|
Do leaders care about Kenya and
its people?
The Public Watchdog
February 26, 2008
EA STANDARD
The Kenyan people have remained anxious for a political settlement
from the ongoing mediation talks and what could still prove a
defining political moment for this country.
The Kofi Annan-led talks appear to be making slow but certain
progress, in an environment of high public expectation.
The truth, however, is that a deal has remained as elusive as a
mirage with the expected conclusion date shifting from one week to
another.
We are said to be all geniuses, thanks to the power of hindsight.
However, in this column we did not need hindsight to make out that
the talks would take longer than most people imagined. Kenyans,
however, wish that a settlement were reached at the earliest
opportunity.
What then are the compelling factors at play at these talks?
Firstly, a struggle for power and control of resource distribution
and, secondly, an environment that is captive of vested interests.
A third factor at play is egocentrics and delusions of grandeur
and, fourthly, the question of whether the future of the nation
and its people does actually matter to these people.
Finally, everyone is watching and listening to everything while
seeking the slightest opportunity for any tactical manoeuvrings.
In the power struggle, The Public Watchdog’s instinct remains that
the settlement horizon requires more diplomatic tactical
manoeuvrings by the arbitrator and continued local and
international pressure to convince both sides to agree on an
enduring settlement proposition.
Recently, in this column, we cautioned that while a political
settlement must be reached as soon as possible, a realistic
timeframe was imperative as the stakes would rise as the
settlement’s details are being worked out. Thus, building
unrealistic expectations and committing to over-ambitious
timeframes amount to creating a time-bomb waiting to explode with
far-reaching consequences.
Even today, the body language of those close to the reins of power
suggests that the impasse could be sustained beyond next month.
Secondly, the ultimate outcome of any negotiation must be widely
acceptable, not merely by the negotiators or their principals, but
the majority of the stakeholders.
The fundamental question begs: Who are the stakeholders in the
ongoing negotiations? Certainly not President Kibaki and Mr Raila
Odinga as many now consider. They might be the two principals
claiming a stake on leadership but the two leaders’ interests must
always be aligned with those of the people.
In any event, no matter what could be at stake, their personal
interests cannot possibly override those of the electorate, the
people, the nation, the region and international interests.
The major stakeholders are indubitably the Kenyan people and the
Kenyan nation, which has the ultimate right to agree or disagree a
governance structure.
As a matter of right to Kenyans, national resource allocation,
including human capital, must of necessity be made equitable
regardless of who holds the reins of power in a truly shared
governance structure.
Thirdly, Kenyans and the international community are now an
emerging environment that is captive of vested interests as well
as egocentrics and delusions of grandeur. It is such an
environment that could serve as a major threat to peace and
national stability.
It is the vested interests of those who feel like they stand to
gain or lose in any power sharing arrangement that could undermine
the mediation talks.
At stake are the new positions created in a power sharing
agreement, the interests to be dispensed on one side and those to
be accommodated on the other. The important factor must certainly
be the need to create a power-sharing framework that serves as
critical governance pillars, participatory government with checks
and balances for posterity.
Any structure agreed upon must not be seen as serving the
interests of individuals but accommodating wider public interests
today and in future. Thus, any self-catered interests must be
subordinate to national interests.
No political leader worthy of his position — whether in power or
hoping to ascend to power — should allow themselves to be seen as
suffering from what could be considered as delusions of grandeur.
Finally, it might appear that the country is returning to normalcy
but the situation remains fluid and cannot be equated to a "business
as usual" position.
We have seen so far how fragile our people’s fortunes can be and
as a nation, we should nurture peace and create governance
structures to endure peace and coexistence as a people today,
tomorrow and in the future.
Thus, if we are creating a position of Executive Prime Minister
today or leaving Executive powers in the Presidency, it must not
be intended or seen to serve Raila or preserve Kibaki in the
Presidency. It must accommodate current and future interests of
Kenya.
Needless to state, it has now become crystal clear that the vested
interests that tried to stop sharing of executive powers during
the last constitutional dispensation are now wishing they had
supported the people’s desire.
As stated previously in this column, the weighty issues of power
sharing structure demands methodical mechanisms and legal
instruments to facilitate a workable governance structure.
Parliament must be at the centre of determining the power
structure and in the ultimate arbitration, the people of Kenya
could be called upon to decide such structures through a national
referendum.
The decision cannot be about the past though the past serves as a
useful lesson on deciding and planning for the future.
This is a matter of great public interest!
|
