Saturday, 18 July 2009

Sunday, 01 March 2009

NTV - Bull's eye - political satire

ITN News - David Cameron's grief over son

Commentary (by Mutahi Ngunyi) - Annan, please stop patronising Kenyans


Today I will play the devil’s advocate on Mr Kofi Annan. Without wasting time, I will call him an agent of confusion. He started well, and we respect him for the Peace Accord.

However, his reform agenda is top-down, arrogant and naive. Instead of taking us forward, it is holding us back. And because we respect him, we do not disagree. The result: We remain confused. In fact, we are going round in circles getting irritated and achieving nothing. We are like this puppy in a story told by C.L. James.

In this fable, an old dog saw a puppy chasing its tail and asked, “why are you chasing your tail?” The young puppy replied, “I have mastered philosophy; I have solved the problems of the universe which no dog before me has solved; I have learnt that the best thing for a dog is happiness, and that happiness is in my tail. Therefore, I am chasing it, and when I catch it, I shall be happy.”

The old and seasoned dog stared at the little puppy and responded, “my son, I, too, have paid attention to the problems of the universe in my weak ways and I have formed some opinions.

I have realised that happiness is a fine thing for a dog. And that happiness is in my tail. However, I have also noticed that when I chase after it, it keeps running away from me, but when I go about my business as usual, it follows me.”

Like the little dog, we spent one year chasing the “Annan reforms”. But the more we chased them, the more elusive they became. And the reason is simple: these reforms are not about healing; they are about blaming. They are not about restoration; they are about retribution and sackings.

Like chasing the tail, they are minimalist. Yet what we crave as a country is to be taken from “crisis to cairos”.

Cairos is a place of re-birth, a moment of renewal, transformation and change. And if we pursue this place, the “Annan reforms” will follow -- like the tail follows the dog. But our leaders cannot take us to this cairos if they are in chains. They must liberate themselves from the bondage of Kofi Annan.

I say so because it appears like we have two principals and a grand chairman. Now the grand chairman, Mr Annan, has assumed the position of chief principal. And this is why he is summoning them like school boys to Geneva for a meeting.

To put it mildly, this is bad manners on the part of Mr Annan. Or what do you think?

Back to my assertion that Mr Annan’s reforms are top-down, arrogant and naïve, I beg your indulgence to demonstrate. One, we said a resounding “no” to a local tribunal. We discussed this in our homes, in our worship places and everywhere.

Our verdict was unanimous: Hague Express. Even our greedy MPs agreed with us and voted for The Hague. And then came Mr Annan. This man is not a Kenyan and is not elected. But he disagreed with the will of the people.

His position? Kenyans are wrong! Now he wants a local tribunal by any means necessary. My question to the country is this: who is he? What gives him the right to contradict us and push for what we rejected?

This approach is arrogant and top-down. And I am inspired here by a little book known as Tao Te Ching on leadership wisdom. According to this book, “ . . . all streams flow to the sea because it is lower than they are. Humility gives it power.

If you want to govern the people (therefore), you must place yourself below them. If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them.” For Mr Annan to succeed in his reforms, he must humbly place himself below the people.

If he operates from the heavens in Geneva or wherever, he will fail for a fact! My point? He should not patronise us. He should send the Waki List to The Hague pronto. Or what do Kenyans think?

Two, the naiveté of Mr Annan’s reforms is in the constitutional review and the electoral changes. On the constitution, he has taken us one step backwards with the idea of a panel of experts.

And my hunch is that this panel will fail. From our woolly conditions, I doubt that a new constitution can emerge. More so because constitutions are made in abrasive times of crisis; and in the absence of a crisis, they create one.

Regarding the electoral reforms, I have a question: In the unlikely event of President Kibaki’s inability to execute the mandate of his high office, who would conduct the resultant election? No one.

Samuel Kivuitu is no more, and the entire electoral machinery has been disbanded. In sum, the “Annan reforms” have placed us in a constitutionally reckless place. And although a commission is being concocted by Parliament, I am nervous about it.

It will not be prepared enough to handle the turns and twists of the 2012 elections. In fact, in its naiveté and rawness, it will be manipulated galore. And on this score, our situation could be worse.

