Category Archives: Kenya

April 11, 2013 · 11:44 PM

The things he did NOT say

In a three thousand two hundred and forty-four worded (3,244) inauguration speech, President Uhuru Kenyatta devoted only one hundred and seventeen (117) to the issue of land. And of the 117 words addressing the land issue, one can argue that just forty-two – approximately 1.3% of the total number of words in the speech – dealt with the issue from the perspective that has been at the heart of disputes between the various communities in the country. The president said this:

“My government will strive to work with all actors to ensure that the issue of land will never again be a contentious or a divisive subject but rather that land will be seen as what it truly is, a factor of production.”

Nowhere in the speech did the president touch on nor propose any solutions to the plight of the internally-displaced people (IDPs). Nowhere in the speech that has been praised and panned alike did Mr. Kenyatta talk about the impact of corruption or the many other isms that have and continue to sap the nation of its will and drive to excel.

What I heard from the in-coming president were lofty platitudinous themes and lines. While these lofty and grandiose alliterations are to be expected in an inauguration speech, that they seemingly came at the expense of what in my opinion were more pressing issues – addressing the issue of land ownership with the seriousness it deserves and not in passing, the still-unresolved suffering of thousands of Kenyans who were uprooted from their homes by the post-election violence of 2007 and the widespread and rampant (official) corruption – is alarming and portends the (misplaced) priorities of the in-coming administration.

I understand that there is a time and place for everything. I also realize that one should never miss an opportunity to make an impact. That the person being inaugurated as president was also the son of the country’s first president added to the momentous nature of the occasion. Additionally, the inauguration of Kenya’s 4th President in the wake of the colossal failure of the election and “inauguration” of 2007 was, in my opinion, an occasion tailor-made for making an impact; illustrating the stark contrast between the transition of power now and then; not to mention that the person being inaugurated was one of three persons accused, along with his deputy, of funding and instigating the crimes against humanity after the same failed elections of 2007! The fore-going three reasons set the stage for Mr. Kenyatta to use the occasion to convey to the country that his administration was serious about the country’s long term progress and stability.

President Uhuru Kenyatta’s inauguration speech should have addressed the tri-headed monsters of land ownership, resettlement of the IDPs and the rampant (official) corruption.

It did not.

Maybe the fact that the three people most responsible for creating, perpetuating and exacerbating the culture of land-grabbing, corruption, nepotism and tribalism were sitting right behind President Kenyatta on the VIP dais dissuaded him from pointedly addressing them.

  • The inauguree and in-coming president, Kenyatta Fils was representing his father Kenyatta Pere, who as Kenya’s founding father has been lionized and immortalized in the annals of the country’s history. I would add to this near-deification of the country’s first president an asterisk and the qualifier that Kenyatta Pere single-handedly created the country’s land problems, not to mention its tribal divisions and the culture of patronage shortly after it gained independence from the British. In a cruel twist of irony reflected in a narrative germinated by the principals of the victorious Jubilee Coalition during the run-up to the just-concluded elections, Kenyatta Son is facing judgment by the same “foreigners” who imprisoned Kenyatta Father in Kapenguria during Kenya’s fight for independence! The more things change, the more they stay the same!
  • Mr. Moi – need I say more?
  • Mr. Kibaki came into the presidency in 2002 with as much goodwill and support as any president of a diverse country would want. Both the goodwill and support was broad and deep. The country was unified AGAINST the one person most Kenyans blamed for the downturn in its economy, social cohesiveness and international standings – Daniel Arap Moi. Fast forward five years later to 2007 and like they say, the rest is history. No amount of revisionism can change the fact that Mr. Kibaki’s “re-election” in 2007 and the surreptitious “swearing-in” under cover of dark amidst wide-spread charges of ballot-stuffing and an assortment of shenanigans combined to convulse Kenya into Rwanda Part Deux.

Like I said in previous posts, I am willing to cut Mr. Kenyatta some slack as he steadies himself into the presidency; a combined Herculean and Sisyphean task if ever there was one. On the other hand, I would be remiss if I failed to listen to and analyze his inauguration speech without pointing out the blatant and glaring omissions i.e. what the in-coming president did not say.

It is my opinion that what Mr. Kenyatta did not say in his inauguration speech does not augur well for his ability, indeed willingness to address and give the issues of land ownership, re-settlement of the IDPs and official corruption the import they deserve.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Corruption, Elections, Governance - Kenya, IDPs, Justice, Kenya, Politics, The Hague, Tribalism

April 9, 2013 · 7:39 PM

Becoming THE Solution

This weekend I spoke with someone I had not spoken with for over twenty years. We met when I lived in Southern California in the 80s and had been Facebook friends since 2010 but had yet to talk. Juliana (not her real name) is also from Kenya. Her mother is from Nyeri and her father is from Kiambu – someone definitely crossed the Chania River! We caught up on what has happened in our lives since we last talked almost two decades ago. She waxed maternally about her two beautiful children – Julianna (with two “Ns” instead of one – there is a big difference I was told – forcefully) and Julian (Juliana sans the “A” at the end). I listened and concurred with her description of her offsprings knowing that I expected her to do the same when I started babbling about my equally beautiful son. As presciently as I had imagined, Juliana and I both agreed that fortunately, Malo, my adorable ten-year old had inherited his mom’s looks! I shamelessly plugged my upcoming book Wuodha: My journey from Kenya to these United States. I also told her about my blog, thetwoninetyonetracker.com once again with little shame! It was at this point that our conversation took a sharp turn and focused on the just-concluded presidential elections and the postings on my blog.

