to be the one who is thwarting these expectations. Such a leader will be punished at the ballot box and out of it. There is now an immediate cost to blocking change. Dashing these national hopes is a dangerous political strategy. It will not be an acceptable exercise of leadership.

Thirdly, these massive national hopes are a massive national demand. The realisation of these hopes is a palpable and major political demand on every MP, minister, and party official. And every PS.

Ths is not about the interests of the present 42 ministers or the interests of the present 222 MPs. It is about the interests of future Kenyans. They will live under a constitution that will ensure as much as we can, that they will not suffer in a Nyayo House torture chamber, or have the national treasury robbed by Presidents or Prime Ministers, or extra-judicial executions, or political assassinations. This is not about the interests of small cliques, cabals and mafias. It is not about the interests of PSs.

They wield huge power without any accountability. They have entered the fray, through Francis Muthaura, the Cabinet Secretary and Thuita Mwangi, PS in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Affecting the outcomes on the new constitution without being noticed and without public scrutiny, is power without responsibility. That is the prerogative of another and older profession.

But now PSs too know that this huge demand is not capable of being ignored any more. The temptation for them is to ignore that demand and do whatever they want. This is because they have the power to bring about the opposite of what the public wants. This power is hidden, and therefore dangerous. But even PSs are not exempt from this huge public demand.

The New Year's poll will now make them take public opinion into account, even if they have previously chosen to regard it as an irrelevant variable that has never affected them. PSs too are the servants of the people. They too might find their services terminated by their master. The constitutional expectation is not about the choice of 40 powerful PSs. It is about the choice of 40 million Kenyans who wield even more power.

For the first time in his long and chequered political career; Prime Minister Raila Odinga has clearly demonstrated that he is capable of transcending politics and seeing the big picture.

Raila's principled stand on the Mau saga is in great contrast with the narrow and atavistic posture of the Rift Valley political leaders.

Raila has finally achieved states-man status and his political adversaries in Rift Valley, led by Agriculture minister William Ruto, have displayed their hopelessly cynical and devious characters.

Even former President Moi has put both his feet in his mouth on environmental matters.

Rift Valley voted for Raila overwhelmingly in the 2007 Presidential polls and all expectations would ordinarily be that the PM would do everything possible not to alienate this single most numerous bloc of voters barely 36 months to the next presidential contest.

But the Mau issue is an extraordinary matter and the PM has admirably risen to the occasion and shown himself to be an extraordinary politician and a genuine leader.

Raila should take the Mau issue to the next level by making it clear that the views espoused by the current crop of Rift Valley leaders are not necessarily the views of the people of the region.

Come 2012, a very large number of these MPs making such a sorry spectacle of themselves before media cameras will be voted out. They will undoubtedly fall as a direct result of the Mau issue.

The fact that Raila is willing to take such a huge political risk with such a large vote bloc should signal to all thinking Kenyans that it is not business as usual concerning the Mau Forest. It is not every day that a leader of the PM's stature and political savvy goes alienating entire vote blocs.

Unlike the motley crew led by Ruto, Raila has examined all the facts and options about the Mau and reached the inescapable conclusion: it is one of the country's foremost water towers and also serves the region, with implications that reverberate all the way to Egypt. What's more, the planet is in the grip of climate change precisely because of adverse practices such as settling in the Mau.

Raila knows that painful decisions have to be taken over Mau and is prepared to take the consequences.

I do not hold any brief for Raila and for those who care to know, the Prime Minister and myself, except in 2002 when he made his famous "Kibaki Tosha" declaration, have been on different sides of the political divide.

Irrespective of that, I do submit that Raila has outgrown the " Luo tribal chief" tag and is now ready to lead this country.

Go Raila Go! We are behind you and you have our votes.

Kariuki is a PR consultant.

FORMER Mungiki leader Maina Njenga hosted a lavish party on Saturday to celebrate his 41st birthday.

Over 500 guests, including JIAM Bishop Margaret Wanjiru were ushered into Njenga's 16-roomed mansion in Kitengela by a troupe of hired Maasai women dancers.

They were treated to mouth-watering buffet laid by a catering firm with a wide offering of Kikuyu traditional foods and fruits. The guests washed it down with sodas and bottled water before getting a piece of the birthday cake estimated to cost Sh20,000.

Njenga, who only three weeks ago appealed for help to raise Sh5 million to offset mortuary charges so he can bury his wife murdered two years ago, is believed to have spent at least Sh2.5 million.

"This was my birthday and I can't really estimate the cost of the bash since most of what you have seen is from friends and family," Njenga said when asked about the cost.