But if Mr Annan has outlived his usefulness and is overstepping his mandate, what do we do with him? What do we do with a hero who saved our country from collapse? I have a thought from history.

A brave mercenary soldier saved the city of Siena from an external invader. Thrilled by his brevity, the citizens of this town wanted to reward him handsomely.

No amount of money or honour could compensate his selfless actions. The citizens thought of making him Lord of the City, but even that, they decided was not good enough. At last, one citizen stood before the people’s assembly and suggested “... let us kill him and then worship him as our patron saint”.

So they killed him and worshipped him as a saint. I suggest we do the same thing with Mr Annan. We should “kill” him from our politics and worship him as “saint Annan of Kumasi”!

mutahi@myself.com

NTV - Many Kenyans at risk of starving

Commentary (by Abdulahi Ahmednasir) - The worst lies ahead of us

The Coalition Government of President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga is celebrating its first anniversary. Its achievements are neither profound nor bountiful. It stopped the civil war triggered by the contested presidential election.

The sharing of Cabinet and other positions of authority strictly on ethnic lines among the two political factions is another achievement.

Its failures are many and enormous. It includes runaway corruption, bad governance, engrained and official tribalism, famine, economic deterioration, institutional erosion, mistrust of the state and its authority and the new fad of outsourcing experts and institutions.

If Kenyans think the worst is behind us, then we are mistaken. We haven’t seen anything yet. Kenyans must be conscious of the dangers facing the country at present and should be prepared for the threats looming on the horizon.

The worst is not behind us. The worst is ahead of us. It is time to appreciate some of the dangers that could engulf the republic and take precautionary steps.

Constitutional deficit

The first great challenge Kenya faces is posed by a crippling constitutional deficit in the mandate of the two principals.

Let me start with the Prime Minister.

His is a constitutional office with limited executive authority. His constitutional authority is however limited to the executive arm of government and does not extend to other arms of government.

It was thus interesting to hear the Prime Minister telling Kenyans there will be radically surgery of the Judiciary. On what constitutional authority, if one may ask?

The Prime Minister does not have a constitutional mandate to undertake fundamental restructuring of the Kenyan State in any way. He has no mandate of whatever nature from the Kenyan people. The political rationale for Raila sharing executive authority with Kibaki was a constitutional rationalisation that neither he nor the President had a clear and undisputed mandate.

Similarly, Kibaki due to the disputed election and the narrow margin of victory, according to the official result, also lacks the mandate of the people.

They must remember that the coalition was not brought through the will of the people. On the contrary, it was a consequence of the spoils of a war they unnecessarily unleashed on Kenyans in their blind pursuit to either hold on to power or grab it.

This constitutional deficit means that the constitutional legitimacy of the two principals to load it over ordinary Kenyans must be challenged. As their rule travels far in time and in ignominy, their contested legitimacy will shrink correspondingly. Their authority will wane too. The future portends a serious constitutional crisis.

The second danger is a mutation of executive authority. Once upon a time we had a one-man executive president. Then to buy peace from Kibaki and Raila we divided executive authority between them. Then we moved to the trinity of executive authority when Kofi Annan joined the President and the Prime Minister in running the country.

Lastly we have the European Union ambassadors and American ambassadors contributing to decision making.

Overzealous foreigners

Annan undoubtedly has done great favour to Kenyans and we are eternally grateful. But we must state to his face now that he is functus officio and declare him surplus to requirement. His continuous intrusion in the executive authority and his latest summoning of the President and the Prime Minister to his residence in Geneva is an absolute disgrace.

Keen Kenyans may have also noticed that whenever America’s ambassador Michael Ranneberger addresses the Press, he starts with the sentences "the views of Kenyans… or majority of Kenyans… the will of Kenyans…" In the absence of any serious competition, Ranneberger has arrogated himself the role of the peoples’ spokesman.

Kenyans must urgently demand that the eclipse of sovereignty that enveloped us a year go must end like all other eclipses do.

Cover up

The third danger is a ferocious national exercise to undermine national institution. On this account the Prime Minister is leading a new and very unnecessary exercise of outsourcing Kenyan jobs. Raila’s suggestion that we get a foreigner to head the Interim Independent Electoral Commission was shocking. This came hot on the heels of his outsourcing of a German coach to manage Harambee Stars.