Juliana and I blamed everyone and everything for the dysfunctional nature of present-day Kenyan politics. She decried the gloating of “her” people from Central Province (over the election results), “their domination” of Kenya’s socio-political and economic life since independence and their perceived sense of entitlement. I lamented over the “herd” and “victim” mentality of “my” people from Nyanza; wondering about the wisdom of their near-permanent status as the mainstay of Kenya’s political “opposition”. We both blamed the politicians from Kenyatta Pere to Kenyatta Fils, Odinga Pere and Odinga Fils, not to mention the sycophants around them, for the country’s halting socio-political and economic development since independence; economic development whose trajectory, especially in the late 70s, was on par with that of the Four Tigers – South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong – or so I argued in my senior thesis in 1989 in a paper well-recieved by my advisor Professor Chalmers Johnson, a noted political economist and expert on Asia. We did not forget the role M1, as Daniel Moi was called back in the days, played in exacerbating the tribalism, corruption and human rights abuses set in motion by Kenyatta Pere. We mused over the third crossing of the Chania River by one Emilio Mwai Kibaki. A development I described as Kenya’s Camelot Era that started with so much promise only to fizzle in an orgy of post-election violence in 2007: His “re-election” birthed the post-election violence that forever tarnished Kenya’s image as an “oasis of peace” surrounded by the Idi Amins and Siad Barres of this world; the same PEV that Messer’s Kenyatta and Ruto are answering for at The Hague. Our pride was unmistakable as we marveled at how the half-Kenyan Luo Barack Obama rose to become the first black (and bi-racial) president in America no less – a country whose past is similarly marred with deadly violence between its citizens – blacks and whites. We then laughed uncontrollably as we wondered how he would fare were he to vie for Kenya’s presidency. All told, it was a heartwarming conversation. It felt great to reconnect with a long-lost and dear friend.

The one thing Juliana and I started to discuss albeit not as vociferously as we did when assigning blame for what ails Kenya was OUR role in contributing to the dysfunction. The two of us spent more time casting aspersions at all save us for Kenya’s problems.

I have to admit that I have offered more criticism than solutions to the problems facing the country of my birth; an admission and realization that brought me to the quote below from a YouTube clip titled “Bull’s Eye: Life after the elections.”

wallace Gathungu 2 days ago

It is my prayer UK/Ruto reach out to Luo Nyanza no matter how many times they may be rebuffed. UNITE KENYA.

I did not support Uhuru Kenyatta’s candidacy because I believe that he is the poster child for all that has been at the heart of Kenya’s socio-political problems: Corruption, nepotism, entitlement, privilege, patronage, impunity etc. and because he is facing charges at the International Criminal Court for crimes against fellow Kenyans. Maybe it is just my quirkiness or maybe I have been away from Kenya for too long but there is something morally wrong when a presidential candidate and his deputy are both facing charges as heinous as the charges facing Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto.

Having said that, I recognize and respect the fact that Mr. Kenyatta was duly elected by the majority of Kenyans, Supreme Court-confirmed and finally inaugurated as President of Kenya. I will give him the honeymoon period he deserves even as I continue my critique of his presidency. However, I also want the criminal proceedings at The Hague to continue to their conclusion, if for no other reason than to provide some semblance of justice for the thousands of Kenyans brutally murdered and hundreds of thousands more displaced from their homes because of actions allegedly fomented by Mr. Kenyatta and his VP.

Though I am not familiar with the series “Bull’s Eye,” I think of it as political satire addressing current events in Kenya. It is, I believe, the equivalent of two shows that air stateside on the TV channel Comedy Central featuring Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert. The comedic respite of the YouTube clip aside, the comment from Mr. Gathungu was timely and extremely instructive. I would, however, replace the words “Luo Nyanza” with “their opponents” thus the comment would read: It is my prayer that UK/Ruto reaches out to their opponents no matter how many times they may rebuff their efforts (to unite Kenya).

It is my sincere hope that President Uhuru Kenyatta takes Mr. Gathungu’s advice to heart. It is also my hope that as Kenyans, we take Mr. Gathungu’s words to heart and become the change we want in Kenya to wit: Anyone interested in adopting an IDP?

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Democracy, Governance - Kenya, Justice, Kenya, Life, Politics, Tribalism, Tribe

April 6, 2013 · 9:36 PM

On Hubris and Jingoism

Hubris (pron.: /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

Jingoism (pron.: jingo-ism), extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.[1] In practice, it is a country’s advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one’s own country as superior to others—an extreme type of nationalism. The term originated in Britain, expressing a pugnacious attitude toward Russia in the 1870s, and appeared in the American press by 1893.

Both definitions are from the following website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.

Unfortunately, I am not on the ground back in Kenya to get a true sense of what the “Kenyan street” is saying or feeling about the just adjudicated elections. What I do have is unfettered and dare I say reliable access to the internet and some of the best research facilities in the world – Stanford and Cal Berkeley’s libraries and book stores. I also have the freedom to articulate and publish my perspectives as I see fit – obviously without slandering or libeling others. I make it a point to religiously read the online versions of the Daily Nation and Standard newspapers not to mention the various publications about Kenya, the region and the continent. Beyond reading the articles, I also read the blogs and the comments other readers make in response to the various articles. I have to say that the hubris and jingoism, especially among supporters of the victorious Jubilee Coalition who seem to dominate the Daily Nation comment section is comparable to the hubris and jingoism I saw among supporters of the victorious Republican Party shortly after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush during the disputed 2000 elections versus Democrat Al Gore. I also think that the chest-thumping is not limited to the general readership of the paper(s). One can discern the political bias or inclination of opinion makers such as Professor Makau, Macharia Gathaio, Philip Ochieng, Jaindi Kisero; at least I can just like one can tell the political bias of some American opinion makes such as George Will, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, E.J Dionne, Cynthia Tucker etc.