Bishop Wanjiru who recently baptized Njenga who's new name is John, also conducted a cleansing ceremony at the home. She "anointed" Njenga and his three children.

"The cleansing of this home is in readiness for the burial arrangements. We shall soon raise enough funds to clear the Sh5 million morgue bill," Maina said.

Bishop Wanjiru said Njenga's decision to invite friends and neighbours was a sign of change.

"This was where evil was planned, this was where criminal activities were organised from, this was a scene of violent confrontations between the youths and police leading to spilling of blood," she said.

Maina, accompanied by his cousin Ndura Waruinge, said he will dedicate his birthday to planting trees.

"We can now say that Mungiki is a dead animal, it is dead," he said.

The time for the annual exam results circus has come around again. "Big Drop in KCPE Grades" read the headline in the Star December 30,2009. The sub-heading was "New Rules to Curb Exam Cheating." Were the two related, do you think?

Those who won high marks were feted as conquering heroes, and lists displayed the names of the top 10 students in each region. Hooray for them but what does it all mean?

Does the drop indicate that students were more stupid this year, teachers more incompetent or cheating attempts less successful? And what about all the rest? Those at the bottom? Are they not human beings in need of attention too?

Let's be clear about one thing: exams have nothing to do with real education. All they do is test how good you are at passing exams. The cleverest people in my experience have been notoriously incapable of squeezing their intelligence into the narrow confines of a brief question. The only fair way is by continuous assessment, with perhaps a single exam at the end to confirm key issues.

What of the teachers who taught them? They were not in the picture. This maintains the illusion that clever children will do brilliantly even without teachers, whereas the fact remains that the profession is tied to producing results, demoralised, understaffed and under-resourced.

Apparently there is a shortage of 45,000 teachers in the country but there has been no recruitment for five years in spite of the introduction of free primary education for all.

Why not interview the teachers of the whizzkids? Ask them what methods they used? Were they teaching to the test?

Because real education has to do with learning how to think, how to do research, how to be critical (even of your own teachers and headmasters!) and how to listen to another's point of view.

A true education would teach you how to read material of all kinds and to assess its veracity. It would not make vocation the one and only end for in these difficult and uncertain times, we often need more than one career as former top bankers and lawyers in New York are finding out to their cost.

Imagine that if we had an education system specifically geared to this country's needs (and not a colonial hangover which was long ago abandoned in the "mother" country), one which taught tolerance by rule and example and included studies of the many ethnic groups that make up this society (not only black) that we might not have witnessed the terrible spectacle of the 2008 post elec-tion violence whose scars have not even begun to heal?

Could there be an education that taught that not all whites are rich, not all Asians are greedy, and not all Kikuyus are born with business skills in their genes? That brought back art and music to a place where they are studied seriously, because they too have much to teach us besides offering vocations.

Such a curriculum would not have to worry about cheating because cheating is only useful when the answer is so simple it can fit onto a mobile phone or the back of a hand.

Is there a one word reply to "describe the contribution the peoples of the coast have made to the development of Kenya since independence?"

In all the excitement about numbers there has been no attention paid to content or purpose. Or analysis of the reasons preventing girls from going to school particularly in certain parts of the country.

But when it comes to cheating, my sympathies, I confess are all with those who try. Why shouldn't they? Everyone else does! The least privileged have just been cheated out of billions which would have provided them with essential books and materials not to speak of computers and the culprits, we are now told, predictably, had political motives. But we still don't know their names and the ministers who head the department are still drawing their large salaries. And yes, parents will do absolutely anything to ensure their children get the best exam results because everything hangs on it.

And teachers will assist them because their own status also hangs upon it. Not on how well they taught but on how many pupils passed. But my best Christmas present came by email from one of the worst students I have ever had who was forced, poor girl, to study literature. She failed. But she is now a mental health nurse in the UK and the mother of a toddler.

"You were the best teacher I have ever had, and we gave you such a hard time," she wrote. That was nine years ago, but clearly she has learned something and I am proud of her.

Caplan comments on topical issues.

My fellow Star columnist Charles Mzee recently wrote that one Maina Njenga, former supreme leader of the 'Mungiki' terror squads and now a born-again Christian, was likely to be one of the key factors in determining the outcome of the 2012 election.

He then presented a historic, as well as a sociological account of why the increasing polarisation of the people of Central Province into a small, selfish and manipulative group of "haves" and a very large, dispossessed, and previously easily manipulated group of "have nots" would reach a point of resolution, one way or another, in the 2012 elections.

And that Njenga, as the undisputed leader of the "have nots", would be the single most important person in that crucial election.

At least, that is what I understood Mzee to say in that column.