Then we have various reports that make serious allegations against the police, army, and prisons department and all law enforcement organs of the State. No one should cover up or make excuses for the failures of security organs of the State, and they are many. But the trend to destroy national institutions as pastime is alarming and unsettling.

Kenyans must remember the constant vilifications, attack and maligning of national institutions have a corrosive effect, and time will come when we would have destroyed them, overrun them and butcher one another in their absence.

The fourth danger is posed by local NGOs remote controlled by foreign embassies. It is in the national interest that Parliament must urgently enact a legalisation that allows for funding of NGOs from the Exchequer.

A fund run by an organ created and accountable to Parliament in the mode of the Constituency Development Fund is urgently needed. There are many local NGOs that do wonderful job in the education, health sectors, political education and grassroots mobilisation.

Such NGOs must be funded through a local fund annually allocated by Parliament. In addition to freeing them from the shackles of foreign embassies that run them as an extension of their foreign policies, such a mechanism will also bring a level of accountability that is lacking in the sector.

The fifth danger is the constant bashing of the Judiciary. Discrediting the Judiciary by much discredited politicians has become the norm, and it is annoying. An efficient and independent Judiciary is a good barometer to gauge the development of a country’s institutions of governance. We don’t have a Judiciary we can be proud of. It faces an acute shortage of resources.

It is deliberately undermined by the Executive. Corruption and poor work ethic are major problems. But the Judiciary functions, not optimally, but it functions nonetheless.

Recently Raila, Martha Karua and Justice Aaron Ringera, as if they rehearsed their lines, have in unison attacked the Judiciary for ruling against the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission in three cases involving Anglo Leasing. Must our courts rule in favour of the Government to show their independence? Who said the government cannot lose cases? I have personally read the three judgements of the court. I know the facts of these cases. If I were the judge I would have ruled the same.

The central issue in contention in the Anglo Leasing cases, which the Government is hiding from ordinary Kenyans and which the court asked the Government is whether it can invalidate the contracts in court when the Attorney-General has written legal opinions certifying the validity, lawfulness, correctness and the binding nature and force of the contracts in dispute.

Contracts in dispute

That is the question the Government has failed to satisfactory answer. Ringera, Raila, and Karua want Kenyans to believe the yardstick of a good judiciary is one that gives judgement in favour of the Government. Didn’t we spill blood to overthrow that obnoxious and fallacious philosophy of yesteryears?

The sixth and the most serious danger is the likelihood of the Coalition Government going full length to 2012.

That would be a disaster. The country cannot survive another four years of this pathetic thieving union. Multiply the inadequacies and shortcomings of the regime during the past year by five and the country will snap. The elasticity of both the human tolerance and endurance of Kenyans is being stretched too far. It can go for probably a year and a half but not more.

According to our national agenda the next two years are dedicated to reforms.

During this period we expect to enact a new constitution, reform the electoral system and institutions and then go for fresh elections.

If the ongoing selection of commissioners to the independent electoral commission is anything to go by, then we are retrogressing in terms of reforms.

The circus surrounding the uncremonial dropping of Cecil Miller as chairman is pointer to a new creepy level of ethnic chauvinism.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court and a former Chairman of the Law Society of Kenya.

ahmednasir@ahmedabdi.com

Sunday, 08 February 2009

Commentary (by Gitobu Imanyara) - The Hague is the better option


Updated 16 hr(s) 8 min(s) ago

By Gitobu Imanyara

Justice Waki and his team were obviously right in not leaving any ambiguities or uncertainties that the Government could use as justification for not implementing their recommendations. In the event of 45 days lapsing without a local tribunal, the default would automatically trigger off the next stage. That is why the Government attempted to ambush Members of Parliament by rushing in a Bill that was deeply flawed. MP’s rightly refused to be used as a rubberstamp and employed a perfectly lawful technicality to pave the way for suspects to face the International Criminal Court at The Hague. We now have a real opportunity to arrest the culture of impunity. The sad thing is that Prime Minister Raila Odinga appears hell-bent on joining that rank after a distinguished and heroic track record as a pro-democracy and human rights activist.