Below are samples of the comments made in response to the article Obama urges Uhuru, Ruto to build on gains of new constitution that appeared in the April 5 issue of Daily Nation and the April 5 issue of The Standard in the article titled Obama congratulates President-elect Uhuru

moses •3 hours ago
“This so called “humans” should first deal with countries which are a threat to them and the world like Iran and North Korea then come and tell us your humain ideas coz you think others are less “Human” than you.”

Langat 5 April 2013 3:22 PM
“I expected the americans to be told to ‘o jump into a lake with their unwanted message. We ARE a sovereign state & dont need them. Heck we should be sidelining them so they know ‘choices have consequences.”

Musema kweli•a day ago
“Better late than never. Or do we say they swallowed their pride?”

ngigien•a day ago
“Wonderful! twin elect looks inseparable. UhuRuto please go ahead and don’t look back, these westerners are late comers but they will join the train one by one as we head to promised land”

As evidenced by a previous post titled “Where is the outrage over “their” hypocrisy?” I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the sentiments expressed by the comments posted in Kenya’s local dailies. In fact, some of the comments are very instructive, indeed prescient. What I find troubling is the hubristic and jingoistic tone of most of them. And in keeping with the similarities I see between Kenya’s Jubilee Coalition and America’s Republican Party, there is an arrogance reflected in most of the comments in the blogosphere that belies the reality of the global village we all live in, not to mention the realpolitik nature of relationships between nations. The reality is that relationships between most nations are based on power (economic, cultural, military etc.) and other practical factors even though the ideal situation would be for nations to minimize use of power, particularly military power in their dealings with one another and base their relationship on mutual respect and shared interests. All told, nations act in their (selfish) best interests and most have no qualms imposing their will on other nations if they have to and can!

As embodied by the Republican administrations of former B-actor Ronald Reagan and a son of privilege Bush Fils (George W. Bush), there is the “God is on our side, we are right and you are wrong” take on their approach to governing that I see reflected in the afterglow of Jubilee’s victory. Langat’s post best captures the hubris and jingoism I allude to and is akin to George W. Bush’s “you are with us or against us” mantra in the weeks after the tragedy of 9/11. A mantra dripping with such haughtiness, self-righteousness and jingoism that the majority of the country, including the American press failed to fully verify the claims that Iraq had WMDs or that its leader, Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11. Mehopes the world, including Jubilee and its supporters have learnt from the hubris of George W. Bush and the Neo-cons.

We all agree that President-elect Kenyatta was democratically elected and Supreme Court-approved as the fourth president of Kenya and that notwithstanding, I hope that I am misinterpreting his contention that diplomatic contacts between the two countries (Kenya and US) would be between the democratically elected leaders i.e. between him Mr. Kenyatta, a crimes-against-humanity suspect and Mr. Obama the “the leader of the free world” otherwise this would be the height of hubris and inflated self-importance – on Mr. Kenyatta’s part.

Memo to Mr. Kenyatta:
The President of the United States does not meet with suspects, definitely not knowingly, certainly not those facing charges at The Hague! That he, Mr. Obama, sent the Ambassador with a seemingly reconciliatory message was itself unusual and indicative of the delicate balance the US (and the West) has to strike in its relationship with Kenya given the charges facing Mr. Kenyatta and his VP Mr. Ruto. The world has become very inter-dependent and Kenya and America have mutual interests that make it imperative for the two countries to work together. Methinks that it behoves all, especially the seemingly jingoistic supporters of Jubilee to remember that the US is the sole superpower left in the wake of the Cold War even though one can argue that the world is fast-becoming multi-polar with various power centres – US, EU, Russia, China, Brasil, India etc. Be that as it may, I would say that unlike the other global centres of power, America is most likely the only one that has both hard and soft power whose impact and reach is truly global. While American military might has its limitations as evidenced in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter, soft power, is very nuanced, potentially limitless and possibly more debilitating to the aggressively capitalist Kenya.

I would caution Jubilee and its leadership and supporters to pay close attention to the trajectory of the Republican Party here in America, its supporters and the presidency of Bush Fils after the Supreme Court ruling got him into the White House in the 2000 election. I would argue that the “victory” got to their head and the rest, as they say, is history. Pride indeed comes before a fall.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Democracy, Elections, Governance - Kenya, International Relations/Global Issues, Kenya, Politics

April 3, 2013 · 3:05 AM

Where is the outrage over “their” hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy – hy•poc•ri•sy: The state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have; from the Greek word ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means “jealous”, “play-acting”, “acting out”, “coward” or “dissembling”. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy – hy•poc•ri•sy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

From afar, I find the hand-wringing by Kenyans over the hypocrisy of the US position that it “cannot ignore ICC indictment” amusing to say the least. The ululation virtually devolves into self-flagellation in the blogosphere! I have lived in the US for over thirty years, seventeen of them in the famed Silicon Valley and I can say that the time spent stateside has given me the vantage point and experience to speak with some authority on America’s hypocrisy on a host of issues. The American position re: holding to account president-elect and vice-president Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto on the charges of crimes against humanity is hypocritical given its history. And before I get any hate mail from those who think I am an apologist or spy for the US, let me point out as clearly and succinctly as I possibly can that I am neither a spy nor an apologist for America. I am certainly not oblivious to the evil that the US has perpetrated throughout its history – past and present. From slavery to the invasion of Iraq and now the drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the US has acted with near-absolute impunity that has raised hackles throughout the world, certainly in the affected regions, the Middle East in particular. The shouts of American (and British) hypocrisy are therefore spot on and very valid. However, coming from Kenyans, given the country’s history since independence and as recently as 2012 (violence in Tana River), I would have to say that said cries of hypocrisy are disingenuous.

