Given
the givens, it is almost with relief that we greet the final seven days
to the General Election. It has been a harrowing and exhausting three
years. Since Mwai Kibaki's government essentially took a
leave-from-absence so that members of the Cabinet could campaign, we
have been treated to the circus of the damned. Allegations and
counter-allegations, accusations and counter-accusations, facts and
outright lies have flown ever since the Prime Minister, his two Deputy
Prime Ministers, the Vice-President, the former Minister for Justice and
several more wannabes decided that they wanted to succeed Mwai Kibaki.
The lack of an ideological debate on the direction the nation should follow has been our biggest loss. While Martha Karua speaks passionately about social democracy, all our remaining presidential candidates are simply preaching from the same sermon. All promise to "fully implement" the Constitution; all promise to "fully implement" Vision 2030; all promise to "wipe out corruption" and uphold the rule of law; all promise to "work with" constitutional commissions and independent offices to ameliorate the suffering of Kenyans; all promise to untangle the Gordian Knot around the Land Question; all promise to keep Kenyans safe; all promise to "grow the economy by double digits; and all promise to be "servant leaders" whatever that means to them.
What they have done, away from the debate podiums, is sling mud at each other with wild abandon. What they have done is to build castles in the air about the changes they will wring out of the Kenyan body politic. Even when faced with the opportunity to spell out their plans in full, they have shied away from doing so. When faced with the opportunity to erase the suspicions in Kenyans' minds about their pasts and their intentions, they have failed to convincingly do so. They have, instead, treated Kenyans to a regurgitation of tactics as old as the Republic without batting an eyelid. Even insurgent campaigns such as Martha Karua's have the whiff of old-school populist tactics that Kenyans should, rightly, be suspicious of.
The second debate was an opportunity for the candidates to spell out their economic plans and to lay the ghosts of "historical land injustices" to rest. They have singularly failed in this endeavour. What is clear that the economy of Kenya is multifaceted and complex to an almost unbelievable scale. Joe Ageyo and Uduak Amimo failed to address the elephant in the room: how Kenya's economy would survive the dire warnings of sanctions and whatnot should the Jubilee ticket be elected. They also failed to to persuade the candidates to share their plans regarding the continuing spectre of millions of Kenyans without jobs or the prospects of any. Perhaps it was too much to hope for; Kenyans, after all, have been "programmed" to see political contests only in the context of one tribe against 41 others. This is the be all and end all of presidential politics in Kenya. It has been so for the past two decades. Kenyans do not seem to be tiring from it. But from the questions fielded during the debate - however unsatisfactorily - Kenyans seem to be stirring slightly and asking hard questions that demand hard answers.
What the debates reveal is that it is 2017 that will truly redefine the way elections are conducted. The mistakes we witnessed in 2012 and 2013 regarding the preparations for the general election must be addressed at the next general election. Party primaries must be organised around credible timetables. The electoral law must be enforced without fear or favour: candidates must not be allowed to hop willy-nilly from one party to the next looking for the best chance to be on the ballot. Party manifestos must be clearer about the foundations of all the promises being bandied about. The debate moderators must force the candidates to spell out clearly their plans and clear up doubts about their pasts. And Kenyans must finally break away from seeing themselves during elections as members of this tribe or that. This election proves that the progress of civilising and maturing our politics is far from done. When it is done, perhaps, we will give The West, the Asian Tigers and the BRICS a run for their dollars. Or Euros. Or yuans.
The lack of an ideological debate on the direction the nation should follow has been our biggest loss. While Martha Karua speaks passionately about social democracy, all our remaining presidential candidates are simply preaching from the same sermon. All promise to "fully implement" the Constitution; all promise to "fully implement" Vision 2030; all promise to "wipe out corruption" and uphold the rule of law; all promise to "work with" constitutional commissions and independent offices to ameliorate the suffering of Kenyans; all promise to untangle the Gordian Knot around the Land Question; all promise to keep Kenyans safe; all promise to "grow the economy by double digits; and all promise to be "servant leaders" whatever that means to them.
What they have done, away from the debate podiums, is sling mud at each other with wild abandon. What they have done is to build castles in the air about the changes they will wring out of the Kenyan body politic. Even when faced with the opportunity to spell out their plans in full, they have shied away from doing so. When faced with the opportunity to erase the suspicions in Kenyans' minds about their pasts and their intentions, they have failed to convincingly do so. They have, instead, treated Kenyans to a regurgitation of tactics as old as the Republic without batting an eyelid. Even insurgent campaigns such as Martha Karua's have the whiff of old-school populist tactics that Kenyans should, rightly, be suspicious of.
The second debate was an opportunity for the candidates to spell out their economic plans and to lay the ghosts of "historical land injustices" to rest. They have singularly failed in this endeavour. What is clear that the economy of Kenya is multifaceted and complex to an almost unbelievable scale. Joe Ageyo and Uduak Amimo failed to address the elephant in the room: how Kenya's economy would survive the dire warnings of sanctions and whatnot should the Jubilee ticket be elected. They also failed to to persuade the candidates to share their plans regarding the continuing spectre of millions of Kenyans without jobs or the prospects of any. Perhaps it was too much to hope for; Kenyans, after all, have been "programmed" to see political contests only in the context of one tribe against 41 others. This is the be all and end all of presidential politics in Kenya. It has been so for the past two decades. Kenyans do not seem to be tiring from it. But from the questions fielded during the debate - however unsatisfactorily - Kenyans seem to be stirring slightly and asking hard questions that demand hard answers.
What the debates reveal is that it is 2017 that will truly redefine the way elections are conducted. The mistakes we witnessed in 2012 and 2013 regarding the preparations for the general election must be addressed at the next general election. Party primaries must be organised around credible timetables. The electoral law must be enforced without fear or favour: candidates must not be allowed to hop willy-nilly from one party to the next looking for the best chance to be on the ballot. Party manifestos must be clearer about the foundations of all the promises being bandied about. The debate moderators must force the candidates to spell out clearly their plans and clear up doubts about their pasts. And Kenyans must finally break away from seeing themselves during elections as members of this tribe or that. This election proves that the progress of civilising and maturing our politics is far from done. When it is done, perhaps, we will give The West, the Asian Tigers and the BRICS a run for their dollars. Or Euros. Or yuans.
No comments:
Post a Comment