Entrenching a deeply flawed piece of legislation that purports to set up a local tribunal to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for the post poll violence and its attendant crimes against humanity will have the effect of legalising impunity. The promise that the Bill can be amended once we pass the constitutional amendment is a cynical ruse to fool Kenyans. We know better than that. The Bill to establish the local tribunal will only require a simple majority and we know from hard experience that an ordinary Bill can be passed or rejected by as few as nine MPs. We cannot afford to take any risk and there are good reasons for rejecting this attempt to entrench the Bill.

Psychological trauma

Firstly the Government waited until the very last moment to call a Speaker’s Kamukunji (informal assembly) to hear the Minister read the contents of the Bill in secret. Members did not have sufficient time to look at the Bill and consider its implications and worse, the Bill that was published on the very day they wanted us to enact it.

Kenyans remember only too well what happened to witnesses in the Ouko Commission. Those who were not killed suffer irreparable psychological trauma. They have become zombies while the killers of former Foreign minister Dr Robert Ouko continue to walk free.

To set up a local tribunal without first putting in place a constitutionally guaranteed Witness Protection Office independent of the Attorney General will ensure that no credible witness will appear before such tribunal.

Arguments have been proffered by some human rights groups and even some diplomatic missions in Nairobi that the presence of international persons as judges and prosecutors will guarantee the local tribunal’s independence. To them I ask: Wasn’t Mr John Troon of the Scotland Yard and his team of investigators not internationally reputed persons?

Did their presence prevent termination of the Ouko Commission just as it was about to call in the chief suspect? And Julie Ward? Hasn’t Julie’s father spent a fortune and brought some of the world’s top investigators? What has been the result? International investigations into the Anglo Leasing Finance scam were frustrated by the Government only this week. Why do we have such short memories? Has the Attorney General whom we want to protect witnesses done anything to show he has the capacity or willingness to do so? Witnesses who will appear before the tribunal will require protection long after the tribunal has concluded its business.

We are told that sending suspects to The Hague will delay the process. But suppose we set up the local tribunal; where are the remand homes and the secure prisons to hold suspects? In which prison or remand home in Kenya can we hold a high ranking suspect? Would we not be inviting a sure calamity? Imagine holding a suspect at the Eldoret Prison or the Industrial Area Remand Home! How long will it take to build remand homes and prisons and who will fund it?

And that is not all, the local tribunal is wholly dependent for its financial needs on estimates from the Ministry of Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs. Suppose Parliament as a result of political pressure denies the minister the funds? Would the Government not say our hands are tied because we have no funds? Hasn’t the Ministry of Justice and Constitution Affairs frustrated the proper functioning of the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights by denying it funds?

Atrocious crimes

Finally we are told that those named can continue holding executive office until they are indicted. How, for example can a departmental head continue in office and be expected to facilitate investigation of himself or herself by persons in his or her department? We need to be serious!

Finally what about the "Principals" in whose names machetes were carried to cut to size "foreigners" and commit atrocious crimes against people whose only crime was to have been born with a name different from theirs? Will the "Principals" stay in office and be expected to facilitate independent and impartial pre-indictment procedures?

Come on Kenyans we have no alternative but to send these people to The Hague! Even if one of them is locked up we will have sent a powerful message that the era of impunity is over.

Mr Gitobu Imanyara is the CCU party leader and MP for Central Imenti.

Imanyara@yahoo.com

Commentary (By Mutahi Ngunyi) - Why The Hague seems to be our only option

By MUTAHI NGUNYIPosted Saturday, February 7 2009 at 16:44

In Summary

* They should be expunged from our politics. This is the purification we crave

The problem with “… election jokes is that they get elected”. And nothing describes Mr Ababu Namwamba better than this.

Initially, his aggression was “cute”; now it borders on adolescent mischief. As a result, the guy has fallen from grace to grass. Or has he? This brings me to my first submission regarding the week.

Mr Namwamba is either a dangerous novice or a crafty operator. His polemics in Parliament this week had nothing to do with First Lady Lucy Kibaki. She was just a side show.

The main show was meant to shield Mr William Ruto. And what is more: It worked. Immediately the First Lady was mentioned, Parliament was derailed.

Focus shifted from Mr Ruto and the maize scandal to the possibility that she could be a maize baron. The drama was captivating. And if this was Mr Namwamba’s intention, it was clever.