Commenting on the article in the April,2 issue of the newspaper Daily Nation that prompted this piece; a blogger named KingMenes writes that:

“Americans and the so called West are hypocrites. Kenya and Kenyans have to be careful when dealing with these countries. Wherever the west sticks its finger, there are ruins and sufferings for generations. Think of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Korea. The US is a dishonest nuclear armed superpower that is solely bent on retaining it world domination at any cost. Kenyans have to be careful because even though these guys have been our friends, they have NEVER wished Africans well and they don’t care. When you see them around, always know at the back of your mind that they are PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS ONLY. They don’t give a damn about our country. If US really believed in ANY justice let alone international justice, they would be signatories to the ICC. What about US paying for slavery and the Western Europe Countries paying for slavery and colonialism. How can the US and the West shout about justice when their countries are built and founded on crimes against humanity like slavery and colonialism?”

– http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/US-cannot-ignore-ICC-indictment/-/1064/1736826/-/10g43hxz/-/index.html

KingMenes’ comments is one of almost four hundred comments, all invariably complaining about US hypocrisy. I find it interesting that while complaining about US hypocrisy, these same bloggers near-unanimously turn a blind eye or treat with kid gloves the blatant hypocrisy of Kenya’s leaders. As previously mentioned, the complaints of US hypocrisy are not invalid at all. Indeed one can forcefully argue, with ample supporting evidence that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan wrought death and suffering to hundreds of thousands; human suffering on scale indubitably grander than the suffering perpetrated by Kenya’s leaders and endured by Kenyans. That aside and in keeping with the rather disrespectful, jingoistic and partisan tone struck by Mr. Macharia Gaithao in his hit piece on the out-going Prime Minister titled “As Raila licks his wounds, Kenyans will be watching Uhuru’s next move” that appeared in the April 1 issue of Daily Nation, I say to all those pro-Uhuru/Ruto partisans ululating over America’s insistence on holding to account the president-elect and his VP, quit the whining already!

If those Kenyans screaming about American hypocrisy were to look at their own leaders through the same lenses that they trained on America and her leaders, they would immediately see the hypocrisy of people like Kenyatta Pere and Fils, Moi, Kibaka, Raila, Oyugi, Ruto, Michuki “if-you-rattle-a-snake” etc. The hypocrisy of these revered Kenyan leaders match, point for point, the hypocrisy of the dreaded Americans. From corrupt deals and pilfering of (national) resources to political assassinations, torture, muzzling, threatening and intimidating dissent by using hired thugs, you name it, American leaders have either done it or been accused of doing it and so have Kenyan leaders. Somehow all those Kenyans accusing the US of hypocrisy have forgotten Pio Gama Pinto, Tom Mboya, Ronald Ngala, JM Kariuki, Robert Ouko, Goldenberg, Triton, Anglo-Leasing, the maize scandal, the $120million “typing error or whatever” (the latter being the president-elect’s response when asked about a mysterious amount that appeared on the supplemental budget during his tenure as Minister for Finance – http://www.kenyaforum.net/?p=422). In an upcoming piece tentatively titled Kenya’s GOP – Jubilee Coalition that compares the 2007 presidential campaign run by the Republican candidate John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin to the one run by Jubilee’s Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate William Ruto in 2012/2013, I offer the following perspective specific to the crimes against humanity facing Messer’s Kenyatta and Ruto:

“Unfortunately for Kenya’s Republican Party, Jubilee’s leading candidates and eventual winners of the presidential elections as determined by Kenya’s Supreme Court are not as fortunate as another pair of Republican candidates swept into office by a narrow Supreme Court verdict. Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who were also “elected” into office after the Supreme Court (US) voted 5-to-4 against charges of electioneering fraud brought on by former VP Al Gore in the infamous 2000 “Hanging Chad” US Presidential Elections, seem to have escaped a date with the ICC because of their 2003 decision to invade Iraq; an invasion predicated on lies, lies and more lies.”

The one ill America and her leaders had committed or been accused of committing hitherto 2007 that Kenyan leaders could claim they had not committed was crimes against humanity. Now thanks to the president-elect and his VP, we can check that off the Kenyan bucket of things to do i.e. commit crimes against humanity! I would argue that at least the Americans did not commit the crimes against humanity AGAINST American citizens like our leaders are accused of doing, most certainly not in the scale Uhuru and Ruto are accused of. Now one can make a compelling argument that the drone strike that took out Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American born in Denver, on President Obama’s orders, was a crime against an American citizen ergo a crime against humanity and equivalent to what Kenyan leaders did in 2007 – http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-drone-strike-kills-16-year-old-American-citizen. However, that would be a stretch!

So to paraphrase Bw. Gaithao’s characterization of Raila’s post-Supreme Court behavior, Kenyans should quit being so churlish. They should stop with the fake indignation and haranguing and face up to the fact that their masters of impunity – Uhuru and Ruto – have finally come face-to-face with an entity with deeper pockets and gravitas to match in The International Criminal Court.