While I largely agreed with his detailed assessment of why the "have nots" of Central Province have had a raw deal going back to the Mau Mau insurrection of the 1950s, I will only believe in Njenga's reputed massive political influence after I have seen it in action.

Our short history of multiparty democracy has provided many cases of political leaders who seemed to have irresistible influence, but were later found to be incapable of delivering much in the way of presidential votes cast in the millions, or constituencies swept by the dozen.

My focus for that election is therefore more on the Rift Valley, and on the epic battle shaping up between the Agriculture minister William Ruto and the Moi dynasty as represented by the former President and his son Gideon Moi.

And the seriousness of this battle is shown in that it has so far involved not showcase political rallies with dozens of Cabinet ministers and other VIPs in attendance, but rather steady and systematic grassroots campaigns.

Also in that neither side ever acknowledges the other, nor yet hurls insults at the other, but each just goes about making friends and influencing people with quiet determination.

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this political battle for the former President. It is in its own way just as important as the ba¬tles he fought to remain Vice President in the late 1970s, when it was clear that Jomo Kenyatta could not live very much longer.

I would put it this way: while Ruto could lose this battle to the Moi dynasty and still be around to fight again in 2017 - even if he lost his own Eldoret North Constituency seat - for the Moi dynasty it is do-or-die in this next campaign.

Think about it: for almost half a century, going back to the old pre-independence Legislative Council of colonial times, Moi was the undisputed political leader of the Kalenjin community. Then came the 2007 General Election and of three sons of the former President who tried their luck, none won a parliamentary seat.

If the Moi dynasty is again whitewashed in this manner - and this time specifically by Ruto - what chance is there that they can recover from this devastating blow. How would any Moi son ever dare offer himself again as a candidate for Parliament?

So it is virtually guaranteed that the Moi family is not going to be holding anything back this time. And they have the advantage of being the outsiders at present. They have all the time in the world to go about their work of winning enough support on the ground to ensure that when it really matters, Ruto will find that he actually does not command the unquestioning loyalty of the Kalenjin community as his hangers-on are inclined to claim.

And this, as it happens, is precisely how elections are won in Kenya — and why there is such a huge turnover in parliamentary representation in this country.

The sitting MP, whether serving in the Cabinet or sitting quietly on the back-benches, will usually have all sorts of things to attend to: parliamentary sittings; committee meetings; seminars; tours (both local and international); and the conspiratorial conclaves at which, increasingly, the outcomes of votes in Parliament are determined.

Meantime the challenger has none of these things to worry about: he or she can just quietly go about the business of meeting voters and listening to their problems; coming up with well-timed initiatives to show that he is "development conscious", etc.

So if I was asked to place a bet on the eventual outcome of the political struggle in the Rift Valley, I would bet my few shillings that the Mois will win and Ruto will lose.

Muga comments on topical issues.

Media reports of utterances by politicians indicate that there is confusion and a grave misunderstanding on the system of government we have.

There have also been false claims on what the majority of Kenyans purportedly want.

Contrary to a myth being propagated by those who have exploited the existing schizophrenic system; the system we have in Kenya is not presidential. Although it has parliamentary roots, due to numerous mutilations under both Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi, the current constitution is now a full-blown mongrel with no singular genetic trait.

Because it is neither parliamentary nor presidential, the essential ingredients that distinguish one system from the other are missing; even the benefits of either system cannot accrue to the people of Kenya.

Many people believe, wrongly, that a system is presidential when the head of state and government is called a President. This is not an argument one would want to have with people who have more than basic education.

Unfortunately, it is a debate that has been , forced on us and which we can only ignore at great risk to the future of this country.

In South Africa, for example, the head of state and government is called a President even though the system — from top to bottom — is a federal parliamentary system. South African Presidents assume office when their political parties win majority seats in Parliament.

No one votes directly for the President and MPs. Parliamentary seats are allocated to parties based on the overall performance of each in the General Election. Yet, we have never heard complaints that the mandate the South African Presidents derive from winning majority seats in the elections is inferior to the so-called "directly" elected people.

In Kenya, the basic system of government is actually parliamentary. MPs, including presidential candidates, are required by law to contest parliamentary seats.

At independence, the head of state was the Queen whose representative, the governor-general, acted in her absence. The head of government was a Prime Minister who assumed that position by virtue of being the leader of the political party with majority seats in Parliament. Both the head of state and government derived their mandates and legitimacy differently. The method of assuming office does not determine the functions, responsibilities and privileges of each office.

When Kenyatta repeatedly mutilated the independence constitution in order to merge the functions of "state" and those of "government" in one office, which he chose to call the "presidency", he created a mongrel. The mongrel he created was at the executive level with no corresponding or accompanying structures, institutions and laws that would ensure accountability.