However, his motive was unclear. Why shield Mr Ruto? On this one, your guess is as good as mine. If, to the contrary, his motive was pure, but his actions were driven by “boyish” impulses, we must ask him to grow up!

My second submission regards Mr Ruto. Do we believe him? I don’t. In fact, the more he defends himself, the more I doubt him.

He reminds me of the Kanu “hawks”: they were devious, shameless and bold. When he paraded a disabled miller from Kariobangi on TV, the minister had no shame. He thought it was good strategy, but I think it was crass. It was an insult to our intelligence. More so when he declared that this was the only miller he had helped. But there is another thing.

Now that he is under siege, he will retreat to the tribe for back up. He always does this. And in my view, this is an insult to the dignity of the Kalenjin people.

This is why I invite them to consider two things. As he whips their emotions in rallies this weekend, they must remember what former president Moi used to tell us: “kama mbaya, mbaya” (if it is rotten, it is rotten!)

If Mr Ruto’s defence on the maize scandal is not convincing, they must not defend him blindly.

Second, and in the words of Nikita Khrushchev, “… if you feed the people with propaganda, they will listen today, they will listen tomorrow, they will listen the day after tomorrow, but on the fourth day, they will tell you ‘go to hell’!”.

I invite the Kalenjin nation to weigh the words of the minister and his cronies this weekend. If they feed them on nothing but propaganda, they must ask them to “go to hell”. To do so is to be liberated.

My third submission is about The Hague. Some MPs are sabotaging the Special Tribunal Bill. And, in my view, they are inspired by God.

Personally, I opposed The Hague before the maize and oil scandals hit us. And when this happened, I realised that we are still in a state of war. That the war mongers have simply changed tact and relocated from the tribe to the coalition government.

Instead of using crude weapons, they are killing poor people using scandals. Now I am even suspicious of the mysterious fires.

In sum, these war mongers are with us and are entrenched. They are wealthy; they are connected. In fact, they are sub-human. And this is why we must hand them over to a force bigger than us. One they cannot manipulate: The Hague.

We want their visas to be cancelled, their children to be expelled from foreign countries and their assets to be frozen. More fundamentally, they should be expunged from our politics. This is the purification we crave as a country.

The “sabotaging” MPs should, therefore, know that they have read the mood of the nation correctly. They must sabotage the passing of the Bill on Tuesday in the interest of Kenya. But there are two complications here.

One, it is possible that some of the MPs have “eaten” money and they feel obliged to support this Bill. But if they are pricked by their conscience on Tuesday, this should be their justification for sabotage: “…you cannot buy a politician: you can only rent one.”

In other words, we have two sets of MPs; those with a conscience and those for hire. If the MPs with a conscience have decided to sabotage the Bill, my invitation is for the MPs-for-hire to join them. We will repay their act of “kindness” handsomely at the right time. Or what do you think?

The second complication has to do with the tribe. Parliament might support The Hague, but the tribes of Kenya can decide to sabotage this. To avert the crisis ahead, we should borrow from the story of General Ts’ao Ts’ao.

As this general was rebuilding the Hans Empire, his army began to seethe with rebellion. Ts’ao Ts’ao knew that things were bad. And so he had to turn to his closest friend and favourite army commander.

He told the commander: “I want the loan of your head to show the troops”. The commander, of course, was surprised by this. He protested, declaring that he had done no wrong.

But Ts’ao Ts’ao made it clear that if he did not behead him, there would be a mutiny and many would die. At this point, the commander knew that his fate was sealed. He was beheaded the same day, his head mounted on a spike and displayed at the entrance of the army camps.

With this act, Ts’ao Ts’ao did not have to say much. If he could behead his favourite general and friend, the other soldiers figured out that they had no chance.

And this is how radical our tribes must be. To preserve the country, they are called to sacrifice their closest and favourite leaders. Especially those in the Waki List.

Similarly, they must be dramatic in the way we do this if we are to serve notice to future generations. Like Ts’ao Ts’ao, they must send their heads to The Hague. And if they fail to, the price of inaction will be unbearable in 2012.

Are we ready for this drama?