Leave a comment

Filed under Democracy, International Criminal Court - ICC, International Relations/Global Issues, Kenya, Politics, The Hague

April 1, 2013 · 3:01 AM

Proceed With Caution!

Finally, those arrogant “foreigners” and their “tools” have recognized the “will of the Kenyan people!” The international community (read the West – UK, USA, EU and UN) has rightfully congratulated Uhuru Kenyatta’s Supreme Court-validated victory in the 2013 Election. It is also instructive that United Kingdom, United States and the United Nation commended soon-to-former Prime Minister Raila Odinga for his acceptance of the Court’s ruling. As expected, the public outpouring of jingoism and protestations manifested itself almost immediately around the country albeit with less fervor, certainly not with the violence and vehemence witnessed in 2007! For those patting themselves on the back because their “side won” or that the country elected a president sans violence, let me point out the intensity, rawness and very tribal tone of the passions emoted in the blogosphere as I expected. The “security” offered by the “anonymity” of cyberspace provides a cautionary view, small and blurry as it may be, into the overall mood – of the Kenyan electorate.

To reiterate two points I made in earlier posts, Kenya is a nation divided along lines that pit the two most populous tribes and “providers” of all three of the country’s past presidents on one side and the rest of the country on the other side. I will also reiterate that far from seeking to stoke an “Us vs. Them” narrative or inter-tribal animus as I have been accused of doing in the past, the fact is this election was won because the GEMA (Gikuyu, Embu and Meru) and the Kalenjin communities aligned with one another basically against the rest of the country. A look at the voting pattern of the attached electoral map fully illustrates the tribal divide: http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Kenya-2013-Election-Map.png. The Kalenjin, according to the website SoftKenya.com is a term for a collection of at least ten sub-groups that used to be referred to as the “Nandi-speaking tribes”. These sub-groups, of which the Kipisigis is the most populous, created a singular tribal identity for themselves in the 1950s to gain more political power from their numbers1. I would argue that they have succeeded albeit in the true sense of the term “marriage of convenience!”

The “sons” of the Gikuyu and Kalenjin communities Messer’s Kenyatta and Ruto convinced said communities that collectively, they were all under attack by “foreigners” and their “agents”, the latter a dark allusion to CORD’s Raila Odinga.5 The irony of this claim by Jubilee’s William Ruto is that his ally and namesake Mr. Isaac Ruto was a founding member of the group of Members of Parliament (MPs) who coined the expression “Don’t be vague, go to The Hague” in the wake of the post-election violence of 2007! 3, 4 Politics is indeed the art of the possible. It also makes the strangest of bedfellows! Suffice to say, Jubilee’s argument won the day and now the “sons” of the these two communities (tribes) are the leaders of Kenya, a country of over forty (40) different tribes, a majority who voted for their opponents (Odinga and Kalonzo) based on an analysis of the vote tallies from the IEBC website (please don’t laugh!)

The 833,000 vote or ~7% margin of victory the Jubilee coalition had over CORD would be a mandate if it were spread throughout (larger parts of) the country and representative of a broader cross-section of the country. This was a regional and tribal victory, the latter necessitated by the shared misery the two – Uhuru and Ruto – share courtesy of their date with the International Criminal Court (ICC) ergo the message delivered by the US along with the congratulatory message: The White House pointed out “the importance of Kenya’s commitment to uphold its international obligations, including those with respect to international justice”, characterized by the Daily Nation as “an indirect reference to the charges that Mr. Kenyatta and Deputy President-elect William Ruto are facing at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.”2

That a larger (geographical) swath of the country representing a larger cross-section of Kenyans voted against the president and vice-president-elect should give the two and their exceedingly vociferous and jingoistic constituents pause. That Jubilee’s victory was fueled by a narrow but populous group within the country should temper their exuberance, especially now that the omni-present and love-to-hate “international community” has sent congratulatory messages to their “sons.

1 – http://softkenya.com/tribe/kalenjin-tribe/
2 – http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Obama-UN-boss-praise-Uhurus-win/-/1064/1735738/-/783xmq/-/index.html
3 – http://elections.nation.co.ke/Blogs/-/1632026/1695348/-/10tq9hf/-/index.html
4 – http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Letters/Politicians-failed-Kenyans/-/440806/1690078/-/r56otj/-/index.html
5 – http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/ozatp-icc-kenya-idAFJOE78T01P20110930

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Democracy, Elections, Kenya, Politics, Tribalism, Tribe

March 30, 2013 · 4:41 PM

Clerical Errors and Kitu Kidogo

As disappointed as I am that the Supreme Court of Kenya (SCOK) has validated the results of the 2013 Elections despite what I would describe as compelling evidence of “massive systemic failure” of the election process, I respect its decision and commit to move on. And as noted in a previous post “The Loyal Opposition and The Fruit,” I fully expected SCOK to uphold Jubilee’s victory review of the polling data notwithstanding. I also noted that when it came to pass, the losing CORD candidates, Raila Odinga in particular, should play the role of the respectful and loyal opposition while mentoring upcoming socio-political leaders. His experience as a reformer is invaluable.

I respect SCOK’s decision because according to the March 30 issue of the Daily Nation in an article titled Supreme Court upholds Uhuru’s election as president, the decision was unanimous. It is encouraging that the five (5) justices AND their chief, Chief Justice Mutunga ALL agreed that Messr’s Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were validly elected as president and vice-president respectively. I am, however, left wondering whether the phenomenon groupthink1 was at work here.

1 – A psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome.

