Saturday, 31 January 2009
Friday, 30 January 2009
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Monday, 26 January 2009
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Friday, 23 January 2009
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Friday, 16 January 2009
Thursday, 15 January 2009
Sunday, 11 January 2009
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.
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Friday, 09 January 2009
Thursday, 08 January 2009
Wednesday, 07 January 2009
Tuesday, 06 January 2009
Monday, 05 January 2009
Sunday, 04 January 2009
Saturday, 03 January 2009
Friday, 02 January 2009
Thursday, 01 January 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)