Sunday, 01 February 2009

Sunday, 11 January 2009

AJE - Listening Post - part 2

AJE - Listening Post - part 1

Commentary - Freedom and licence in the media (by Philip Ochieng)



Posted Saturday, January 10 2009 at 15:49

If he is socially conscious, not even the most militant defender of media freedom can deny that sections of the media do not know the difference between freedom and licence.

We saw – or heard—good examples just before and just after the General Election in December.

Certain tribal-language electronic media broadcast deliberate and malicious lies against certain tribes and their leaders. In this way, they helped to raise the mass temper that culminated in the inter-ethnic hecatomb in which a thousand good Kenyans lie buried.

It may not have been deliberate editorial policy. But, even in the so-called upmarket media, certain writers—many of whom we can cite by name because they were foolhardy enough to use their “by-lines” – persistently promoted incredibly narrow ethnic lines.

Many members of the self-styled “alternative Press” – print as well as electronic — often carry material which cannot pass through any gatekeeper who knows what it means to be free in a social setting. The phrase “in a social setting” is the crux of the matter.

There can be no orderly society – nay, there can be no society at all — unless members agree or are forced to do without certain freedoms. That is where lies the difference between freedom and licence.

Licence or licentiousness is the situation in which individuals enjoy absolute permission to do whatever they like.

Freedom, on the other hand, is the situation in which the latitude of speech and action is considerably narrowed – either by law or by drumming up a personal sense of responsibility – so that your speech or action neither dampens the spirits of other individuals nor denies them their own right to speak and act.

That, in the last analysis, is the only reason that human societies have legal systems. The law is not an instrument of freedom.

It is a method by which we deny ourselves the licence of conduct so that, as individuals, we can live together in relative order and relative peace.

Without such socio-legal inroads into our latitudes of speech and action, society is unthinkable. Yet during the recent face-off between the media and the government, many media and human rights people uttered words which raised serious doubts as to whether they understand this difference.

Anybody who stands in the agora to shout that all Kikuyus in Kericho or all Kalenjins in Mathioya should be killed is behaving licentiously.

It is, of course, a kind of freedom. But, by taking the law into his hands, he is ignoring the objective higher interests of his own local collective.

MANY MEMBERS OF THAT COLLECTIVE MAY BE AS BIGOTED as he. His hate-speech may goad them and others to rush to arms. It may end up in precisely the kind of murderousness which Judge Philip Waki recently investigated. Nobody would benefit, not even the numskull who ignited this fire.

Of course, no government worth its salt can be expected to stand aside and merely watch as one section of its people is burning itself in this way.

A government’s chief task is to protect society from itself – namely, from those members of it who are bent on destroying this relative freedom which only the law can guarantee.

That, I think, was what inspired the legal initiative on communication which has provoked so many of us into such cant and dialectic against Information minister Samuel Poghisio, permanent secretary Bitange Ndemo, Members of Parliament and President Kibaki.

For I cannot exaggerate the need for good Kenyans to be protected from bad Kenyans – the need to be protected against all criminals, including all tribal, racial, gender and sectarian jingoes — by means of a clear legal instrument.

And the media cannot expect to remain outside the purview of such an instrument because the media, being composed of human beings, have a fair share of evil minds and criminals.

That is why, as a purpose, at least, the minister’s initiative cannot be faulted. What I faulted was only its packaging. For it seemed to give the government the licence to act as the judge, the jury and the executioner against media houses.

By sending armed policemen into a media house and disabling its machines, causing it huge losses in sales and advertising – you will have already judged it guilty and punished it.

You will have thus thrown the whole judiciary to the dogs and made a laughing stock of your own vaunted “rule of law”. That is itself licentious.

Media owners must agree that it is necessary to punish individual criminals in the media. The owners and the government must then agree on a mutually beneficial method of doing so.

Commentary - Is it possible that Kibaki is an ‘evil’ genius? (by Mutahi Ngunyi)




Posted Saturday, January 10 2009 at 15:49

In Summary

* The president has managed to outwit quite a number of his adversaries

As a political scientist, I find President Kibaki a little challenging to analyse. In fact, he is a frustrating ‘‘specimen’’ to dissect for two reasons.

One, he has this unusual ability to multiply identities. Today he is weak and soft; tomorrow he is as hard as a rock! One moment he appears dazed and woolly; next moment he is strong and foxy.