Sadly, Kenyatta did not stop the demolition of the structural foundations of a parliamentary system; he went out of his way to weaken and eventually emasculate both the legislature and the judiciary. As a result, the checks and balances that are necessary in a presidential and parliamentary systems were destroyed.

Therefore, if our intention is to construct a modern democratic system; a system that respects and upholds the constitution, the rule of law and human rights, then we must craft new edifices, structures and institutions to entrench it.

We must craft a system that disperses, decentralises and decongests power from the centre. The starting point must be with the clear separation of "state" and "government" functions.

A question has been asked why one would go around the country looking for votes and then cede executive authority to another person elected through a different method.

Firstly, one would voluntarily decide which office to seek. If one believes that the functions of a head of state or a head of government are not commensurate with the task of seeking votes — directly or otherwise — one would be free not to seek that office.

Secondly, it is the constitution that will allocate functions to each office. And since the constitution is the supreme law, everyone must comply with its provisions.

Thirdly, executive functions are not only in the running of government affairs. Executive functions are exercised daily by the head of state as commander-in-chief, in making diplomatic appointments and by state functionaries and constitutional office holders, among other things.

Most Kenyans support the hybrid system prescribed by the Committee of Experts.

However, for it to work, particularly at the executive level, functions of state and those of government must be clearly delineated. If one person is allocated the function of being head of state and government, it would be difficult to convince many people that, at least at the executive level, the system is a hybrid. The retention of the current mongrel system is not an option.

The author is the Prime Minister's adviser on coalition affairs.

As we enter 2010, we ponder over the coming year.

In a period where the expectations of a new constitution feature high, it is of value to consider too our expectations of how elected leaders must rule under our system.

The traditional Kenyan concept was that government represents all society and that all parts of society must see themselves in the face of government. That is how our traditional societies designed the organisation of ruling.

Then we took the Westminster model. We found then that the losers of the prescribed elections were not seen in government. We found too that government did not then see itself as representing all Kenya. It made some regions of the country prosper, and made others decline into depressed economies with dropping education and nutrition levels. We saw that under that system, the winner took all.

The fault was not in the system. We chose to distort it. Our leaders believed that if they won an election they did not need to consult those who had lost. The winners believed that for the next five years they did not need to listen to those who had lost, and certainly did not need to have their consent to anything.

The leaders who had lost the election were shut out of both government and governing. The result was misgovernment.

The reality is different. The reality is that even after an election, the winner must seek out its opponents and rule with the consent of all. The reality is that all government needs consent.

'The consent of the governed' is not of only a part of the country, but of it all. This is what Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1958 to 1964, (over the period of our independence), told a Kenyan politician, who wrote later: "As usual, Macmillan ranged over a wide field .. .

In particular he pointed out that it was impossible to govern Great Britain without the consent of the opposition and it was essential to have their agreement on many large issues.

Whatever happened at the elections there was a broad measure of agreement on many intricate national matters such as the position of the monarchy, the development of the nuclear deterrent and on basic economic issues, which maintained the so-called af-fluent society."

Kenya's 'intricate national matters' are even more pressing. We cannot successfully attack the emergency that we face after 45 years of misrule: 45 per cent of Kenyans below the poverty level. This means every day over 18 million Kenyans are living in poverty.

To move 18 million people out of poverty is a major task for any government. A government that continually and in every way attacks its opponents in Parliament, administration and the media, cannot solve this problem.

This is the type of government we have had from 1966 to 2008. Such an attitude breaks two expectations of good government: it does not solve the country's problems, which become chronic; two, it breeds intolerance in society at large. We have seen exactly both happening.

The process of government works best as a consultative process, rather than as a process of imposing the will of one party or person upon all others. Consultation encourages greater tolerance in society. Both in government and in society at large we need support for the tolerance that Kenyan society has always had, and still has, but which politicians have worked so selfishly and so long to erode for their own personal gain.

The opposition is a check mechanism, not an exclusionary device. It has a formal position called the Leader of the Opposition, performing two functions. From the opposition, it requires loyalty to national processes even when out of office.

From the successful party it requires consultation with those against it, even though the latter are out of office.

The Westminster model works with more than constitutional written laws. It works with unwritten social conventions and values. Our social conventions and values are needed to make our new constitution work.

Thus in 2010, when we change the details of our constitution, we need also to change the way in which we will operate that new constitution, the way we rule. We will need to bring in our values of respect for tolerance and wisdom. Only with these, enabling ruling by broad consent and government, will we bring about the change which we want 2010 to herald in.

The writer is a well known constitution lawyer.