Like someone told me the other day: Opinions are like (fill in your favorite part of the human anatomy), everyone has one. To wit; it is my opinion that SCOK’s decision overlooked the data as presented by Ms. Kilonzo and Mr. Oraro including the admission by Jubilee’s own lawyer Mr. Ngatia that even though there were admitted “clerical errors” tallying the various results from the sampled polling centers, “no mischief” was intended “at all!” I am not a statistician but I have worked and interacted with some of the best statisticians and mathematicians over the past 20+ years in the medical device manufacturing industry here in Silicon Valley. I will say that if I conducted a test that yielded data similar to the data set presented before SCOK by Ms. Kilonzo and Mr. Oraro, peer review would fail my test and compel me to repeat said test – period! The one qualifier I would add to my contention is this: The threshold for reliability of and confidence in election results based on a small sampling of selected polling stations may be different from that reliability and confidence requirements for testing/qualifying processes used to manufacture medical devices!

If ever there was a metaphor for the Kenyan culture of “Kitu Kidogo,” I would say that the process and outcome of the petition filed by CORD is apt! We have Mr. Fred Ngatia, the plaintiff’s lawyer conceding that there were indeed small “clerical errors” whose intentions were not “mischievous at all” – tallying errors nonetheless. We then have the same Mr. Ngatia convincing the SCOK that these “clerical errors” did not invalidate the outcome of the election of his clients and crimes-against-humanity suspects Messer’s Kenyatta and Ruto to the highest offices in the country! I would say that consistent and widespread “clerical errors” tallying and tabulating votes that may potentially determine the outcome of a presidential election deserve more than a flippant characterization and review, especially by the highest court in the land! The frivolity with which Mr. Ngatia portrayed the tallying errors is consistent with the way most Kenyan’s think about bribery, corruption and cutting corners in general; indeed a national Rorschach Test whose outcome is very disturbing:

It is just “kitu kidogo – something small” to expedite issuance of a driver’s license, conveniently overlook some code violations when conducting a building or road inspection or “miss” seeing the bald front tires or faulty brakes on a public service vehicle during a traffic stop! No “mischief” may have been intended in the foregoing scenarios but the end results of these “vitu vidogo” is there for all to see: Drivers who can barely drive let alone understand/obey traffic rules, construction – roads and buildings – that crumble and fall apart shortly after being commissioned leaving death, destruction and misery in their wake and carnage on the road due to accidents caused by a combination of ill-gotten driver’s licenses, drunk driving, vehicles that are not road-worthy and supposed highways in various stages of dis-repair. In short, the culture of so-called and allegedly un-mischievous/benign “clerical errors, typos, computer glitches, vitu vidogo” has mutated into a cancer that is slowly but surely killing the national spirit and cohesion! But hey…”nothing mischievous was intended.” It was just something small.

The foregoing aside, the Supreme Court has rendered its verdict: Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and William Samoei Ruto are scheduled to be sworn in as President and Vice-President of Kenya on April 9, 2013. They will then have about two months before they board the plane to The Hague for their date with Ms. Fatu Bensouda on charges of crimes against the very humanity that elected them into office.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Justice, Kenya, Politics

March 29, 2013 · 6:07 PM

The REAL Tyranny Of Numbers – Cont’d

At least we now have Jubilee’s lawyer Mr. Fred Ngatia conceding that “there may have been clerical errors here and there…” even as he quickly follows that concession with a Ronald Reaganesque-like addendum that “….no mischief can be attributed to these (clerical errors) at all.” And since he, Mr. Ngatia, on behalf of his clients who are both facing criminal charges at The Hague, say that “no mischief can be attributed to the ‘clerical error’,” all Kenyans should believe him! These individuals, Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto that is, are after all paragons of virtue and integrity!
To paraphrase a popular saying here in the US: a clerical error here, a typing error there, a computer glitch here, a rounding error there and soon we have an 833,000 voting advantage!

The “clerical errors” with no mischievous intent include the following:

1. Addition to tallied vote numbers
2. Subtraction from tallied vote numbers
3. Inability to verify numbers of votes cast even though “official” results show one candidate receiving five-figure vote total
4. Missing aggregate results from Form 36 (used to tally final vote counts).
5. Multiple Forms 36 from same polling station
6. Different aggregate results from different Forms 36 from the same polling station
7. Incomplete Forms 36.

To use another popular expression stateside, especially amongst our distant cousins, African-Americans: Ni**a please!!

Add to the laundry list of “clerical errors” Nani Mungai’s (IEBC’s lawyer) “document dump” explanation that the IEBC “provide thousands of green books for scrutiny to address allegations of having more votes than registered votes” and we have a classic but obvious cover-up attempt by a bureaucracy! For those not familiar with a “document dump,” Wikipedia explains it thus:

Document Dump: The act of responding to an adversary’s request for information by presenting the adversary with a large quantity of data that is transferred in a manner that indicates unfriendliness, hostility, or a legal conflict between the transmitter and the receiver of the information. The shipment of dumped documents is unsorted, or contains a large quantity of information that is extraneous to the issue under inquiry, or is presented in an untimely manner, or some combination of these three characteristics. The phrase is often used by lawyers (and politicians)…It is often seen as part of the characteristic behavior of an entity that is engaging in an ongoing pattern of activities intended to cover up unethical or criminal conduct.