This seesaw is confusing: Maybe even calculated and acted out. And this is what frustrates me about the man. You cannot read him.

TWO, A FEW ‘CLEVER’ CHAPS pretend to have read him. They tell us that he is laid back, hands-off and indecisive! These chaps are dead wrong. I want to suggest the alternative, although I could be wrong as well.

Is it possible that we have two Kibakis? That the first one is cool and collected; while the second is controlling and power hungry? When upset and miffed, maybe the second Kibaki kicks stools all over State House – using the good leg of course! My point? We do not know this man. And what is more: he likes it that way.

To support this thought, I invite you to consider three happenings of the week. The first regards the ‘‘Muthaura Question’’ and we must analyse it using a Russian anecdote.

In this story, and after many years of waiting, Czar Nicolas II and his German wife Alexandra got a son. However, the boy had a blood disorder and was set to die any time.

The couple was distressed and blue. And out of this tragedy, the most evil politician in history emerged: Gregory Rusputin.

This guy was a spiritual leader with dubious credentials. But whenever the boy got sick, Rusputin would pray for him and he would miraculously recover.

The ability to ‘‘heal’’ the boy gave him immense powers over the Royal Family. In fact, he warned the King that his son would live so long as he listened to his advice.

And out of desperation, the Russian government reeled under the unwise advice of this evil amateur. The result? Seeds of revolution were planted and watered with discontent.

The blunders inspired by Rusputin gave rise to the Menshevik Revolution of 1915. The Royal Family was butchered and a new order established.

The Romanov historians tell us that, without Rusputin, there would have been no Lenin; no communism!

Back to Ambassador Muthaura. Some people believe that he is president Kibaki’s Rusputin. Like the desperate Royal Family, President Kibaki came to power on a wheel-chair. His leg was broken, his neck fractured, and his arm dislocated.

A month later, he suffered a stroke and was hospitalised. At this point he needed a ‘‘miracle healer’’; a Rusputin. And from this tragedy, a group of ‘‘healers’’ emerged.

All, except Mr Muthaura, have been fired. Because of this, we have concluded that Mr Muthaura is the one: The ‘‘evil genius’’ behind the President.

But we are damn wrong.

In fact, ODM’s aggression on Mr Muthaura is cowardly and woolly. This man is not the problem. And whether his position is constitutional or not is irrelevant. Mr Muthaura is just a ‘‘concept’’ created by the President.

Unlike Rusputin who held the Royal Family captive, Mr Muthaura is a captive of the President. Technically, therefore, he does not have a mind of his own.

He is just a walking shell that receives instructions from the boss. If the ‘‘shell’’ undermines the Prime Minister, it is because the boss said so. And if ODM insists on dismantling the ‘‘shell’’, the President will just acquire another one.

In my view, therefore, ODM is acting sub-optimally. Instead of aggressing the captive messenger, they should confront his foxy boss.

My second issue regards the media law. And on this one, the old man has outsmarted us. What is more: his game plan remains invisible to most of us. I could be wrong on this one also, but allow me to interpret it. For starters, he was not compelled into signing it by anyone.

This was a sole and tactical decision. In fact, it is very similar to his swearing-in ceremony. Once sworn in, he occupied the high moral ground. ODM had no choice but to negotiate on his terms. This is how he fixed them on the 50:50 agreement.

And on the media law, he signed it knowing too well it was draconian. But by signing it, he occupied the high moral ground.

Now the media are forced to negotiate on his terms. If this is true, my counsel to the fourth estate is this: Be afraid, be very afraid!

My last issue goes back to ODM and the Peace Accord. In my view, ODM is naïve to the extreme. They built “… a coalition based on trust; instead of creating a coalition that builds trust”. Blinded by love and trust, they embraced the old man uncritically.

But as they hugged and kissed him, he was engaged in devious legislative engineering. In fact, and through the Peace Accord, he made them his captives as well.

If they ditch the coalition, there will be no election because this clause was removed from the deal. If they mobilise the people to mass action, we will tell them to go to hell!

The question therefore is this: If they pull out, who would be the loser? In my view, ODM would lose. And the tragedy is that they are intellectually lazy.

