Why Public Watchdog must watch what he says.

While I agree with the general tenor of Public Watchdog's commentary today, I must take issue with some of it's propositions (Hassan Omar has a right to express his opinion but isn't public sector tribalism pervasive? The Standard, December 20, 2011). Public Watchdog argues that "...tribalism and unfairness in resources distribution including appointments represents the biggest threat to national cohesion and social stability..." and that "...every tribe has a right to the presidency..."

First, appointments in the public sector are not supposed to be rewards, or rights, of one ethnic community or another. The responsibilities and obligations of the public service are to bring essential and other government services to all parts of the nation. Appointments of public servants are not supposed to guarantee that such services will be delivered to the residents of areas where the appointees come from. If we take Public Watchdog's argument at face value, then if a particular ethnic community dominates a government department, then the services offered by that particular department will be predominantly delivered to the geographical area occupied by members of that ethnic community. This would be an absurd result; the monies expended to deliver these services are raised from taxes levied on all Kenyans, and not just from that particular community, therefore, they must be expended equitably to ensure that these services are delivered to all.

The role of the public service, therefore, is to assess the relevant development indices of various parts of the country and ensure that the allocation of scant national resources are geared towards the upliftment of the living conditions of all Kenyans at the same general rate. It is irrelevant that one particular community dominates one department; their duty is not to their ethnic community but to the nation. If they are incapable of understanding this basic truism, then they should be removed from public service altogether. The solution is not to to ensure 'regional balance' in appointments to public service so as to to guarantee regional balance in development (though government must reflect the face of the nation); the solution is to compel the public service to serve all parts of the country equitably and to ensure that no community is left behind.

Second, Public Watchdog seems to accept and promote the premise that an ethnic community deserves the presidency, that it should be awarded on a rotating basis. Public Watchdog seems to forget, or ignore, that the presidency is not a reward; it is obtained through a contested process, the election. The Constitution, just like the former Constitution, sets a threshhold for being elected President of Kenya. The Constitution provides that the person who shall be elected President must win 50+1% of all votes cast and at least one-quarter of all votes cast in at least half the Counties. Admittedly, this is a higher threshhold than in the former Constitution. Therefore, it is not the ethnic community of a presidential candidate that is being elected but a candidate hailing from a particular ethnic community. If we wish to elevate Kenya from the miasma of ethnic-tinted jingoism, we must evaluate candidates on the basis of their promises and track records in public service. Kenyans are free to include a candidate's ethnicity when deciding whom to elect President, but if that is their only point of determination, then Kenya will be held hostage to ethno-oriented politics for all eternity. Hassan Omar Hassan had every right to prophesy that Kenyans would be unable to elect another Kikuyu as president of Kenya, but he failed to offer a solution that would ensure that a non-Kikuyu was elected president.

In the next twelve months, Kenya will have a new President. Our choices will be limited to those men and women cleared by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, not their communities. One of them will be elected, not his or her ethnic community. The winner of that contest should be the one who offers Kenyans clear solutions to the problems that bedevil this nation. Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi, Assistant Minister Peter Kenneth, Foreign Affairs Minister Moses Wetangula, Water and Irrigation Minister Charity Ngilu, Education PS Prof James Ole Kiyiapi, Gichugu MP and former Justice Minister Martha Karua, Eldoret North MP and former Higher Education Minister William Ruto, former Minister and former Rarieda MP Raphael Tuju, and former Kikuyu MP Paul Muite, among others, have declared an interest to stand for the presidency. These men and women have a record of public service which Kenyans may use to evaluate them and use as a basis for electing one of them President of Kenya. If Kenyans use the candidates' ethnicities as the basis for arguing that they deserve to be elected, then Kenyans should look for someone else; but if they promise to serve all Kenyans, then Kenyans should seriously consider one of them. This is the challenge we face as we fully implement our Constitution, a Constitution that has just celebrated one year of existence.