The REAL Tyranny of Numbers – Cont’d1

• Number of constituencies identified as having anomalies: 22
• % of constituencies identified as having anomalies: 7.6% (22/291)
• Number of anomalous constituencies that voted for Kenyatta: 11
• Number of anomalous constituencies that voted for Odinga: 11
• Number of votes received from anomalous constituencies: 594,985 vs. 339,096 (Kenyatta v. Odinga)
• % of votes from anomalous constituencies: 9.6% vs. 6.1% ((Kenyatta v. Odinga)

1 – Source: Daily Nation, March 28, 2013, Recount reveals vote irregularities.

A back-of-a-napkin analysis of the foregoing numbers point to a systemic failure of the election process during the 2013 Elections. In analyzing 7.6% of the constituencies, we have anomalies affecting 6-10% of the votes cast! Expand this to all 291 constituencies and we have an (election) outcome that is an epic failure and is absolutely unreliable; one that confirms CORD’s basic contention of a massive breakdown of Kenya’s electioneering process/system during the elections necessitating negation or questioning of the final results.

If the data provided by the re-count and summarized above does not provide the Supreme Court with enough evidence to prove CORD’s contention, then I am not sure how they are interpreting the results of the recount nor do I don’t know what more they need to address CORD’s petition. I make this statement irrespective of who benefits from the breakdown.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Democracy, Elections, Justice, Kenya, Politics

March 28, 2013 · 10:44 PM

The REAL Tyranny of Numbers!

  1. Number of votes separating Uhuru and Raila: 832,887 or 6,173,433 vs. 5,340,5463
  2. IEBC budget for providing the Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) kits: kshs. 3.82billion1
  3. Number of bids to supply the Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) kits: 41
  4. Highest bid: kshs. 8.31billion (OnTrack, Israel)1
  5. Lowest bid: kshs. 3.76billion (4G ID Solutions, India)1
  6. Winning bid: kshs. 4.63billion (Face Technology, South Africa – 2nd highest bid)1
  7. Difference between reported IEBC budget for BVR Kits and winning bid: ~kshs. 810Million over budget (4.63b – 3.82b)
  8. Poll data source/location analyzed/presented to Supreme Court by Ms. Kethi Kilonzo: 32
  9. Total number of polling stations in the country: 33,4003
  10. % of polling stations whose no. of registered voters differ from the no. of votes cast/reported by the IEBC: 0.0001%2
  11. The increase in Mr. Kenyatta’s vote count in Nyeri due to discrepancy between votes – county vs. IEBC: 0.31% or 317,881 vs. 318,8802
  12. The decrease in Mr. Odinga’s vote count in Nyeri due to discrepancy between votes – county vs. IEBC: 7.8% or 6,075 vs. 5,6382
  13. % difference between registered voters and votes tabulated as received in Charity Primary School Kieni : 31,000% or 1 registered voter vs. 310 votes received2
  14. % difference between registered voters and final votes tallied/reported in Machakos Town: 2,546% or 125 registered voters vs. 3,182 votes tallied/reported2
  15. Lowest discrepancy noted: 0.31% in Nyeri2
  16. Highest discrepancy noted: 31,000% in Kieni, Nyeri2
  17. % gap between Uhuru and Raila: 6.76% or 50.07% vs. 43.31%3
  18. The total number of constituencies in the country – 291 (including Diaspora)3

1 – Source: Africa’s Public Procurement & Entrepreneurship Research Initiative (APPERI), Kenya: IEBC Tender Team Quits over Biometric Deal, July 16, 2012.

2 – Source: Presentation by Kethi Kilonzo before Supreme Court, Daily Nation, March 27, 2012, The Poll was a fraud on voters, argues lawyer.

3 – Source: IEBC Website (link from previous post http://www.kenyaelections.com/wp-content/uploads/SUMMARY-OF-2013-PRESIDENTIAL-RESULTS-DECLARED-ON-9_3_2013.pdf)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Democracy, Elections, Justice, Kenya, Life, Politics, Uncategorized

March 27, 2013 · 4:25 AM

Partial Justice is NOT Impartial Justice!

I find it interesting, indeed ironic that the Supreme Court of Kenya (SCOK) has ruled against a forensic audit of the Information Technology system used by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) in the March 4 presidential elections claiming that to do so would “jeopardize the petition.”

Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, speaking for the SCOK argued that the legal team representing the Coalition for Reform & Democracy (CORD) was “time barred” in filing the motion asking the court to compel the IEBC to allow an audit of the information technology (IT) system; adding rather curiously that the commission “cannot produce a complete IT infrastructure…before the hearings of the petitions begin on Wednesday.”

It is this uniquely Kenyan tendency of short-circuiting institutional processes, be it procurement tenders or as is the case here, comprehensive judicial review of evidence at the very root of an election petition that sours most Kenyans on these very institutions that are meant to represent their interests, impartially and comprehensively. That the Supreme Court is not willing to allow an audit, complete or partial, of the very system at the heart of the current dispute is strange to say the least and begs several questions including the following:

• While providing the “complete IT infrastructure” within a compressed time is indeed laborious, isn’t the quest for justice THE over-arching issue?
• Is the laborious nature of the request (for the complete IT infrastructure) the only reason the request was denied? Why didn’t the court allow an audit of randomly selected infrastructure components, especially those containing suspect data i.e. from constituencies that were under suspicion?
• Isn’t there the risk of missing evidence that may bolster CORD’s case or validate IEBC’s ruling?
• Doesn’t this ruling, at a minimum, give the impression of an incomplete, partial or selective hearing of the evidence thus de-legitimizing the petition process and its end result – determining who won the presidential elections of 2013?