Instead of giving us drama ‘‘without legs’’ they should take some time to study President Kibaki and his underground schemes. Although he is in his late 70s, they must not underestimate his quiet genius.

And now a thought for our Luo ‘‘cousin’’ Mr Barack Obama. As his country of ancestry, we need to say a prayer for him between now and his inauguration. We must pray for his preservation. More so because it is “… never over, until it is over!” He is not president until they swear him in.

Mutahi Ngunyi is a political scientist with The Consulting House, a policy and security think-tank for the Great Lakes region and West Africa.

Commentary - Israel has chosen to hoodwink the world, US over this war (by Gitau Warigi)



Posted Saturday, January 10 2009 at 15:49

In Summary

* There are many tiny countries who don't try to steal other's land

It is all very well to say Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas fighters in the Gaza Strip. But a few things must be put into perspective.

One, Israel has had a blockade in place around Gaza since Hamas was elected two years ago, allowing only a trickle of essential supplies into the Strip. The net result is that Gaza has been turned into something resembling a giant prison camp.

Two, all over the world, a blockade is understood to mean an act of war. One is therefore free to draw the conclusion about who began the hostilities – the Israelis and their blockade, or the Hamas rockets that were fired as a result.

Three, nobody is making the crucial distinction that the rickety Hamas rockets are not being fired at Israel proper, but in the slices of land such as around Ashkelon and Sderot that had been annexed from the Palestinians.

Four, neither is anybody telling the world that Hamas was democratically elected, defeating the West’s preferred negotiating partner, the Fatah organisation led by Mahmoud Abbas.

His fief has since been left in the West Bank, but even here Hamas would most likely prevail in a straight election. In other words, Hamas is not the illegitimate entity the Israelis are claiming it is.

FIVE, MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT Hamas refusing to recognise Israel. According to Israel and her chief backer the United States, all Hamas needs to do is to extend recognition to her enemy and all will be fine.

This position fails to take account of some painful truths in the history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The late Yasser Arafat was arm-twisted into giving this recognition and nothing good so far has come out of it for his people.

Israel only got encouraged to become more intransigent. It accelerated the annexation of Palestinian land and the building of Israeli settlements on it. The Palestinians have nothing to show for the 1994 Oslo accords and subsequent agreements they have been rail-roaded to sign.

Any Palestinian child knows that the Israeli strategy is to string out negotiations indefinitely as they continue to concretise their position in occupied Arab land. The strategic goal is to push the possibility of Palestinian statehood into the distant future.

Why, Hamas wonders, should they go the same route only to end up in a diplomatic cul-de-sac?

Israel has perfected the art of manipulating America’s political system and media brilliantly, for her own ends. Important American leaders including presidents-to-be are given aerial helicopter tours whenever they make the obligatory political pilgrimage to Israel.

When he did the tour before becoming president, a conditioned George W. Bush remarked how Israel was such a small country surrounded by countries “who have sworn to destroy it.”

This is humbug. There are many more tiny countries all over the world whose small size does not give them licence to steal others’ land. Singapore is very small, and more crowded than Israel. Hong Kong is no different. Closer home we have Swaziland and Lesotho, and Rwanda and Burundi. Why should anybody else think their country is special?

I fear that the Palestinians who are investing too much hope in US President-elect Barack Obama will get disappointed. The Jewish lobby in the US, represented by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is so powerful that no Administration has ever been able to contain it.

Obama will find the going rougher because he will have people in key positions in his Administration such as VP-designate Joe Biden and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton who hold extreme positions on the question of Israeli security.

I SUSPECT OBAMA’S TRUE INSTINCTS about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are quite different. Still, the fawning address he gave at AIPAC’s conference last year was a pointer he will be no different.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is supposed to be at centre of the Middle East peace-making process as the envoy of the so-called ‘Quartet:’ the UN, the EU, Russia and the US. Yet who hears of him anywhere? He has been thoroughly eclipsed by the Americans.

Israel is gearing for elections next month. There is every indication that it launched its barrage against Gaza with this in mind, to make its leaders appear “tough” to the voters. This habit of starting wars for cynical electoral purposes is inexcusable.

*****

Could it be that somebody simply can’t decide, after all these months, to fill the vacant cabinet portfolios, starting with Finance? I am sure it is not the prime minister who has been dragging his feet.