|
Commentary
Saturday, August 11, 2001
Don't say Majimbo, say Federalism
By WYCLIFFE MUGA
A strange thing about
political statements is that they are rarely meant to be taken
literally. They are usually a form of shorthand, with a much
deeper meaning.
And translations are
easy, especially if the speaker is from a totally different
cultural background or has different values. For example, when the
State of Israel was declared in 1947, there was massive outrage
from all over the Arab world.
The Saudi king, a fairly
old man, is reported to have declared that there was only one more
blessing he sought from Allah, that he might die leading his army
into the Holy Places which had been desecrated by the Zionists.
Gesture of support
The king, of course, had
no intention of going beyond his palace gates, much less besieging
Jerusalem. His words were really just a gesture of support for the
dispossessed Palestinians. But how was anyone not adept at
interpreting Arab political shorthand to grasp this at the time?
The remark was widely taken by the Western Press as an indication
of serious and bloody intent.
Here, in Kenya, whenever
various Coastal politicians insist that the country must adopt a majimbo
(confederal) system of government, it is taken in some quarters as
a sign that they wish to see all upcountry people evicted from the
area, or denied plum jobs at the Kenya Ports Authority, however
qualified.
With such emotive
reactions, it is usually forgotten that, worldwide, such a system
is the norm. From large countries, like the US, Canada, Australia
and India, to smaller ones, like Switzerland, a federal system has
been found more responsive to local needs.
Minority rights
Properly interpreted,
the political shorthand of Coastal leaders' demand for a majimbo
system should serve as a caution to the big tribes. It raises an
important question concerning minority rights.
Phrased in today's
political language, the question is this: Leaders of the Central
Province Parliamentary Group have been repeatedly asked by the
President to follow the example set by National Development Party
(NDP) and join the governing coalition.
If they ever accept this
proposal, they will certainly do so only if certain conditions
reflecting their people's needs are negotiated and provided for in
advance. But what of the Ogiek? The Turkana? The Pokomo? The
Elmolo?
Votes and control
Can they sit down with
Kanu's emissaries and say: We represent so many votes and control
so many seats in Parliament; what we want in exchange for our
support is this and that? If not, then what sort of constitutional
mechanism should we be thinking of providing to empower them?
There are, of course,
exceptions. Not all minorities are in need of empowerment. The
very smallest tribal community we have in Kenya, the "Donor
Community", is by far the most powerful and wields almost
dictatorial powers over the other 42 tribes.
In a little-noticed
report on the ethnic clashes in the Tana River District, Banditry
and the Politics of Citizenship, the authors, Mr Khelef
Khalifa and Prof Al-Amin Mazrui of the Muslims for Human Rights (Muhuri),
detail out the plight of minority communities who cannot hope to
use the ballot box as an effective means of achieving their
political ends.
Democracy as a question
of numbers is of little relevance to their aspirations because,
being both geographically and numerically marginal, they do not
have a loud enough voice to be heard in far-off Nairobi. Of course,
getting any of our many tribal communities to speak with one voice
is not itself an easy task.
Collective bargaining
Yet under a political
dispensation in which the most clearly defined unit or sphere of
influence is the tribe (i.e., all those who speak one ancestral
language and more or less originate from the same part of the
country) only those tribes that can bargain collectively and
effectively do hope to gain a share in the mythical national cake.
To acknowledge this is
not to promote tribalism; it is just an admission of the facts. In
any case, Kenyans have nothing to be ashamed of by admitting that
tribalism dominates their political life: Europeans and Americans
are no different. Belgium has the Walloons and the Flemish as two
major, often antagonistic, tribes. Britain has the Irish, Welsh,
Manx and Scottish minorities. They are not officially termed
tribes, but we know them to be nothing else.
Each has its own jimbo:
a degree of regional autonomy and an establishment for regional
assemblies. They are so much like us that there is even a history
of tribal clashes in Ireland, far more savage and enduring than
anything we have seen in Kenya – since they have replaced our
bows and arrows with plastic explosives and grenades.
In the US, political
candidates shamelessly appeal to the Hispanic vote, the
African-American vote, the Jewish vote, the "Asian" vote,
the Italian vote, the "Pollock" vote. Why shouldn't we,
then, admit equally freely that ours are in line with world voting
patterns – tribal – and that they permanently disenfranchise
the smaller tribes?
* email address: mugawycliffe@hotmail.com
Link
:
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/11082001/Comment/Comment2.html
|