Like all Kenyans, I want the petition resolved expeditiously and peacefully. I then want the country to move forward, regardless of the outcome but to paraphrase a saying, “partial justice is not impartial justice.” The Supreme Court is doing the country a disservice by refusing to review ALL the evidence.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2013 Presidential Elections, Democracy, Elections, Justice, Kenya, Politics

March 24, 2013 · 6:38 AM

On Leadership and Governance post-New Constitution

In an earlier piece, titled “The Loyal Opposition and The Fruit”, I offered the idea of Raila Odinga accepting the results announced by the IEBC on March 9, 2013 declaring Jubilee candidate Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the 2013 Presidential Elections. I then suggested that Raila channel his energies and extensive experience being a mentor to aspiring social and political leaders of the next generation. I also proposed that he become the loyal, constructive and respectful opposition to the Kenyatta Administration. I opined that unless CORD lawyers led by Mr. George Oraro have more evidence than the seemingly generic charges of “unfair and flawed handling of the elections by the IEBC,” it is highly unlikely that the High Court would rule to overturn Mr. Hassan’s proclamation that Uhuru and his Jubilee Coalition were the victors in the 2013 Elections. I still hold that belief that barring evidence of election fraud of titanic proportions, the numbers point to an Uhuru presidency

Once Uhuru is safely ensconced in State House and the generational leadership change supposedly prophesized by the felled Mugumo Tree is fulfilled, then the hard work of leading and governing a divided and polarized Kenya begins. I say hard because of recent activities and utterances, not only by those tasked with leading the country including both Messer’s Kenyatta and Odinga, but by the general public as well, as reflected by the tone of the many comments posted in cyber space. The fact is: The manner and style of leadership and governance Kenyans have endured since independence has not reflected leadership and governance designed to build consensus between independent and co-equal branches of government. At the risk of incurring the wrath of some readers, I will further add that based on some of the comments in cyber space; it is not unreasonable or illogical to argue that the very notion of consensus-building and working across the aisle for the common good is “foreign” to the country!

The post-election violence of 2007 caused by the rigged and manipulated presidential elections brought Kenyans face-to-face with ethnic violence and to the edge of a full-blown civil war. That dalliance with Rwanda-like violence compelled the international community in the person of Koffi Annan to force Mwai Kibaki to take on a governing partner in Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Prior to that, Kenya’s presidents – Kenyatta and Moi – ruled by fiat and diktat sans any opposition or dissent. After independence and through the early 90s, Kenyans and their politicians were a bunch sycophants who either “harambee’d” or “fuata’d nyayo”. Some did so because it was “their turn to eat” while others wanted to continue gorging at the trough of power. Still others sang the praise of Mzee or Nyayo because they did not want to be marginalized, demonized, detained, threatened with bodily harm, tortured or assassinated! Some, including Raila and Hezekiah Ochuka sought to overthrow the government because they believed that a coup d’etat was the only way to bring about an open and fair political system!

The promulgation of the New Constitution in 2010 and the push towards devolution of power offers Kenya the opportunity for an open and fair political system. In this new system, complete with independent institutions headed by independent and quasi-political appointees, Mr. Kenyatta will be facing a socio-political environment that is markedly different than the one faced – make that enjoyed – by his predecessors! Rather than govern as his father and Mr. Moi did, by brutally quashing opposition, Uhuru will have to find a way to build consensus and work across the aisle including with people who strongly disagree with him. Mr. Kenyatta fils will have to govern the country without the literal “bully pulpit” and impunity (which is very different from immunity) enjoyed by his predecessors, including Kenyatta pere. Uhuru Kenyatta will also have the laser-like focus of the international community, not to mention the International Criminal Court (ICC) trained on him.

Leading a diverse constitutional democratic country divided along tribal lines is a challenge Mr. Kenyatta appears to have embarked on in fits and starts. The “warning” he issued to Mr. Odinga was presumptuous and reminiscence of his father’s numerous admonitions to his political opponents during his reign, including to one Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, Raila’s father! While Uhuru’s warning was necessary given the heightened tensions that gripped the country after the IEBC announced the election results, Mr. Kenyatta’s stock as a leader of ALL Kenyans would have risen significantly had he issued, magnanimously methinks, the warning to ALL Kenyans. I am glad the High Court stepped in and cautioned both principals and by extension, their supporters and surrogates against litigating the pending petition in the court of public opinion. I would add that the exemplary behavior of Kenyans as they cast their votes on March 4 notwithstanding, the High Court’s caution speaks to the collective inability of Kenyans to responsibly exercise their democratic rights at the next (higher level) of the democratic process – governing a disparate polity. That inability to disagree without letting the disagreement degenerate into violence is indication of the still-budding maturity and nascence of said democratic process. While the significance of Gatundu in the annals of Kenya’s presidential history is unquestioned, indeed unparalleled, Uhuru’s visit to his ancestral home, coming around the time the elders of Giakanja Village in Nyeri proclaimed that his court-pending victory fulfilled the prophecy of the felled Mugumo Tree was insensitive and tone-deaf because it reinforced the myth that the Kenyan presidency is the sole purview of some but not others. Political leadership is about timing, symbolism and perception. Mr. Kenyatta could have waited before making the pilgrim to Gatundu.

He is yet to be sworn in as POK (President Of Kenya) and in all fairness, it is way too early, indeed unfair to read much into the president-elect’s early moves but it is my hope that Mr. Kenyatta will steady his “sea legs” and find firm and steady footing as Kenya’s 4th president.

Leave a comment

Filed under Democracy, Elections, Kenya, Politics, Tribalism