Conservative? What a joke.

I can't remember when he said it, but Kenya's first Leader of the Majority Party, in one of those strange political rallies he was fond of attending so that he could pledge fealty to his Dear Leader, once declared The National Alliance (or was it the Jubilee abomination it eventually morphed into?) to be Kenya's Conservative Party, with the same ideological leanings of the US's Grand Old Party and the UK's Tory party. He didn't say that he was a conservative; only that he was a member of a Conservative Party.

In this week's Sunday nation, the Governor of Murang'a declared that he is a conservative, leading into the same "small government" predilections of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Kenyan politicians are an astonishing group of people.

It is now safe to say that Kenya's politics is no longer moored to any kind of ideological framework. It is concerned, mostly, with taking money from the masses and wasting it on white elephants and thereafter, distracting the hungry, jobless masses that the reason their lives are so difficult has something to do with "corruption" and "tribalism". The declaration, "I am a conservative" or "My party is a Conservative Party" is the political system dipping its toe in the pond to see whether or not the people will fall for that shit because if the people do, indeed, fall for it, then they can watch as ever greater trillions of shillings are poured down the drain of "development" even as their lives continue to suffer degradations of unimaginable scale.

One of the most injurious things that Kenyans have done to themselves in the name of the Second Liberation is to separate the masses from national political institutions, particularly political organisation and political parties. Political decisions, particularly the choice of legislature candidates and allocation of scarce tax shillings, are now made by a tiny cabal that is not motivated with the greater common good. The most effective way to separate the people from their government has been to separate people from the toys they need for their political education, including music, theatre, sculpture and fine arts.

When Kenya's winning long distance runners returned from the Paris Summer Olympics in triumphal form, they were confronted with one of the most hideous sculptures ever foisted on an unsuspecting public. It was a statue of woman marathoner, put together in the most slapdash way imaginable, and placed installed in the dead of night, to be sprung upon a people who could neither process the insult nor work out how to punish the offender.

What I found interesting is that the discourse around the crass demonstration of the indifference that the state and its agent's treats the people was how the one of the reasons the statue was removed from public view without an explanation was that foreign capitals, particularly in the United States, have celebrated Kenyan athletes in deeply meaningful ways. The sculpture was removed because it made Kenya look bad in the eyes of the world; not because the asshole that had ordered its installation was even remotely remorseful for his crime.

So while Kenyans' minds are slowly poisoned against any kind of learning and political education, and the wool is pulled over their eyes with rambunctious "debates" about the "impeachment" of un-useful state officers, the more cleverer of that perverse class introduces ideas about political ideology that they neither understand nor know how to explain to the people they purport to lead. Kenyan political parties lack any form of political ideology so how could the politicians who sit atop of that pile of empty briefcases claim to possess political ideologies of any kind? These men have failed to empower the people they govern to participate fully in political decision making and in order to hide their inadequacy, they try and paint themselves as Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan when in actual fact they are the caricatures portrayed by Mr. Bean and Benny Hill.

The powerful keep making terrible mistakes

No one seriously thinks that the law is deployed for the benefit of the people anymore. It is almost exclusively used as a cudgel to beat submission into the thickest of skulls, particularly the thickest skulls of the young people challenging systems of power and oppression. What little lawful behaviour that occurs in day-to-day life is only by chance. The legal systems and frameworks we have to day only exist to ensure that the State, and those who benefit from the use and abuse of State power, continue to be preserved, even if it means it is at the expense of the weak and vulnerable.

What w have come to describe as the international humanitarian law lays bare the abuses of the powerful and the desperate attempts at survival of the weak and vulnerable. In Palestine, the Palestinian peoples have endured near-starvation at the hands of the Israeli Occupation Forces for the last twenty-five years. The international community has stood by and watched as international humanitarian law has been debased by the Israeli Occupation Forces. And when the international community as intervened, it has been to provide more and more destructive bombs to the Israeli Occupation Forces with which to conduct a systematic destruction of the Palestinian people.

This kind of violence is witnessed at national level too. In India, Hindutva, the supremacist ideology adopted by the ruling coalition in the central government, has been used to target Muslims and Dalits with increasing violence. Constitutional changes have been rammed through the Indian Lok Sabha to deny the Muslims of Kashmir any semblance of self-determination. In dozens of cities, towns and villages, Dalits have been assaulted and murdered on false accusations of cow slaughtering. In both instances, the law has been useless in preventing the atrocities being visited on minorities in India.

In Kenya, marginalised communities have been on the receiving end of environmentalists and environmental law. They have been violently pushed out of their lands in the name of environmental conservation. It is irrelevant that their traditional land use systems have preserved and conserved the environment better than than the modern fortress-like systems being deployed against them today. Because they do not have the population and money needed to push back against their oppressors, they have been reduced to subsistence levels so desperate that they have little or no energy to fight against their plight.

It used to be that there was a. pretence at enforcing the law equally and equitably. That pretence no longer obtains. The exploited can no longer rely on the law to offer them protection or restitution. And when they take their case to the streets, the law is used as a weapon to kill and maim with impunity. If the powerful have their way, even the idea of protest will be illegal. However, the powerful have made a terrible mistake.

The UK had the Gundpower Treason and Plot. The French had the Revolution against their oppressive nobility and beheaded the lot of them. The North American colonists, after their genocide of the First Nation, rebelled against their oppressive king. The United States, against all odds, faced the Black Power movement of the 1960s and backed down. More recently, Bangladesh has exiled its oppressive Prime Minister and Sri Lanka toppled its oppressive president. Sooner or later, the weak and vulnerable will have their backs against the wall and the only choice before them will be death or rebellion. No one willingly chooses death. Sooner or later, systems of oppression are rend asunder. It is never non-violent.